Pure Metal and ANUS

[Night of the Demon]

The genre known as "glam metal" began in the mid-70's when Dee Snider joined Twisted Sister, a glam rock band from New York associated with another glam rock band known as New York Dolls.  Dee Snider was, in addition to being a fan of rock in general, a fan of the emerging heavy metal movement; two of his favorite bands were Black Sabbath and Judas Priest.  He consciously decided to mix heavy metal and glam rock because he felt the genres have good chemistry, thus creating what we call "glam metal."  Many bands followed Twisted Sister, who were underground for almost a decade before having any mainstream success, but the "glam metal" movement was alive with many bands in the 70's such as Killer Kane Band, Circus Circus, Ratt, Sister, Wrathchild, Girl, Dokken, and London.  When Motley Crue, at one point just another one of these then obscure bands, landed a record deal and released their debut, a number of those bands managed to get launched into fame as well.  Others just broke up or remained obscure.  Anyway, back on the subject of Dee Snider and Twisted Sister, he definitely always thought of himself as a metalhead, but claims that he felt embarrassed when glam metal became very commercial in the late 80's with bands like Warrant who had lost the idea of making raunchy heavy metal/glam rock, and simply streamlined the music as a commercial product.  Despite where glam metal ended up, it is historically clear that it is rooted partially in metal but not entirely (just like speed/thrash metal).

So, you admit that Glam Metal arose from Glam Rock bands attempting to infuse Metal elements into their sound.  In other words, it's not really a natural outgrowth of Metal, but an attempt to assimilate it from the outside.

Yes, I admit that.  However, that is not much different from the first band to blend punk and metal: Motorhead.  Lemmy has clearly said that he views himself as a rock-and-roller and a punk rocker rather than a metaller.  He has said his kinship is with the Ramones (a primary influence on Lemmy) and the Damned and the Sex Pistols, not Judas Priest and Black sabbath who he had little in common with besides borrowing elements to make his "metallic punk" as I suppose you could call it.  Since almost the entire speed/thrash genre spawned from Motorhead, beginning with Venom and then carrying over into bands like Slayer, speed/thrash metal is just as much of an assimilation from the outside.

Alternative metal bears a similar but less interesting history of bands like King's X, Helmet, and Faith No More which mixed heavy metal with various forms of alternative rock.

Faith No More was the exact band I was thinking of when I described Alternative Metal.  They're a total eclectic mess of influences.  I'm pretty sure they didn't pick up rapping from any Metal band.

Perhaps Anthrax, the earliest metal band to employ rapping?  I will be the first to admit that you have a solid argument that alternative metal is farther removed from metal than glam/metal or punk/metal in the sense that because of the "open-minded" nature of alternative rock, other styles tend to slip in everywhere making this eclectic mess.  Bands that only blend heavy metal with alternative rock though, might still be an issue for you to consider.

Why are we still using "metal" as a word to describe a particular sound?

Metal is defined by sonic sounds.

[Dead_Soul]

As for the cells, I am not sure what you refuted.  The point is that prokaryotic cells have evolved into eukaryotic organisms, but I do not see that as a fitting analogy to heavy metal evolving into extreme metal.  First of all, a huge potion (probably a majority) of exteme metal is not that complex.

This little blunder here.

Your analogy to prokaryotes does not work due to the reason that we do not refer to the organisms that evolved from them as "prokaryotic cells."  We refer to them as dogs, or dolphins, or human beings.  They are not more "pure prokaryotic cells" than a single prokaryotic cell.  Also, while you compare the evolution from heavy to extreme metal with prokaryotic cells to complex organisms, I would compare it between Asian men and Native American men after crossing the land bridge between modern day Russia and Alaska; they are different, but one is not clearly superior to the other.

You've either misunderstood or deliberately misread me. I wasn't talking about "purity" here, I was making an analogy about how the variety and complexity of extreme metal(eukaryotic cells) was only possible once punk techniques, particularly the d-beat and tremolo picking(organelles such as mitochondria or the endoplasmic reticulum) were integrated into the musical paradigm(prokaryotic cells). I suppose I hadn't expressed myself with enough clarity or thoroughness, so I will try once again.

The reason that all modern organisms(artists working under the label of metal) are not labeled as prokaryotic(heavy metal) is because they are NOT prokaryotic; they are eukaryotic(extreme metal)! While prokaryotic cells and eukaryotic cells share certain features, such as a cell membrane and self replicating DNA(distortion, power chords, fascination with the occult, cynicism in regards to the pseudo utopianism of modernity,etc.), eukaryotic cells have distinct characteristics that distinguish them for the prokaryotes, such as the nucleus, which doubles as a storage facility for the DNA and a sort of command center(the narrative songwriting structures of "extreme metal" as opposed to the verse/chorus/verse stylings of heavy metal), and organelles, which allow the cell to perform functions essential to life in a much more efficient manner (the d-beat, tremolo picking, chromaticism, etc.). In fact, these components of eukaryotes naturally delineate them from prokaryotes to the degree that biologists are justified in dividing the phylogenic tree into two halves as a result of their fundamental differences!

As a rebuttal to your example of Metallica's initial rejection by their audience, I would like to mention the popularity of bands such as Exodus, as well as the fact that Slayer and D.R.I. toured together in 1984. Also, what do you make of Lemmy's remark that he felt more akin to the punk scene than to the rest of the members of the NWOBHM? Or the fact that Paul Di'Anno was indistinguishable from a punker himself?

Another point where metal and punk converged was at their origins, namely the fact that The Stooges and Black Sabbath had a great deal of respect and admiration for each other. Iggy Pop himself declared that he considered them to be one of his best contemporaries.

You say that Black Sabbath's eponymous track was Heavy Metal's summit that has been equaled but never surpassed? I would say that Hell Awaits is the Everest to that tracks' Eiger Peak: the successful expeditions of both mountains are landmarks in the history of human achievement, but the former far exceeded the latter in terms of difficulty and grandeur.

[Night of the Demon]

As for the cells, I am not sure what you refuted.  The point is that prokaryotic cells have evolved into eukaryotic organisms, but I do not see that as a fitting analogy to heavy metal evolving into extreme metal.  First of all, a huge potion (probably a majority) of exteme metal is not that complex.

This little blunder here.

Your analogy to prokaryotes does not work due to the reason that we do not refer to the organisms that evolved from them as "prokaryotic cells."  We refer to them as dogs, or dolphins, or human beings.  They are not more "pure prokaryotic cells" than a single prokaryotic cell.  Also, while you compare the evolution from heavy to extreme metal with prokaryotic cells to complex organisms, I would compare it between Asian men and Native American men after crossing the land bridge between modern day Russia and Alaska; they are different, but one is not clearly superior to the other.

You've either misunderstood or deliberately misread me. I wasn't talking about "purity" here, I was making an analogy about how the variety and complexity of extreme metal(eukaryotic cells) was only possible once punk techniques, particularly the d-beat and tremolo picking(organelles such as mitochondria or the endoplasmic reticulum) were integrated into the musical paradigm(prokaryotic cells). I suppose I hadn't expressed myself with enough clarity or thoroughness, so I will try once again.

The reason that all modern organisms(artists working under the label of metal) are not labeled as prokaryotic(heavy metal) is because they are NOT prokaryotic; they are eukaryotic(extreme metal)! While prokaryotic cells and eukaryotic cells share certain features, such as a cell membrane and self replicating DNA(distortion, power chords, fascination with the occult, cynicism in regards to the pseudo utopianism of modernity,etc.), eukaryotic cells have distinct characteristics that distinguish them for the prokaryotes, such as the nucleus, which doubles as a storage facility for the DNA and a sort of command center(the narrative songwriting structures of "extreme metal" as opposed to the verse/chorus/verse stylings of heavy metal), and organelles, which allow the cell to perform functions essential to life in a much more efficient manner (the d-beat, tremolo picking, chromaticism, etc.). In fact, these components of eukaryotes naturally delineate them from prokaryotes to the degree that biologists are justified in dividing the phylogenic tree into two halves as a result of their fundamental differences!

Oh, okay.  I am sorry that I misunderstood your message, but it is clear now.  My rebuttal is that I disagree that extreme metal is more complex than heavy metal.  Some extreme metal is more complex than some heavy metal, and some heavy metal is more complex than some extreme metal, and at their most complex stages both are about equal.  Fates Warning, a band more rooted in heavy metal, are very complex.  Jungle Rot, an extreme metal band, is very simple.

As a rebuttal to your example of Metallica's initial rejection by their audience, I would like to mention the popularity of bands such as Exodus, as well as the fact that Slayer and D.R.I. toured together in 1984.

Wait?  D.R.I. (particularly in the early days) is more rooted in punk than metal, so if Slayer tours with them then that is evidence against your argument, if evidence of anything at all.

Also, what do you make of Lemmy's remark that he felt more akin to the punk scene than to the rest of the members of the NWOBHM? Or the fact that Paul Di'Anno was indistinguishable from a punker himself?

What do I make of Lemmy's remark?  Given Motorhead were the first punk/metal band and the cornerstone of all speed/thrash and what would become extreme metal, I make of it that speed/thrash and extreme metal are distanced from metal more than ANUS admits.

As for Di'Anno, he is one man who was ejected from his band Iron Maiden and did not fit in well, making him a poor example on your behalf.  Despite the rivalry between punk and metal in England, you did have bands like Tank, Atomkraft, and Warfare that stood out as exceptions that started bridging the gap.  But again, there was a gap that needed bridging, showing that punk did not naturally belong in metal.

Another point where metal and punk converged was at their origins, namely the fact that The Stooges and Black Sabbath had a great deal of respect and admiration for each other. Iggy Pop himself declared that he considered them to be one of his best contemporaries.

Well, Iggy Pop and The Stooges are not too relevant here.  I differentiate between actual punk rock like The Ramones or The Clash, compared to garage rock (including most of that "proto-punk" stuff).  Respect and admiration is not relevant, either.  Overkill were the first thrash metal (I know ANUS calls crossover thrash thrash metal, and thrash metal speed metal; I'm using the orthodox definitions) band to begin gigging around, and Bobby Blitz was an adoring fan of Twisted Sister.  However, how did thrash metal and glam metal get along in the 80's?  Ouch.  Not too well.

You say that Black Sabbath's eponymous track was Heavy Metal's summit that has been equaled but never surpassed? I would say that Hell Awaits is the Everest to that tracks' Eiger Peak: the successful expeditions of both mountains are landmarks in the history of human achievement, but the former far exceeded the latter in terms of difficulty and grandeur.

That is your opinion, one that cannot be backed up by anything except subjective emotions.  When it comes to this part of the debate, there is little we can do but agree to disagree.  I do not think Hell Awaits is a superior piece of art to Black Sabbath, nor do I think it is more complex (maybe technically, but who cares about that?  Necrophagist would top them both if that was relevant.)

[My AIDS, Your Arse]

Why are we still using "metal" as a word to describe a particular sound?

Metal is defined by sonic sounds.

Care to explain what you mean by 'sonic sounds' and why it's defined by those?

[Cargést]

Oh, okay.  I am sorry that I misunderstood your message, but it is clear now.  My rebuttal is that I disagree that extreme metal is more complex than heavy metal.  Some extreme metal is more complex than some heavy metal, and some heavy metal is more complex than some extreme metal, and at their most complex stages both are about equal.  Fates Warning, a band more rooted in heavy metal, are very complex.  Jungle Rot, an extreme metal band, is very simple.

I don't know how I can put this any more succinctly:

No.

Care to explain what you mean by 'sonic sounds' and why it's defined by those?

I think he means this.

[we hope you die]

Firstly, stop calling Motorhead heavy metal, they were a rock and roll band, a point which you have picked out yourself. Which, I should point out, does not make them irrelavent. And secondly, if its not clear enough already, the crux of issue is becoming clear:

good and bad exist in both extreme and classic metal, what is good? (unique to metal as seperate from rock) structure, narrative, journey, epithany etc. etc. What helped metal articulate this to new heights? classical, punk, ambient etc etc

[nothingnowhere]

What do I make of Lemmy's remark?  Given Motorhead were the first punk/metal band and the cornerstone of all speed/thrash and what would become extreme metal, I make of it that speed/thrash and extreme metal are distanced from metal more than ANUS admits.

I think ANUS would agree that they are quite separate, and I believe what we have here is a confusion of terms. In fact, ANUS goes quite far to separate "metal" from "heavy metal".

"Heavy Metal" refers to the bands that you are talking about. Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, etc. The commonality between all these bands is their root in rock music. I think we can all agree here.

Unless I'm greatly mistaken, ANUS uses the term "metal" mostly to refer to "extreme metal". I suppose the term metal is used mainly for two reasons.

1) "X-treme Metal" sounds retarded.
2) In a sense, extreme metal is a more pure form of metal, because it takes the "metal" elements of heavy metal (the style of riffing, subject matter, positive attitude) while dropping the rock elements that were still inherent in heavy metal (pop song structures, cheeseburgers, etc). Extreme metal does borrow things from punk (mentioned by others), and they form an important part of it's DNA, but what it does not borrow is the way that punk music is composed. So extreme metal is more pure because, although it borrows technique and small ideas from other genres, it is a more distinct entity of it's own from heavy metal or any other genre, whereas heavy metal is a sub genre of rock music. If it makes you feel better than call it extreme metal if you really need to.

[Night of the Demon]

What do I make of Lemmy's remark?  Given Motorhead were the first punk/metal band and the cornerstone of all speed/thrash and what would become extreme metal, I make of it that speed/thrash and extreme metal are distanced from metal more than ANUS admits.

I think ANUS would agree that they are quite separate, and I believe what we have here is a confusion of terms. In fact, ANUS goes quite far to separate "metal" from "heavy metal".

"Heavy Metal" refers to the bands that you are talking about. Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, etc. The commonality between all these bands is their root in rock music. I think we can all agree here.

Unless I'm greatly mistaken, ANUS uses the term "metal" mostly to refer to "extreme metal". I suppose the term metal is used mainly for two reasons.

1) "X-treme Metal" sounds retarded.
2) In a sense, extreme metal is a more pure form of metal, because it takes the "metal" elements of heavy metal (the style of riffing, subject matter, positive attitude) while dropping the rock elements that were still inherent in heavy metal (pop song structures, cheeseburgers, etc). Extreme metal does borrow things from punk (mentioned by others), and they form an important part of it's DNA, but what it does not borrow is the way that punk music is composed. So extreme metal is more pure because, although it borrows technique and small ideas from other genres, it is a more distinct entity of it's own from heavy metal or any other genre, whereas heavy metal is a sub genre of rock music. If it makes you feel better than call it extreme metal if you really need to.

Extreme metal simply substituted one "outside" element for a bunch of others, the difference being that the new outside elements are not part of metal's true genetics.  Extreme metal also is not as distinct as you might think; look at how much grindcore and death metal overlap and have similarities:  Bolt Thrower, Carcass, Napalm Death, etc.  What was once only a few inches from hard rock is now only a few inches from punk genres.  And just as you might easily be able to tell the "vast" difference between grindcore and death metal, a heavy metal fan can tell the "vast" difference between heavy metal and hard rock.  Think of it this way, too:  are my hypothetical grandchildren more pure "me" than myself because they lack the same prominence of my father's traits and pronounce my own idiosyncratic ones louder?

I do not call it extreme metal because it makes me feel better, but because that is what it is; I also call it extreme metal because outside of this site, there are people who know what the word "metal" means and what it is about.  I interact with such people and will not inconvenience myself for your sake.

Firstly, stop calling Motorhead heavy metal, they were a rock and roll band, a point which you have picked out yourself. Which, I should point out, does not make them irrelavent. And secondly, if its not clear enough already, the crux of issue is becoming clear:

good and bad exist in both extreme and classic metal, what is good? (unique to metal as seperate from rock) structure, narrative, journey, epithany etc. etc. What helped metal articulate this to new heights? classical, punk, ambient etc etc

Motorhead are definitely a metal band, and removing them from the metal tree results in a serious gap.  They are the bridge between punk and metal.  If you listen to the riffs, they are clearly the same genre as a band like Venom or Exciter.

I also already explained why elements like structure, narrative, journey, and epiphany to do not make an art form more superior to one that lacks those.  Have you chosen not to acknowledge that?

Oh, okay.  I am sorry that I misunderstood your message, but it is clear now.  My rebuttal is that I disagree that extreme metal is more complex than heavy metal.  Some extreme metal is more complex than some heavy metal, and some heavy metal is more complex than some extreme metal, and at their most complex stages both are about equal.  Fates Warning, a band more rooted in heavy metal, are very complex.  Jungle Rot, an extreme metal band, is very simple.

I don't know how I can put this any more succinctly:

No.

I have put a lot of effort into explaining my ideas thoroughly, and I would hope you could offer in return more than a "no."  It sounds to me like you do not have a reason for the beliefs you hold, but accept them because they are what you have become accustomed to.  You can do that, but stop disguising it as something intelligent, honest, or correct.

Why are we still using "metal" as a word to describe a particular sound?

Metal is defined by sonic sounds.

Care to explain what you mean by 'sonic sounds' and why it's defined by those?

Metal is defined by a riffing style.  It is what separates a Led Zeppelin, Grand Funk Railroad, and Blue Oyster Cult (hard rock) from Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, and Iron Maiden (metal).

[istaros]

My issue with the ANUS philosophy is that it is an example of historical revisionism.  You view death and black metal as the purest representations of what metal is; correct me if I am wrong about that.  The problem is, speed/thrash metal and all the metal subgenres that germinated from it are, in essence, heavy metal diluted with punk.

Heavy metal is metal diluted with rock. Death/black metal is metal diluted with punk/ambient. What do you think you're proving? Unless it's an idea that metal is, in its purest form, an abstract notion that has not yet been manifested, you are failing.

[Night of the Demon]

My issue with the ANUS philosophy is that it is an example of historical revisionism.  You view death and black metal as the purest representations of what metal is; correct me if I am wrong about that.  The problem is, speed/thrash metal and all the metal subgenres that germinated from it are, in essence, heavy metal diluted with punk.

Heavy metal is metal diluted with rock. Death/black metal is metal diluted with punk/ambient. What do you think you're proving? Unless it's an idea that metal is, in its purest form, an abstract notion that has not yet been manifested, you are failing.

It's the idea that metal is what it is.  It is not diluted with rock, in the same way I am not diluted with the genetics of my parents.  I have made this analogy over and over, and it appears you have failed to pay attention.

[istaros]

If you want your opinions to be treated respectfully, as you state, the very first thing you have to do is avoid the assumption that the only way someone could disagree with you is through misinformation.

I've read through the whole thread. That analogy is worthless because, in order for it to be relevant to what you're saying about metal, you would have to be your parents. As a matter of fact, the analogy could easily be improved by simply (ironically enough) adding punk - if you were exposed to anarchistic punk ideals and embraced them in your youth, this would not only come to define you to some extent, but would in fact orient your future development as a person and, thus, lead you into a purer form of yourself, by doing the one thing your genes could not, which is break the pattern.

[Night of the Demon]

I've read through the whole thread. That analogy is worthless because, in order for it to be relevant to what you're saying about metal, you would have to be your parents. As a matter of fact, the analogy could easily be improved by simply (ironically enough) adding punk - if you were exposed to anarchistic punk ideals and embraced them in your youth, this would not only come to define you to some extent, but would in fact orient your future development as a person and, thus, lead you into a purer form of yourself, by doing the one thing your genes could not, which is break the pattern.

There are multiple errors in what you stated.  You would not have to be your parents; heavy metal naturally moved away from its hard rock parents, eventually into areas of power metal and doom metal, without embracing ideas that it did not invent on its own and without embracing something from the outside.  Also, metal did not embrace punk anymore than it did progressive rock, glam rock, alternative rock, etc.  Different factions of metal all embraced those ideas, or rather, those ideas embraced metal (See Motorhead and Twisted Sister, both merging punk and glam into metal respectively from the outside, not inside.)

[nether]

One distinction ANUS makes between metal and punk is that metal is 'spiritual' (i.e. religious, often through its anti-religion), while punk is political.

There is a lot of political discussion on this forum, perhaps at the moment more than that pertaining to religion, spirituality, or anything occult or esoteric in nature.  But there is and has been a great deal of both, and it is important that we do not entirely separate the two.  I think it is to ANUS's credit that it does not scream "sword and sorcery" or any such thing, and instead focuses on the real world issues behind the Satanic fantasy facade.

It is also important to note that we give more credit to the Doors and the Misfits than Iron Maiden or Venom.  This is because we see that the former were ultimately more relevant, not because they were 'metal', but because they were serious and, again, dealt more directly with reality rather than fiction.  ANUS frowns upon escapist entertainment, and tends to view heavy metal bands like Manowar as prime examples.  Ultimately, that seems to me the way that the band presents itself and I find myself in agreement, despite the valiant spirit behind the music.  Ultimately I do not find listening to such bands fulfilling.
 
A lot of ground has been covered in this thread, but it seems to me that the largest issue is the site's overwhelming obsession with politics rather than the conquering fantasy that most metal describes.  Correct me if I am wrong.

That said, I have a question for Night of the Demon: is it mainly the fact that this forum presents itself as some sort of authority on 'Metal" with which you find fault?  What do you propose as an alternative?

[Night of the Demon]

One distinction ANUS makes between metal and punk is that metal is 'spiritual' (i.e. religious, often through its anti-religion), while punk is political.

There is a lot of political discussion on this forum, perhaps at the moment more than that pertaining to religion, spirituality, or anything occult or esoteric in nature.  But there is and has been a great deal of both, and it is important that we do not entirely separate the two.  I think it is to ANUS's credit that it does not scream "sword and sorcery" or any such thing, and instead focuses on the real world issues behind the Satanic fantasy facade.

It is also important to note that we give more credit to the Doors and the Misfits than Iron Maiden or Venom.  This is because we see that the former were ultimately more relevant, not because they were 'metal', but because they were serious and, again, dealt more directly with reality rather than fiction.  ANUS frowns upon escapist entertainment, and tends to view heavy metal bands like Manowar as prime examples.  Ultimately, that seems to me the way that the band presents itself and I find myself in agreement, despite the valiant spirit behind the music.  Ultimately I do not find listening to such bands fulfilling.
 
A lot of ground has been covered in this thread, but it seems to me that the largest issue is the site's overwhelming obsession with politics rather than the conquering fantasy that most metal describes.  Correct me if I am wrong.

That said, I have a question for Night of the Demon: is it mainly the fact that this forum presents itself as some sort of authority on 'Metal" with which you find fault?  What do you propose as an alternative?

I am a huge fan of Manowar and Venom, both definitely in my top 3 bands of all time, but I do not view them as escapist.  They are relevant.  Manowar advocate a lifestyle of individualism, reject certain socially conservative notions that have oppressed us as human beings, and advocate hedonistic brigades as part of the human experience.  Venom reject organized religion and deal with issues such as the problem of evil (see the song "Hand of God," which Cronos wrote after lightning struck his roof),  however, because they also incorporate humor, you make the false assumption that they are nothing but a joke band.  I would rather listen to either of these bands than The Doors or The Misfits because they speak to me more, and I feel they have more to say that I can agree with.  Sword and sorcery is not irrelevant; it is just that it is more metaphorical and takes more thinking to apply the messages to daily life or politics (as opposed to blatant political rants in Napalm Death, for example.)

As for your question: I have lurked around ANUS and its forum for some time, and I have seen its views appear on other sites (although, as of yet, never in real life), and so I felt that this place and its opinions were relevant and had impact.  Because I disagree with them, I felt compelled to make an effort to demonstrate to the people that follow them that they may not be so correct as they think.  I have seen users on this forum posting that if someone still praises and listens to Venom in the 21st century, it is a sign that they do not understand metal.  I have seen criticisms of songs that follow verse-chorus as inherently inferior.  My criticism of this comes from the fact that I view its ideas as flawed, and I want to put it out there that you should question your presumed superiority of extreme metal, and that the intelligence you associate it with is found equally in bands like W.A.S.P., Angel Witch, Diamond Head, etc.  Despite its self-imposed delusions, the ANUS community is no sharper or more enlightened than a typical, denim-clad headbanger as myself.

But here's the most important reason why I came: I believe in the spirit of heavy metal, and it is worth my time to spread it everywhere I can to reach as many potential converts as possible, even the places where souls seem the most lost (and I certainly believe ANUS is missing essential components of what make the heavy metal spirit in its true and unadulterated and perfect form.)  I do not listen to Manowar lyrics and laugh at them ironically like some worthless false metaller; I put my money where my mouth is, embrace them with zero sense of irony or camp, and spread what I know to be right near and far.  And that is metal.

[istaros]

From your reply, am I to infer that power metal and doom metal are the ultimate expressions of metal? I ask because you say metal developed into these without embracing any ideals beyond those that it started with.

There is an error in what I stated because there is an error in the analogy. You think of "heavy metal as the greatest of all rock genres" - is it rock or is it not? Right there you said it is, but your subsequent arguments make it clear to readers that, on some level, you think otherwise. A thing cannot be what it isn't. Either metal IS a type of rock or it is an outgrowth of it. The former suggests you are your parents, since there is no parent (sorry) rock genre and "rock" itself is an umbrella term; the latter supports your analogy but, in the process, destroys your assertion that metal=rock.

I don't think you'll find any argument here that prog has been heavily embraced by metal - making that particular comparison invalid. However, metal's adoption of punk has definitely been stronger than its adoption of glam and alternative - two styles of rock that, when fused with metal, led to fads whose popularity passed within the span of a decade. The punk influx has remained for over thirty years now, and not only does it remain hugely popular - it has also, instead of fizzing out over time, simply continued to evolve into new forms - speed metal, crossover, thrash metal(all within their "orthodox" definitions), death metal, black metal, metalcore(though I hate to mention it)... How you intend to verifiably equate punk's influence in metal with that of glam or alternative has yet to be shown(although you did somewhat leave behind the argument for alternative).

As a rebuttal to your example of Metallica's initial rejection by their audience, I would like to mention the popularity of bands such as Exodus, as well as the fact that Slayer and D.R.I. toured together in 1984.

Wait?  D.R.I. (particularly in the early days) is more rooted in punk than metal, so if Slayer tours with them then that is evidence against your argument, if evidence of anything at all.

You stated that punk was rejected by metal audiences. He provided evidence to the contrary. Since his position is opposed to yours, how does that constitute evidence against HIS argument?

Based on your last post, which you wrote as I was writing the above, the core of the issue has come to light. You want to praise this thing you consider the spirit of metal, which is an outgrowth of the rock movement. Bikes, bitches, and beer. Machine and muscle. Manliness. Pure, unbridled vir, which transforms perfectly into the sword-and-sorcery element you keep referring. MIGHT! And, as a result, any encroachment on metal's ties to rock is by (your) definition anti-metal, since without a solid basis in rock, there is little element of fun left. And even though a lot of the guys here will harp on about the insignificance of the following things, none of them can deny that bikes, bitches, and beer are FUN. And asserting your manliness is, as a man, a naturally fun thing to do - it makes you feel good. Anyway, the point being that your view leads, by absolute necessity, to seeing any attempt at de-emphasizing the rock elements of metal as treacherous.

However, it's clear that ANUS considers the spirit of metal to be something very different. It's a bit ridiculous to say the site and forum are more punk than metal, considering how domineering, nationalist, and religiously(not merely "spiritually") oriented it is - in short, it's fascist. Yes, the nihilism is there too - but as has been stated countless times, the form of nihlism embraced by ANUS is that of a tool, merely used to clear the way towards the manifestation of envisioned goals. A fire not to destroy, but to clear space for new life. In direct metaphor to this, it sees the punk influence that came into metal as an event that allowed all the trappings of rock music to be eliminated from metal. When seen as a concept existing outside the realm of the influences from which it came, "metal" is by definition anti-rock. As such, any attempt to praise the likes of Judas Priest as being on the same footing as the likes of Emperor (i.e., emphasizing the rock elements of metal) is, by absolute necessity, going to be seen as treacherous.

Tl;dr - there will be, on both sides, no compromises and even fewer converts.