Main Mohs Scale OF Rock And Metal Hardness Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

09:08:04 PM Jul 24th 2017
edited by Noisynoisy56
The scale is very unbalanced, there is a lot of ballads at level 1, but there are other genres such as Lowercase, Ambient, Slowcore or Gregorian Chant that are far quieter than those ballads. Also there are very hard pop songs at level 2.

Level 1 should be only for Ambient, Slowcore, Greogorian Chant, Piano Classical Music, Lowercase, Baroque music softer end.

Also in the main article clearly says that most of MTV hits appears at LEVEL 3, not level 1 or 2.

The scale should be based on this.

1. Low - Lullaby

2. Radiohead - No Surprises

3. Depeche Mode - Personal Jesus

4. What I've Done - Linkin Park

5. American Idiot - Green Day

6. Deep Purple - Fireball

7. Eagly Fly Free - Helloween

8. Bullets - Creed

9. The World is a Thorn - Demon Hunter

10. Monarch Omega - Abnormality

11. Silence the Opressors - Impending Doom

For Pop and Electronic Music

1. Brian Eno - Lizard Point

2. Selena Gomez - Bad Liar

3. Depeche Mode - Personal Jesus 4. Imagine Dragons - Radioactive

5. Bj÷rk - Declare Independence 6.

7. Death Grips - I've Seen a Footage

8. Angelspit - Skinny Little Bitch

9. Skrillex - Scary Monster and Nice Sprites

10. Aphex Twin - Come to Daddy

11. Bi S - STU Pi G
07:57:34 AM Jul 20th 2017
Not really sure why this scale needs a parental guidance suggestion scale, to be honest. Especially since it's the same one used on Mohs Scale of Lyrical Hardness and Lyrical Dissonance is a thing.

I know, lyrics tend to get Darker and Edgier the further along this scale, but this article makes it clear many times that the two measures are only tangentially related to each other, which makes the whole thing sorta self-defeating.

I've got a couple of good examples here. This gauge apparently tells you that this, a 9 here with vocals lower than 3 on Lyrical, is as explicit as, say, most of Eminem's harsher output. But Wait, There's More! It also tells you that this, a borderline 11 with no vocals, is even more graphic.

Oh, and also, R-rated Kirby.

I'm sorry if this sounds overly sarcastic, but it's the easiest way for me to get the point across. It's been bugging me for about a month, and I thought it would be better to say something about it rather than just removing it.
12:10:29 PM Dec 26th 2016
edited by Asd3334
I think that we need add more genres for each level, because Level 11 have too much genres.
06:07:58 AM Oct 4th 2015
edited by WhatArtThee
Can we call this the Mohs Scale Of Musical Hardness? Lots of songs here aren't rock or metal. Also, many songs have ratings i disagree with.

Rush-Entre Nous: Ranked at a 2, but sounds too heavy. I'd place it at a 4.

AWOLNATION- Sail: Ranked at a 3, but between the heavy bass and screamy vocals, it sounds like a 5 to me.

Pink Floyd- Run Like Hell: Ranked at a 5, but sounds very lightweight and poppy compared to Young Lust, for example (Which is placed on the Pink Floyd page as a 5) I'd give it a 3.

Bill Nye Theme: Ranked at 6, but seriously? That song's way to funky and catchy. A 4.

Guns N Roses- Welcome To The Jungle: Ranked at 6, but it's Speed Metal-esque sound places it at a 7 to me.

Queen- Stone Cold Crazy: Same case as Welcome To The Jungle.

Crush 40- Live And Learn, What I'm Made Of, and Open Your Heart: All of them are ranked at 7. The first two are way too poppy and light to me, and don't really have a heavy edge. I'd give them a 5. Open Your Heart starts out heavy, but lightens. I'd give it a 6, because of the heavy start.

Pink Floyd- One Of These Days: Ranked at 7, but doesn't really sound that heavy, especially compared to The Nile Song (A 6) I'd place it at 5.

Laughin' Jokin' Numbnuts: Ranked at a 9, but doesn't really have much heaviness to it. I'd give it a 3 or 4.

Cromagnon- Caledonia: Ranked at a 9, but aside from the harsh vocals, doesn't really have much heaviness to it. After all, the main instrument is bagpipes. Heavier Psychedelic rock. I'd give it a 5.

Pokey Means Business: Ranked at a 9, but the main body of the song is more of an 8. I'd give it a 7, though, because of the light intro.

Doomsday Zone: Seriously? How is that a 9? It has no real heaviness to it. Just sounds like regular Sonic music. I'd place it at a 2 or 3.

Kayne West- On Sight: Ranked at 9, but doesn't really sound any different from regular rap. I'd give it a 3 or 4.

Daft Punk- Rollin' And Scratchin': WHAT?? How is this a 10? It's just a catchy, lightweight dance tune. A 2 or 3.

Daft Punk- Rock N Roll: Ranked at an 11, but REALLY? Doesn't really feature much heaviness to it. A 4.

Lollipops Level 3: Ranked at 11, but WHY? Just two notes repeated over and over. A 1.

Gigyas's Intro: Ranked at 11. I don't see why. Just sounds like dark ambient. I'd give it a 1.

Eminem- Kim: Ranked at an 11, but doesn't sound much heavier than regular rap. I'd give it a 5, due to the harsh vocals.

Versus Giegue: Ranked at an 11, but it's just one note. I'd give it a 1.

Post your thoughts on the rankings below.

07:20:29 AM Oct 4th 2015
07:58:06 AM Oct 4th 2015
I'll just move them.
05:15:51 PM Oct 6th 2015
I have made the changes. If anyone objects, comment!
08:29:22 PM Mar 26th 2015
It would be nice to have a separate scale for electronic music, or in general, music from any and all genres outside of rock and metal. Crossovers of rock/metal with other genres would do fine in our current hardness scale, but the purely electronic/orchestral/dance/hip-hop/etc songs don't seem to fit in with the general idea of why the scale was here in the first place (and why it was named as such); additionally, the scale is already very large and confusing for some, and songs that stick out like a sore thumb would certainly add to that confusion. Furthermore, rock/metal hardness is a "quality" unique to the genre, but it somehow falls under the whole perception of what I would call "musical intensity" in other genres (in other words, hardness, for me, is just a perception of musical intensity unique to rock/metal). I'm planning to make a separate scale for the songs that have less in common with rock/metal to lessen the bloat and to further define the idea of what musical intensity is. The new scale could be a super scale to our current scale for rock/metal (as it would encompass music other than the rock/metal we have in our scale right now) and have a punny name as well, like...hmm...the Mercalli Scale of Musical Intensity (a pun on the real-life scale for measuring earthquake intensity)...or something :)

Though this will be a big project and will require some planning and collaboration. I'd love to have someone to work with on this.
08:36:40 PM Oct 15th 2014
I want to change the places of Dir en grey's "Agitated Screams of Maggots". While the vocals might be heavier on the acoustic version, the instruments are soft enough to qualify for a 4 at highest. The normal version has almost as heavy vocals and instruments that are at least a 10.

Also where do we put Suicide Note Pt 2. There's been much debate on whether it should be 10 or 11. I personally think it's awesome and heavy, it's abrasiveness could land it in either spot.
10:21:55 AM Sep 15th 2014
edited by
Where would dark ambient fall under? I always known it to particularly be mostly quiet but often having moments taking it straight up past 11.

Also curious where EinstŘrzende Neubauten song should go, which can range from near silence to Sinister Scraping Sound and Hell Is That Noise.
08:11:58 AM Sep 14th 2014
Is "Fight fire with Fire" the hardest song by Metallica? Well,"Bodies" by Drowning Pool is too heavy to be an 7,And I can't believe "Kill EVERYBODY" by Skrillex is actually Harder than "Fight fire with fire". Also,I think "Raining Blood" by Slayer would be An 9.

IMO,i know that you can't classify songs with Hardnesses too varied,but i think "One" Should be like this:

Intro is an 1,maybe 2 The Refrains are a 7 The Melodic Buildup is a 6 The "Machine Gun" Buildup & the Rest of the song is a 9 The Solos soften it to 8

Another thing i'd like to Point at is "Contact" by Daft Punk. I don't think the first 4 minutes are a 4 and suddenly it skips to 7, But more like Progressively building from 4 to 6 and when the noise arrives,it becomes 7-9.

Waiting for your Opinions.
11:53:38 AM Oct 7th 2014
Raining Blood is definitely a 9. I agree with you there.

I'd say your analysis of "One" is about right. I'd give the acoustic sections a 2, personally. But maybe that's just me.
08:42:13 AM Aug 9th 2014
I think I've found an 11 in Classical music. Presenting "Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima" by Penderecki. It contains atonality, extended techniques, is very noisy and as abrasive as most 11s. Most of his music also contains a choir of blood-curdling screams. What do you think.
01:46:11 PM Sep 11th 2014
I think this is more towards Level 4. When I think of Level 11, the music constantly squeezes me to the point where my lungs would burst and my mind would instantly seize - metaphorically speaking. I don't get that impression from this song (nice try!). I say this is Level 4 because there are long periods of Nothing Is Scarier (something Level 11's never do) and the song in general leans towards very high, chilling notes rather than low, drowning pulses.
03:57:34 PM Sep 13th 2014
I'd agree, this song feels too light and airy to be quite that high, it has moments of hardness but very soft interludes that bring it down. With that being said, there are extremely hard orchestral compositons in the form of noise and avant-garde music. Level 11 does not mean hammy or "epic" but often the opposite due to a harsh claustrophobic effect and there's usually not much room for dynamic variation.

I'd probably give this a harder rating than a four though. "Dance of the Knights" by Prokofiev would be a 4 in my book as would most darker romantic to early modern compositions.
08:22:14 PM Oct 15th 2014
I'd argue that the "too light and airy" parts are merely the Drone of Dread (which was in Giegue's Theme, from Mother). The rest of it makes Dir en grey look like Christmas carols. I listed it because it has the heaviest, most abrasive acoustic sound I've ever heard.
01:47:30 AM Jun 4th 2014
Almost all of our links for Buck-Tick are trashed now (thank you, Youtube and Victor Records!) I'm going to try to replace them as I can find them over the next few days, but we have a small problem in that there AREN'T good replacements for some of them - there isn't an existing one for My Fuckin Valentine, for example, and the only video upload for Machine now is really crappy quality from a 1990s VHS.

Should I just remove the ones we now have no link for, or leave them but without being linked until the new album related copyright blitz is over, the copyright trolls crawl back under their bridges, and someone reuploads the rarer ones and I can put in links again?
03:41:16 AM Jun 11th 2014
Always remove broken links that you cannot replace, but remember to leave an edit reason out of politness.
02:38:43 PM May 17th 2014
Does anyone else think there should be a category for songs below 1 and beyond 11? Many of the harsh noise pieces are much harder than adjacent "11's." Likewise, a lot of the softer songs of easy listening, new-age, space music, and choral music/Gregorian chant are much softer than "1's."

Also, I know this sounds a bit odd and rather YMMV but does "grandness" have an effect on hardness? Classical music feels so much larger than many harder genres. I often think that in order for a song to sound "epic" (e.g. many movie soundtracks and symphonies), it can't sound rough and abrasive and must allow for resonance. A more extreme example would be between minimalist music and harsh noise. Merzbow's music for instance sounds almost claustrophobic.
03:27:58 AM Jun 11th 2014
edited by
Does anyone else think there should be a category for songs below 1 and beyond 11?

No. To quote the main article "Anything beyond 11 (and to a lesser extent, the harshest and most abrasive Level 11 material) starts to fall under Noise." and "Conversely, anything below 1 is too soft to go on the scale, owing to a lack of audible/perceivable hardness."

TLDR version: It would either be too silent or too unorganized and/or distorted to be considered music in general.

Also, I know this sounds a bit odd and rather YMMV but does "grandness" have an effect on hardness?

Yes it does if it's a major part of the song's atmosphere. This grandiose effect typically begins at Level 3, but it can easily reach Level 5. It depends on how strong, intense, and upfront the effect is.
10:01:43 PM Mar 25th 2014
edited by
I reckon Fleetwood Mac ranges from level 1 to level 6

  • Level 1 Landslide, Beautiful Child, Never Going Back Again, Everywhere
  • Level 2 Dreams, Gypsy, Big Love, Sara
  • Level 3 Go Your Own Way, Tusk, Say You Love Me
  • Level 4 Rhiannon, I'm So Afraid, Monday Morning, The Chain
  • Level 5 Blue Letter, World Turning, Sisters of the Moon, most Peter Green era stuff
  • Level 6 Oh Well, Green Manalishi

What do you reckon?
05:48:03 AM Apr 5th 2014
Sounds about right to me.
10:01:59 PM Feb 6th 2014
Haven't yet seen any mention of Author and Punisher on here, who for the record, sounds like this: (Warning: LOUD)

Or Igorrr, whose work has an enormous variety, but definitely some metal influence. He sounds like this: . And yes, that is an entire album. There isn't enough a lot of consistency between tracks.
07:28:52 PM Jan 15th 2014
Perhaps we should add a rough guide to when certain hardnesses started appearing in the history of music. For example, 50's rock'n'roll only went as high as 4, yet by the early 60's, Dick Dale's guitar work reached a low 6. The extreme end of the scale was apparently reached in the mid 70's with Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music", then with industrial a few years later, then with extreme metal in the early-mid 80's.
08:27:50 PM Dec 21st 2013
This page is the biggest on the wiki, and needs to be split into subpages IMMEDIATELY. It's a miracle the folders haven't broken already. I would, but I know nothing about any of this.
08:51:22 PM Dec 21st 2013
It would be easy enough to split each level into a separate page but I wonder if anyone wants to do something more substantial.
07:15:02 AM Dec 20th 2013
edited by
Regarding the issue of this list being expanded to include genres outside of rock and metal, I don't see the problem, as long as the examples have a noticeable rock influence. I think too much rigidity in what styles of music are allowed would make this list a little boring/repetitive. It's a lot more fun and interesting to see genres outside of rock and metal occasionally represented at the low and middle sections of the scale.
12:31:17 PM Feb 11th 2014
edited by
I agree. It's a matter of influence: many Electronic music artists are blatantly influenced by rock and metalnote , and people have to remember that many, many rock and metal bands have used electronic instruments at least once in their music. Good examples include Periphery, The Gazette (their later material), Korn (The Path of Totality, anyone?), Modestep and Blood Stain Child.
03:56:28 PM Dec 13th 2013
Do we have any examples of Level 4 classical, Level 5 hardcore punk, and Level 8 (non-metal) hard rock?
04:51:27 PM Mar 4th 2014
I've added a Level 4 Classical Music inspired one a while back: Ten wo Tsuke from Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann. I don't know of any examples for the other two.
05:30:07 AM Nov 23rd 2013
I don't think Fear Factory's Replica fits 9 very well, and definitely isn't borderline 10. The bridge contains clean vocals, and although it contains dark lyrics, guitar distortion and screaming, it doesn't, in my opinion, have the standard impact for 9 songs, especially not 10 songs. I'd call it a medium to high 8, considering most Slipknot is around as heavy as this song and gets ranked 8.
10:21:44 AM Nov 25th 2013
I also really don't think Redneck by Lamb Of God belongs at Level 10. It's a hard 8 IMO.
08:10:10 AM Dec 2nd 2013
Avenged Sevenfold's Seize the Day doesn't seem to be a good fit for 6 too. Most of the song is soft and could be easily accommodated at around 4. It's only a little heavier than So Far Away, which currently resides at 2.
05:16:46 AM Nov 23rd 2013
I'm going to add some Limp Bizkit here, and I was wondering what their general hardness was. There is definitely some heavy riffs and screaming characteristic of around 7, but the rapping and soft sections seem to mitigate the impact. I normally consider them around 5, but there are clear anomalies that make their positioning questionable. Something like N 2 Gether Now would probably rest at 2 or 3, due to the fact that it is mainly a rap song, with no screamed lyrics or guitar distortion, but a song like Pollution may even hit 8 due to the distorted, quick guitar riffs, screamed and abrasive lyrics, and breakneck speed. What would you guys say about this?
10:19:30 AM Nov 25th 2013
They're usually a pretty solid 7. I'd say that level would be your best bet.
04:27:38 AM Nov 21st 2013
Where goes We Know Where You Sleep fit? It doesn't seem to be a good fit for 4.
07:59:29 PM Dec 5th 2013
It is an unusually Darker and Edgier song on the soft end of the scale, but I would still say it's Level 4. I can hear lots of vocal and instrumental distortion i.e. it's too messy and chaotic for Level 3.
10:44:31 AM Nov 13th 2013
HELP! I put a song at level 6, and all of a sudden, BAM! All of the folders have disappeared. Why has that happened? And how can I fix it?
10:48:46 AM Nov 13th 2013
Fixed it. Don't know how that happened, however. XD
12:10:59 PM Nov 13th 2013
Thanks for fixing it so quickly! Your computer had a connection error, so some of the page wasn't saved after you edited it.
01:53:35 PM Nov 4th 2013
I've heard in a topic further down here that there was a so-called Level 12, featuring artists such as Merzbow and Whitehouse. Was there really one or is it just pretense?
07:27:48 PM Nov 6th 2013
P Sure it's just pretense. Though it doesn't seem that far-fetched.
09:51:02 PM Oct 30th 2013
Classical music and film scores can easily be as soft as Level 1. For example, the scores to Alien and The Silence of the Lambs manage to sound creepy and atmospheric while remaining quite soft.
05:37:36 PM Oct 25th 2013
What is hardcore punk doing in the Level 5 folder? Doesn't hardcore begin at Level 7?
12:10:39 AM Oct 26th 2013
I'd say at least 6. I mean, would people classify bands like minor threat as a 5?
12:50:50 AM Nov 11th 2013
For Level 5, "hardcore punk" should be replaced with "early punk" (ie. The Sex Pistols, The Clash etc).
09:44:32 PM Oct 4th 2013
i'd submit that Back in Black should move up a level. It's definatly on level with Crazy Train at least...

I think it's significantly harder then Go is.
10:10:12 AM Oct 24th 2013
Honestly, i'd say Crazy Train is a five at best.
10:09:30 AM Sep 22nd 2013
A lot of people seem to really misunderstand what Level 11 means. I think this section of the page is in need of significant cleanup.
10:15:25 AM Aug 31st 2013
edited by
The scale has now introduced electronic music, especially techno, trance, drum and bass and dubstep, and I'm pretty happy about that. I'm however asking about the hardness level of these songs.

The Qemists — Dirty Words (ft. Matt Rose & Bruno Balanta) [Personally, I think the Qemists are amongst the hardest musicians in the scale, often residing at levels 8 and 9. However, this is a Surprisingly Gentle Song, being rock-influenced breakbeat. So, is it a 4? 5? 6?]

Squarepusher — Come On My Selector [His song "Steinbolt", off of Ultravisitor, has been ranked by me as a very hard 11. However, this isn't anywhere as hard as that song. I think this is a 6, due to being too "catchy" for a 7.]

Armin van Buuren — Imagine [Trance music, for me, is especially difficult to classify. The intro is easily a 2, then leading to a 5, but the song has a booming beat, worthy of a level 6 song, but for Heaven's sake, what level is it?!]

Nero — Innocence [A modern dubstep song typically resides at high levels of hardness. But this has some strong ambient influences. So... Is it softer or not than a 9-10?]

Flux Pavilion — Blow The Roof [This modern dubstep song is much poppier than the ones that appear in the scale, but the drop is particularly heavy. Is it softer than the dubstep songs that appear in the scale, or is it just as heavy?]

Madeon — Finale [Seriously, how heavy is it? A 4 or a 5?]

Martin Solveig — The Night Out [How heavy is it? I think it is a 3.]

Skinny Puppy — Pro-Test [This is an Industrial song with slight industrial metal influences. Ogre's signature scratchy cleans are obviously present. But... Is it a 6 or a 7?]

VNV Nation — Arclight [This is a song falling in the futurepop genre, substantially a Lighter and Softer version of Industrial music. Is it a 5? I think so.]

Also, I have to make a little discussion on Pantera's "Suicide Note Pt. II". Originally it was a 10, but now is an 11. I've heard an excerpt of it on iTunes, and it sounds a bit too heavy for being a 10, but I've heard the song "A Divine Declaration For Finishing The Present Existence" by Last Days of Humanity, and also two of the drone doom songs featured at level 11 ("Bathory Erszebet" by Sunn O))) and "Pieces of Quiet" by Khanate), which are all easily an 11. So, that left me questioning myself: "Is the song by Pantera a 10 or 11?"
01:05:10 AM Sep 3rd 2013
edited by
  1. "Dirty Words" by The Qemists would probably be a hard 6 or, at most, a 7. I've compared it with more standard Level 6 rock/metal and I could say it's closest to Nu Metal in terms of musical stylings, which is usually around 6-7 on the scale.

  2. The song comes across as being difficult to classify or even put on the scale. It certainly has a "hard" quality but it sounds a bit "empty" and a bit lacking in perceivable "hardness" other than the beats. The drum rolls are catchy, though.

  3. I'd agree with you regarding your views on trance - it's a genre filled with nigh-unclassifiable material. Sure trance can sound metallic and heavy (it is possible for some trance songs to make it to the scale), but it can also sound poppy and/or dancey (which explains why trance songs aren't usually included in the scale). For me, "Imagine" leans more towards the dancey side (sure there are audible guitars, but the hooks tend to overpower the riffs and contribute to the dancey pop sound) and would therefore sound a bit out-of-place in a scale that measures musical hardness (catchiness can suck out the hardness of a song in some cases).

  4. I'd say I'm glad to have listened to Nero's "Innocence" once again. I'm not really a big dubstep fan (I'm actually a metalhead who enjoys Metalcore, experimental metal and Visual Kei) but "Innocence" is one of my fave non-metal songs, so you could say I'm quite familiar with its sound. It's a straight-up 8 - the ambient sections contribute somewhat to the decreased hardness, but the bass wobbles aren't as hard as most modern dubstep/metalstep/brostep, which keeps it from going up to 9.

  5. "Blow The Roof" certainly has a very strong rock beat, but it is definitely poppier than the other modern dubstep songs on the scale, which could contribute to a lower hardness or (possibly) disqualify it from the scale. It would be best to have others listen to it so they can say something about the hardness of the song. But for me, it would be a 7.

  6. "Finale" by Madeon is a hard 4, bordering on 5. It's got a good rock vibe to it, and warm, crunchy synth riffs (when I first heard it a long time ago, I thought those were computer-distorted guitars.)

  7. "The Night Out" is a straight-up 3, no more, no less.

  8. "Pro-Test" is a 6.

  9. "Arclight" by VNV Nation has the feel of 5, but it sounds fairly light and spacey, with omnipresent strings and a light but pounding bass beat. It would probably fall at around 2-3.

  10. Oh, by the way, thanks for bringing up Pantera's "Suicide Note Pt. II". At the time of this post's writing, I listened to the whole of "The Great Southern Trendkill" and found the song considerably heavier than the more standard Groove Metal tracks on the album. Dimebag's solo contributed a lot to the hardness, and the grindcore influence (and Seth Putnam's vocals) really helped it reach very high hardness levels, but what makes it an 11 is the sheer shock it can cause to listeners who listen to Part I and expect the next part to be as soft as the first one (it's a sad song all throughout, but Part 2 comes across as sounding a bit..."wrong"). I've also compared it to Lamb of God's "Black Label" and noticed some musical similarities (most notably, the raw, chaotic approach to Groove Metal and the heavy breakdowns at the end of both songs).
10:18:11 AM Sep 3rd 2013
Thanks for the reply. With your advices, I have now put most of the songs in the scale. But, in your opinion, what is the hardest Electronic Music song you have heard yet? And at what level does it go in the scale?
03:23:36 PM Sep 3rd 2013
In my opinion, if you are unsure where a song lies on this scale, then you shouldn't add them to this page. This "scale" is informal and arbitrary, so I think it should be limited to more clear cut examples of each hardness level. Because of the amount of variation and ambiguity in existing musical styles I feel this page will become bloated if we try to categorize every instance musical variation we find.

Also, while I can see the parallels in how electronic music has a scale of "hardness" like rock and metal, I don't think they match up well enough that they should be included on the same scale. I think there should be a separate section for electronic music at the bottom of the page with a description illustrating the levels of hardness found in that genre. At present it feels like the electronic music entries are shoehorned into the scale. Then again, I don't listen to that much electronic, so I'm not the best person to say if it fits or not.

06:43:58 PM Sep 3rd 2013
Well I do think that some electronic songs found in the scale sound out-of-place since their hardness cannot be compared to any existing rock/metal standards, but some have a distinctive rock vibe to it and/or have less of an ambiguity factor, which may explain their placement in the scale.

I think we really should stick to songs that are closer to/more similar to rock or metal than songs that are simply "hard" or "edgy". Good examples from the current scale would be "Narcissistic Cannibal" (Korn ft. Skrillex and Kill The Noise) "Pro-Test" (Skinny Puppy), "One Good Reason" (Celldweller, who is arguably one of the hardest Nu Metal artists currently active) and "Self vs Self" (Pendulum ft. In Flames) for "hard" songs, and "Still Doll" (Kanon Wakeshima), "Gekka no Yasoukyoku" (Malice Mizer, back when they were pop) and "Beat It" (Michael jackson) for softer material. (Note that the soft songs, while pop, have a readily audible hardness similar to rock and can therefore be compared with more "standard" rock/metal songs).

Anyway, I'll be giving plenty of the non-rock/non-metal songs a listen, and probably do more comparisons with established standards so we can streamline the (now-expanded) scale a bit more by moving, adding and removing a few songs. Also, I'll be adding a few more Visual Kei examples...
11:24:35 PM Sep 5th 2013
Its just my opinion, but i don't see why we're including pure electronic songs on here, what makes them hard are entirely different factors than what makes rock hard. After all, this is the scale of rock and metal hardness.
10:07:49 AM Jun 8th 2013
I think we should further split this further by determining which is a soft x or hard x IE. Slayer being a potential hard 9, or Nile and Suffocation being a hard 10 while something like Ensferium being a medium 8.
09:35:29 AM Jun 10th 2013
I agree that such a split would make the list a bit more detailed. But it would also probably make it too cluttered. :(
08:08:49 PM Jul 13th 2013
Should we give it a try to see how that turns out anyways?
12:45:14 PM Sep 9th 2013
I think splitting it up would create too many needless categories and too much hassle trying to sort all the songs further.
08:16:32 PM Apr 14th 2013
edited by

1. "Skin o' My Teeth": 7 or 8, based on the tempo?

2. Should I bump up MBV from 5 to 6?
09:34:35 AM Jun 10th 2013
Skin On' My Teeth is either a hard 7 or a soft 8. It's a bit hard to pin down, really.

I think the MBV song is at about the right level.
08:46:37 AM Feb 23rd 2013
This list is just about metal and rock or what?? I am asking that because stuff like wonderwall and imagine is on tier 1. But there is the sub-genre called glitch with songs like this (, very minimalistic dark ambient songs like this one ( ), to the the most minimalistic sub-genre music can offer that is lowercase that most of the time you need to listen with headphones and there cases of fans complaining on label forums asking if there is sound on the cds or not ( the most famous example of this sub-genre And then to end everything you have some songs that have all samples of the cd with the data as the number 0, so the speaker will not vibrate.
04:30:15 AM Feb 24th 2013
edited by MartyD82
This list can encompass any genre, so by all means, add those to it. I agree that there's way too much of a metal bias here, which is part of the reason why I've been adding Kelly Clarkson, Alanis Morisette, etc. There really needs to be a little more variance IMO.

I would just be careful about adding songs with too much hardness variance (ie. songs that alternate so much between harder and softer passages that it's impossible to really define their overall hardness). This is why I removed Pretty Fly For A White Guy from the list a while back. It could be either a 5 or a 6, depending on how much you thought the "Give It To Me Baby" lines detracted from its hardness (it definitely isn't a 4, though, as it was labeled when it was originally posted).
05:36:02 AM Feb 14th 2013
Consume Devour Repeat by The Famine is pretty heavy. 9, 10, or 11? I'd say 10, but...
01:27:07 PM Nov 13th 2012 where would this go? I'm guessing it's a 9 but the criteria seem to focus a lot on the "darkness" of the music and the lyrics, which this song doesn't really have.
02:04:45 PM Dec 9th 2012
Any opinions on the average hardness of The Rolling Stones, AC/DC, Megadeth, or any other bands that aren't too prominently featured on the examples?
04:15:05 PM Dec 9th 2012
edited by MartyD82
See the Megadeth page for their general standing. AC/DC is mostly 4 or 5, while The Rolling Stones are generally a solid 4.
11:22:07 AM Feb 15th 2013
well my original question still hasn't been answered but this is a somewhat similar one: where would this fit? It's just as abrasive as a lot of level 10 or 11 stuff but not nearly as bassy, with a female singer who squeaks. does that make it less heavy?
05:43:49 PM Sep 22nd 2013
edited by
I would say On Fire is Level 9. It's insanity inducing, but the relatively peaceful interlude at 2:34 and the more standard beats afterwards keep it from being a true 10.

I think Rragg is also level 9. The Unintelligible squeekiness just sounds hilarious to me; it's as if it's an Affectionate Parody of the style. Think of the midgets from Borderlands meet The Pyro because that's what the vocals reminds me of. The main instrumentation is spot on for Level 10, but it's played in bursts rather than all the way though the song.
05:39:52 PM Oct 29th 2012
"Glycerine" by Bush is fairly light (about a level 2). Would you classify this as grunge or post-grunge?
10:07:47 AM Sep 17th 2012
Where would you rank this?

Starting out soft, the song starts getting heavier and really screamy at around 3:00. Would probably be an interesting addition considering it's from as far back as 1969.
08:05:20 AM Sep 13th 2012
Crystal Castles:

  • Is it Metal?
  • Is it 11?

I would say not to either, as it's more electrical and it's still quite loud, but 11?
09:30:41 AM Jan 8th 2013
It's synthpunk. I'd say that song in particular maxes out it's hardness around 8 or 9 or so.
09:18:51 AM Aug 7th 2012
edited by MartyD82
Even though I lampshaded it in the trope description (when mentioning the varying degrees of hardness within each level), I'm a little iffy about Nightmare by Avenged Sevenfold being an 8, given how melodic and radio-friendly the song is. If it is, it's probably about as soft as Level 8 gets, just as Dirge For November is about as hard as you can get at that level. For similar reasons, I also moved God Hates Us down to Level 8 (no offense to whoever wrote its original comment, but that song isn't even close to being a 10).

On the other hand, I have no idea how Pretty Fly For A White Guy could be considered a 4, unless you really think the "Give It to Me Baby!" lines detracted from its hardness (they don't - they're actually intended to MOCK bubblegummy choruses). I moved it up to Level 5 and put Gone Away on Level 4, though I'm tempted to remove PFFAWG from the list altogether and replace it with Amazed (which is actually a good example of Level 5 Offspring IMO).

Similarly, The Kids Aren't Alright is too fast and screamy for Level 5 (hence the fact that I moved it up to 6 and removed Self Esteem from the list altogether).

09:32:30 AM Jan 8th 2013
edited by blackmagnetictape
The whole list is biased in favor of metal, unfortunately.
08:27:10 AM Jan 14th 2013
Level 6, especially, should have more variance as it's probably the most musically diverse level on this entire list (pretty much anything from pop to metal can be at that level).
05:14:49 PM May 26th 2012
Megadeth. Does anybody know a level 9 song by them? I still can't find one. I know they are generally softer than that, but maybe I haven't gone through the whole discography. Of the recent stuff the hardest ones I can think of would be "This Day We Fight!", "Head Crusher" (which is already listed as an 8), "Never Dead".. of older ones, maybe one of the Killing Is My Business... songs.. Also "Poison was the Cure" is pretty fast but still very 8-ish (and the bass intro doesn't help heaviness). Or just none simply. I just keep thinking of it.

Also, would Metallica's "Battery" be maybe a little too heavy for level 8? (the pace it has is so similar to "Fight Fire With Fire"'s, which is there as a level 9, it just makes me stare at it)
11:01:55 AM Jun 29th 2012
Black Friday may veer into 9 territory with its rather gruesome lyrics.
10:33:59 AM Aug 31st 2013
"Last Rites/Loved to Death" off of Killing is My Business... And Business is Good! is a 9, although it starts off at a 1.
11:17:01 AM May 23rd 2012
Those new Linkin Park additions. No way is Numb a 7. Its pretty much a solid 4 One Step Closer isn't an 8 either. the hardest Linkin Park song is probably No More Sorrow, and it's not not quite an 8. I'd say that Linkin Park is usually downplayed on the hardness front (their Nu Metal material is pretty consistently on the 6-7 level) but this is ridiculous
04:45:55 PM Aug 17th 2012
edited by MartyD82
Whoever posted them re-posted them a couple weeks ago. I moved Numb down to a 4. I'll leave the other songs to somebody else (personally, I think Given Up is a 7 and One Step Closer is a 6).
12:37:12 PM Sep 9th 2013
Numb at a 4? The guitars are much too heavy and the lyrics are too dark for a 4, putting it along with songs like Hound Dog and Peace of Mind. I'd personally say it's a 6 and One Step Closer is a 7 (partly due to the "SHUT UP!!!" part). Can we at least raise Numb to a 5?
07:37:43 AM Mar 20th 2012
If Declare Independence is a Level 5, does that make Earth Intruders a 4?
05:32:58 AM Jan 19th 2012
Query: Level 6 is supposedly for "lighter post-grunge", yet most post-grunge that makes it into the top 40 seems to be in the 3 − 5 range.
12:42:10 PM Jan 19th 2012
you mean like ballads?
07:38:57 PM Jan 28th 2012
When people think of post-grunge, they usually think of Creed or Nickelback.
10:14:16 PM Jan 28th 2012
edited by azraelfinalstar
Can't really say for creed. nickleback is about a 5 - 6 though (at least, when they are putting out their faster paced songs). So i guess the softest, pop-iest post grunge would be below 6. When i added that statement, i was really thinking about Three Doors down and bush.
05:47:39 PM Mar 3rd 2012
edited by movie007
Harder post-grunge usually tends to overlap with alternative metal - and those are what I think would be placed between 5 and 7. Lighter post-grunge (especially if we're referring to the likes of Nickelback and Creed) can even get low as 1 or 2. Examples would include Far Away by Nickelback and Arms Wide Open by Creed - which tend to be played more on top forty and/or adult contemporary stations, rather than active rock stations.
04:34:58 AM Jun 9th 2012
edited by buddyholly
Frankly, I agree that the description regarding "softer post-grunge" being 6 is puzzling. It doesn't just extend to ballads. The bulk of post-grunge simply does not blur the line between rock and metal, bands like Three Days Grace and Breaking Benjamin which verge into alt-metal and are thus not good examples of the genre given their strong overlap and fusion with other musical styles being the exception. If we are to label Breaking Benjamin and Three Days Grace post-grunge, which I would consider fair albeit only part of the picture, then some post-grunge probably does fall at 6 and 7 - but to say that 6 is where "softer post-grunge" lies strikes me as a nonsensical statement. I would argue that this is where harder post-grunge tends to lie, with softer post-grunge more in the 3-5 range - 3 being adult contemporary ballads, 4 being the bulk of Nickelback and Daughtry's output, 5 being heavier examples that lack alt-metal influence.

To illustrate this, one need only look at the post-grunge songs used in the chart itself: Everlong by the Foo Fighters is labelled a 4, as is How You Remind Me by Nickelback. Tonight by Seether, on the less pop-ish and marginally more classic-grunge-esque end of the genre, is a 5. The only post-grunge examples above 5 used are a few Breaking Benjamin songs.

I'm also not sure what's 6-ish about the bulk of 3 Doors Down's work, an example used by the editor who added the statement above - they're fairly soft to me, definitely not blurring the line between rock and metal. They're not too distinct from Nickelback, for instance. You may perhaps be thinking of Three Days Grace, who I'd certainly agree largely put out songs that would fall under 6, but I'd hardly consider them representative of the bulk of post-grunge music.
08:54:54 AM Aug 7th 2012
I agree with this. I'm going to modify the post-grunge descriptions on the main MSORAMH page.
08:21:27 PM Dec 24th 2011
edited by Stealthy
What would you people say the following songs are on the scale?

03:02:51 AM Dec 27th 2011
Without listening to them, I'm going to hazard a guess they're between 4 and 5. Maybe 6 if one of them is hard enough, but I can't see them going past 6.
01:32:22 PM Jan 30th 2012
My Chemical Romance's cover of Desolation Row might be a borderline 7.
04:22:08 PM Nov 11th 2011
"I Am (all of me)" by Crush 40 is about a heavy as Korn, and yet it's a Level 8. This is just a particular example though; far too many editors don't have a well enough trained "heaviness threshold" to edit properly.
06:07:09 PM Nov 11th 2011
is there really a reason Korn isn't an 8? Heavily distorded guitars, dark lyrics sung aggressively witha heavy beat. True, its not fast, but that doesn't mean its not heavy.
03:55:02 AM Nov 17th 2011
If I genuinely have to explain why Korn isn't 8 then you're not worth arguing with.
11:31:36 AM Nov 17th 2011
so you have no argument and you're passing it off as being superior. Great.
12:49:27 PM Nov 18th 2011
edited by Alucard

  • Lyrics have no bearing on this trope
  • Distortion is a compliment to heaviness, not its definition. Industrial, goth, punk and grunge are often heavily distorted.
  • What exactly is a "heavy beat?" Drums give off roughly the same sound no matter how or how hard you hit them.
  • Speed is paramount.

Need I go on?
07:24:54 PM Nov 18th 2011
  • no, but they are often indicative, especially if harshly sung and/or complemented by screamed or growled vocals.
  • Distortion is a big part heaviness in terms of guitar at least
  • Prominent and aggressive
  • not really. Doom Metal is a great example of how slower paced music can still be quite heavy. And music like Pop Punk can get pretty fast (faster than a lot of metal) but would barely reach the 5 tier.
Judging in all of those factors, Korn does (on occasion at least) reach the 8 tier
03:02:55 AM Nov 19th 2011
  • That doesn't matter since Jonathan Davis doesn't have a powerful voice to begin with.
  • You've said nothing new so my point still stands
  • What is "Prominent and aggressive" supposed to mean? It doesn't tell me anything about why David Silveria or Ray Luzier should be considered heavy.
  • Speed is paramount to achieve level 8.

Why don't you give me an example of these Level 8 songs Korn has supposedly recorded.
08:30:49 PM Nov 19th 2011
  • Which has ... what do with anything? Doesn't change the fact that some Korn songs have extensive bouts of screaming
  • And what point is that again?
  • Well, i'm no drummer, so i really can't describe the technical term any more than that. I guess you could call it a driving beat.
  • Says who?

an example? try that

its not one factor that makes something hard, its a mixture. And let it be noted, i'm not really a fan of Korn anyway.
10:28:53 PM Nov 21st 2011
edited by Alucard
  • Powerful voice = heavy. A few moments of screaming mean nothing; the singer should be either screaming or belting loudly the entire time for Level 8 (Miss Murder by AFI has a guttural scream on it's bridge and yet sits under 5-6 because of the rest of the song's heaviness level).
  • Distortion doesn't mean heavy. I explained above about several other genres utilizing distortion for non-heavy ends, such as atmosphere or for certain auditory effects.
  • "Driving beat?" Either learn something about drumming or don't use it in an argument. Korn isn't double-bass heavy, doesn't roll across the kit, doesn't have blast-beats or much in the way of speed or complexity. That's what heavy drumming is.
  • Says basic logic. If you don't understand why, then you're just not trained or informed enough to understand this page. Go try and find a song under class 8 that isn't at least somewhat fast for most of the song.

And by the way, that song is a 7 (it's actually kind of comparable to Down with the Sickness). It gets too slow at too many parts and the "heavy" screams are done through studio effects. If it drummed the way it did in the intro a bit more often, maybe it would reach 8.

To put it into perspective, the song you've just posted is at about the basic minimum of heaviness to Slipknot's usual output, and their heaviest work is usually falls under 8 or potentially 9 (People = Shit, All Hope is Gone). If you're counting the song's digitized screams, keep in mind that Vermilion part 1 (one of their more melodic works) is under a 6, and the screams and drumming in there are far heavier and more common than in the song you just posted (not to mention the guitar solo). Then there's Number of the Beast by Iron Maiden being under 7 (probably because it has slower portions in it than is normal for Maiden) and yet it's drumming, guitar and bass-work is faster than what you just posted and the vocals are far more intense/loud/powerful.

PS: If you're not a Korn-fan, why are you here? This adds less than nothing.
11:17:45 AM Nov 22nd 2011
  • Now its you're turn to define powerful voice. He screams half the song anyway. Screaming in general makes a song heavier btw.
  • The examples you gave: Industrial: not a type of rock music, so irrelevant. Industrial metal often sits at 8 though. Goth: Do you mean Goth Rock or Goth Metal? Punk: hardcore punk is the only form of punk thats heavily distorted, and it can range all across the hardness scale. Grunge: Grunge gets pretty heavy. See Alice in Chains. A big part of guitar heaviness is how deep and 'growly' sounding the guitar is, and Korn has got that.
  • The drums should be loud, and the drummer should be hitting them hard. Double bass is a speed metal thing, most styles of metal that use that derive from speed metal (IE.Speed -> Thrash -> Death Metal) Alternative Metal often Derives from Grunge, which takes more from the Doom Metal style of metal. Its considered Extreme Metal btw.
  • half the stuff you say either aren't mentioned on the page or directly contradict it. Getting slow and softer at a point in a song then getting heavy again doesn't mean the song isn't heavy on the whole
  • Slipknot usual sits on an 8 (psychosocial, Gematria) and occasionally a low 9 (.Sic, All Hope Is Gone). Most of their stuff doesn't go to a seven. Iron maiden isn't really that heavy. back in the day it was a 10, but now its really more of a 7. But that just goes to show that speed isn't everything. In fact, it says that in the article.
I don't know why you think that you can judge who has a 'Hardness Threshold' (wtf) or not.

and as to your post script, i don't have to be a fan to say that korn occasionally crosses over into 8 territory

This really should be a YMMV trope
02:58:32 AM Nov 23rd 2011
edited by Alucard
  • Half the song isn't enough. Songs on this scale have gotten lower ratings because they're not as heavy all-throughout. And I'm convinced you're playing dumb to be annoying. If you want me to define a powerful voice for you, here: range, stamina, loudness, breath-control, clarity, extremely high pitch or low pitch with high volume. Rob Halford, Freddy Mercury, Steven Tyler; look them up. If Jonathan Davis attempted to reach the volume output of Dio or Bruce Dickinson, he might be able to for a chorus or two. If you think their abilities sound the same, that's production.
  • I already pointed out to you that distortion isn't necessarily to heaviness. Many non-heavy genres use it and distortion alone can carry a band to a 7 usually. There are more extreme levels of distortion on higher levels, and Korn hasn't got that.
  • Drums sound mostly the same no matter how hard you hit them. If you think you're hearing loud drumming, that's usually done in production. And being distant cousins to an extreme genre doesn't make you extreme.
  • I asked you to prove to me that a song can achieve class 8 without speed. A song doesn't exceed the sum of it's parts in heaviness; if it gets slower at any point, the grade will reflect that. Hell, you could probably reduce it down to a math equation if you wanted to. It's just common sense.

I'm not going to argue Slipknot's heaviness level with you since I just used them for an example. If you can admit that Slipknot is usually under a class 8 with their softer material falling under a 7 (a notion I wouldn't argue with), then you can see how little Korn belongs along-side them.

And as for the prospect of turning this into a YMMV trope, you can take that up in TRS, but let me give you some advice: YMMV isn't meant to accommodate for ignorance. If you know so little about a subject, that isn't the trope's fault and you deserve to have your opinions ignored. The fact that this conversation is happening proves my point.

PS: I came here to prove why "I Am (all of me)" doesn't belong under 8, and I think I've done that.
10:24:41 AM Nov 23rd 2011
  • If thats what you mean by a powerful voice, then that has nothing to do with heaviness. at all. Unless you think soul music is heavy. And no, half the song isn't soft, its the verses leading up into the chorus that are soft
  • Yeah, softer genres use distortion. but get this- they're less distorted
  • Then the production makes it harder. And i didn't say it was an extreme style of metal, i;m saying that heaviness in that particular line of metal is a bit different than speed metal based
  • You made the claim first. You have to explain why speed is necessary. The idea of a song slowing down at a point lowering its grade is silly, as most songs slow down at least once.

Actually i said slipknot is usually at an 8 and Korn is usually at a 7. Its just that they have certain songs that reach 8 territory.

And i don't think you have the right to judge how 'ignorant' i am of a trope, or call me a troll.

07:22:32 AM Nov 30th 2011
edited by Alucard
  • I never said soul singers couldn't potentially be heavy if they wanted to (not that that's ever happened). Besides, there was heaviness before grit became the vocal-style of choice. Even Screamin' Jay Hawkins and Howling Wolf could put enough force behind their voices to fill rooms despite how scratchy they were. That was considered heavy at the time and the brain hasn't changed since; we desire bellowing power with our grit or the mind doesn't register it as heavy. Even Dio, Geoff Tate, Joey Belladona and John Bush despite how high-pitched they are could get pretty gritty at times (in fact, them being as high-pitched as they were/are could itself be considered a form of grit since it sounds grating/offensive to ears that aren't used to it). The point is, the greatest of heavy bands have made it quite clear that without power you aren't heavy.
  • This entire point you're trying to make is moot anyway: Korn isn't distorted enough to pus their rating higher than a 7.
  • "Production makes it harder?" You said earlier that industrial metal heaviness is irrelevant and now you want to completely accept artificial heaviness from a studio engineer? As far as I'm concerned there's no difference between the two.
  • For your information, no not all songs slow down at least once, and their rating is effected by this. Asylum by Disturbed is basically non-stop, and if it slows down it's only for a few seconds; Painkiller by Judas Priest doesn't slow down at any point; Highway Star by Deep Purple stays at about the same tempo throughout. If you'll notice, Endless, Nameless by Nirvana mentions that it's slower portions keep it from going higher than 8. If you want to seriously question speed's vital importance, you'll basically be arguing with the page as it is: all the songs brought up and Class 8 are pretty fast and don't generally slow down for as long as Korn tends to (except for maybe Dragula).

Also, I think it might make sense for you to show me more of this Korn material that reaches 8. Based on the song that's already displayed on the page under 8, I'm not convinced.
08:17:27 PM Dec 1st 2011
  • and... you're point is? Mr. Davis may not be that good of a singer, but his vocals are heavily dissonant, which can contribute to hardness. My point was that having a 'powerful voice' as you say does not hardness make.
  • Says who?
  • I said Industrial (not industrial metal mind you) doesn't even fit on the scale because its a form of electronic music, not rock. Industrial Metal obviously does, and it can rank pretty high on the scale. And no, what i'm saying is you can edit you're sound in in the studio to make it heavier. It might look bad on you're musicianship but it makes it heavier non the less. Also, lets take a look at Metallica's Battery. Do you think the slow intro makes it any less a heavy song?

try this song out the rapped vocals aren't too heavy, but the music is, and it has a decently long growled section. Although, before that the guitar fades out for a bit (the bass doesn't)
  • When i say slow down, i don't mean for large sections of the song. Not that slowing down has anything to do with Endless and Nameless ranking lower, it just got softer. a lot softer. And take this for instance. Metalcore gets its heaviest when it slows down into a breakdown
05:07:53 PM Sep 17th 2011
Hounddog, level 4, really? It may have have been for its time, but it was the 1950s. It's probably a 2 or 3 now.
09:08:49 AM Aug 7th 2012
Even today, Hound Dog would still be a 4. 50's Rock could be surprisingly hard at times, which makes sense given that sappy love songs didn't really begin to dominate rock and roll until the early-60's.
10:35:13 AM Aug 31st 2013
I think at their time they would've been a 10. XD
09:04:52 AM Jun 23rd 2011
edited by Sen
PT's "Radioactive Toy" is a 2 or 3?
08:54:48 PM Jun 22nd 2011
"Relatively harder rock. This is about where you can start finding punk, as well; lighter than this and you can't usually muster the kind of anger you need for punk."

Uh, has anyone listened to the first Against Me! record?
07:06:39 PM Jan 13th 2012
the key word here is USUALLY.
06:13:53 PM May 26th 2011
I'm having trouble figuring out how a song that growls the whole song (witht he exception of harsh gang vocals) could be anything less than a 9.
04:30:50 PM Apr 7th 2011
Somebody brought up a valid point:
In the 11 section, they put up Plonk Moist's "Armi Beter." They also stated that were it not for the feedback, they'd be in the 6 range. I'm thinking they might be a little more suited for 10, but they might be too euclidian for even that.
Now, let's have a little debate:
Where should it go?
11:20:27 PM Apr 2nd 2011
OK as the guy who added the Combatwoundedveteran song at level 10 two points I want to make:

1-The band's name is usually written Combatwoundedveteran, no spaces. This is the case on their page and myspace. Grammar doesn't matter much in a band name. 2-I put it at a 10 and added it because it's a great example of just how heavy and chaotic a song can get before reaching brutal death metal, grindcore or borderline noise. It's still clearly powerviolence by such a band, basically extreme hardcore punk. If you listen to the other 11 tracks, there's no comparison. The vocals in the track also at least sound somewhat human, as opposed to the other songs.

I suppose this is worthy for debate and if people who actually listen to goregrind and other extreme music on the 11th level want to weigh in that'd be fine (that track is probably about as high as I go), but I really have a tough time putting it on with the likes of Anal Cunt.
02:19:54 PM Apr 3rd 2011
All I know is that I think it's a bit too heavy for ten. It's definitely closer to Grindcore than punk, and it just seems a bit too noisy. It's a bit closer to Anal Cunt and Intestinal Disgorge.
Also, when I looked those guys up on Discogs, it listed them as Combat Wounded Veteran with Combatwoundedveteran as a name variation.
04:12:03 PM Apr 4th 2011
I'd put it as 10, but it's kind of hard for me to classify. It's about as dissonant as anything at 11, but it's also not particularly heavy compared to most of those bands. Aside from the vocals, there's nothing much heavier than your average crossover thrash song, so I'm more comfortable with it as 10 than 11.
05:05:30 PM Mar 28th 2011
Would Christopher Cross's "Sailing" get a 0?
07:58:59 AM Mar 29th 2011
Probably a 1.
01:31:19 AM Feb 22nd 2011
"lighter than this and you can't really muster the kind of anger you need for punk"

...really? Go listen to Bob Dylan's "Masters of War" and then we'll talk.
02:20:33 PM Apr 3rd 2011
Changed "really" to "usually."
11:26:06 AM Feb 20th 2011
This list seems to be a little tilted towards representing metal and seems a little sparce on information on punk. I did a little to fix that by changing a bit of the wording on the descriptions of the levels, as well as adding a few notes on hardcore punk.
08:45:47 PM Jan 26th 2011
Here's a question. Is Desecration's 'Gore and Perversion' material a 10 or 11? I mean they were all arrested for it and every single record was destroyed but I don't know whether infamy makes a band higher up in the scale or not.
01:23:50 AM Jan 27th 2011
Infamy doesn't make an artist's songs higher on the scale. The one Mayhem song on the list that I can see — "Deathcrush" — is currently at a 10, which seems to be based purely on the hardness of the song.

I haven't heard anything from Gore and Perversion, so I can't judge its hardness yet.
07:41:44 AM Jan 20th 2011
Lady Gaga? Seriously? How exactly is Poker Face rock? The Other Wiki defines Poker Face as electropop, nothing even close to rock.
05:44:45 AM Jan 24th 2011
Don't really understand that one either. Just remove it if you don't want it listed.
04:12:47 AM May 10th 2011
edited by 2birds1stone
Gaga is actually rock-influenced, as much as rock artists would love to disown her. Try the open perfect fifth to augmented fifth at the start of 'Bad Romance', that sort of progression comes from metal.

EDIT: Not to say that she /is/ metal or rock, just saying that there's actually an overlap between rock and pop, and that the two do draw inspiration from each other.
03:33:50 PM Dec 20th 2010
I've just moved this song down from 11 to 10. In my view, at least, the song is no heavier than your standard black metal song; it's just hard to listen to because of the really raw production. There's nothing within that song that strikes me as extreme enough to qualify as an 11, possibly aside from the aforementioned raw production.

So, my question: can a song's production play a part in how hard it is?
08:18:37 PM Dec 27th 2010
I know that you and I have disagreed on 11s before, but I think that it really is tough to define. The raw production may make it unlistenable, as many a certain level of cacophony. Production should play a heavy part in it, as a well mastered song sounds different from its poorly mastered counterpart.

The problem with 11 as is is that it tends to be defined as "beyond extreme," which is very subjective even within an artist's catalog. If we were rating only, say, Beatles songs, Helter Skelter and Revolution would probably be 10s, while Revolution 9 would be at 11. You and I disagreed on where to classify certain SYL songs, and upon further listens I do see your point on OMFG (and think that the other SYL songs on this list are more objectively definable.), but that brings another point: can a certain section of a song bring the whole song up a notch? On a less metal example, think King Crimson's 21st Century Schizoid Man. What of that song as a general verse-chorus song sounds particularly offensive? Not much. But if you take the solo and the ending notes, it raises the whole song. I'm rambling a bit, but do you get where I'm coming from?
04:20:43 PM Jan 1st 2011
I see where you're coming from. After all, sections of songs can lower the song's place on the scale, naturally it works the same in reverse. The average Opeth song, for example, would be a low 10 were it not for the acoustic sections, and would be roughly 1-3 were it not for the death-ish metal sections.

I agree with you on the production side — a really raw production can indeed make a song harder. The Ulver song I linked to I would ordinarily classify as a 9 due to its strong melody, but the production is harsh enough to make it higher on the scale. Still, the aforementioned strong melody means that it's too low for 11, even though (to many) it sounds just as harsh as many songs at 11.
04:39:09 AM Nov 29th 2010
"Long Snake Moan" would be a 5 or 6?
09:33:28 AM Nov 15th 2010
edited by Sen
(sorry, doublepost)
09:33:25 AM Nov 15th 2010
I ran into this while trying to classify Black Light Burns around the scale - Industrial Metal tends to max out around a 5, 6 or 7?
05:40:53 PM Jul 28th 2011
Just for future refrence, it really varies. I'd say a 7 or 8 (Ministry, Rammstein, etc.) is the max, although some bands like Godflesh can reach a 10.
09:57:55 PM Jul 28th 2011
I don't think anything thats actually 'metal' (IE, not counting ballads or a Surprisingly Gentle Song) could be below a 6.
06:38:49 AM Oct 3rd 2011
Yet "Smoke On the Water" and "Immigrant Song" are both rated 5. Are they metal or hard rock?
08:30:20 PM Oct 3rd 2011
Hard Rock. Not really metal at all. Led Zeppelin may be very influental on metal, but only few of their songs (IE Achilles Last Stand) could be classified as metal. I'm not nearly as familiar with Deep Purple, but Smoke on the Water sounds a lot more like Hard Rock too me.
10:38:58 AM Aug 31st 2013
@quimby There are bands such as Fear Factory that are most of the time, an 8/9, and Strapping Young Lad, mostly a 10/11.
09:48:56 PM Nov 6th 2010
I'm getting a little tired of random editors deciding that just because a song has some harsh vocals at one point, it qualifies as a 9 (or higher). It's not their fault for putting them there, and it's not that big of a deal honestly, but does anyone else think there should be a few disclaimers to make it easier to categorize bands? Not just because of that one issue, but in general to improve the process. The rough guidelines work pretty well, but some errors are still made, and if the process could be expedited, everyone wins.

Some of my ideas;

1) Add a few more notes to elaborate on where an example belongs. 2) Elaborate on the characteristics of each level. 3) Related to that, add more genres to each level. 4) Some combination of the above.

Those are my main thoughts. If we could decide whether this is a worthwhile idea in the first place, I would be willing to do my part in putting in whatever we decide is the best idea, by no means limited to my proposals. Feedback is appreciated!
04:20:13 AM Oct 11th 2010
It's probably because I'm going through another of my pretty regular phases, but where would Dream Pop and Shoegazing bands fit on the scale?
06:21:41 AM Oct 11th 2010
I'd say that most dream pop is at 1 or 2. Shoegaze is a bit harder to classify on the scale; I'd say it's between 1 and 4 for the most part.

I'm not an expert on either genre, though.
06:53:07 PM Oct 17th 2010
From that matter, where would R&B (the modern stuff) go? Artists like Mariah Carey, Hall and Oates, and the Bee Gees. I think they would be a little hard to classify.
05:17:34 AM Oct 18th 2010
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but this is the Mohs Scale Of Rock And Metal Hardness. I don't R&B is similar enough to either of those genres to be classified.
07:13:29 PM Oct 18th 2010
There are some pop examples on there, though - and there is a bit of an overlap between pop and soft rock. I suppose R&B, like rap, is separate from rock and metal - and, while some metal fans may like to deny it, metal is a derivative of rock - but R&B, rap, and rock are all derivative of old-school rhythm and blues... which predates rock and roll by nearly a decade. Also, note that we have some acoustic examples at Level One - and, technically, if there are no electrical instruments in a song... then it can't really be described as rock. After all, those songs could have easily existed in the 1940s and prior.
10:24:20 PM Oct 2nd 2010
edited by DJMarred
I meant metal, not rock for Christian Metal. Lyrics generally become dark when they become metal, otherwise the lyrics are about the same level of darkness with christian rock and secular rock. Not much point in making a commentary on all Christian Rock when the variation in lyrical content doesn't become noteworthy until you get into heavy stuff.
04:17:06 AM Oct 3rd 2010
Oh, the variation in lyrical content. Fair enough — I apologise for misunderstanding what you were saying.
03:14:37 AM Sep 20th 2010
edited by Lordnecronus

I've had some thoughts, and I've come up with some ideas for the page:

  • Melodic death metal: most of the songs I've heard from the genre fit an 8 more than a 9. I think the heavier, more death-metally melodeath bands (eg. Arch Enemy, later Hypocrisy) could be at a 9, the more typical bands (eg. Dark Tranquillity, In Flames) and the power metal-influenced ones (Children of Bodom, Norther) would be at an 8. I feel there are some melodeath bands that could be placed at 7; the really melodic ones (Scar Symmetry), and the more metalcore-influenced ones (The Agonist).
  • Symphonic metal: do the symphonic parts decrease the overall heaviness of the song? I feel that a lot of symphonic black metal is closer to a 9 (Emperor) or 8 (Bal-Sagoth) than a 10, due to the keyboards making the sound seem less heavy.
  • Doom metal: where does it fit in the grand scheme of things? This is what I think:
    • Doom starts at 7, with the more Sabbath-influenced bands (Trouble, Saint Vitus). Lighter stoner (Goatsnake, Kyuss) and sludge metal (Down, Mastodon) will either go here or at 8.
    • Doom bands at 8 are generally trad-doom, but heavier than the norm (Candlemass, Reverend Bizarre). The heavier stoner metal bands (Acid King, Sons of Otis) will go here.
    • Doom bands at 9 are either very heavy trad-or-stoner-doom bands (Warning, Electric Wizard) or lighter death/doom bands (My Dying Bride, Novembers Doom). Most sludge metal is here (Crowbar, Eyehategod, some Acid Bath).
    • Doom bands at 10 are almost always death/doom, either of the heavier variety (Winter, Disembowelment) or funeral doom (Thergothon, Ahab). It's possible that the more keyboard-friendly funeral doom bands (Skepticism, Shape of Despair) would be at a 9, due to my above theory that keyboards sometimes lower the heaviness of the song. I also think that the heaviest sludge metal would go here.
  • Black metal: I already mentioned symphonic black metal above, but what about melodic and atmospheric black metal? I assume melodic black metal (Dissection, later Immortal) is at 9. I've already been made aware that atmospheric black metal (Summoning, Drudkh) is generally at 8, but what about ambient black metal bands (Burzum, Wolves in the Throne Room)? They could run the gamut from 8 to 10.
  • Not so much an idea as a question: does melody decrease the heaviness of the song? Is fast, heavy death metal with some semblance of melody (ie. Cryptopsy) going to be lower on the scale than fast, heavy death metal with bugger-all in the way of melody (ie. Devourment)?

These are just suggestions, of course; I'd like to discuss whether they're good guidelines to implement.
03:09:51 PM Sep 24th 2010
edited by Ripheus
Interesting topic, and I'm more than happy to add my two cents to it.

First off, I would argue that most Melodeath is still at 9, even stuff like Dark Tranquillity, but that a large minority of it (mostly more Power or Symphonic stuff, like Wintersun or Children of Bodom) gets down to 8. There might be some that gets to 7, but I'm not sure how much is consistently there.

Symphonic Metal: It depends on how the hardness is integrated, but yeah, the Symphonic parts often decrease the hardness. I would argue that whether it does or doesn't depends on the kind of band: When something like Nightwish or Rhapsody of Fire has a violin-heavy song with operatic vocals, when compared with something like Firewind, which is otherwise not too dissimilar, Firewind is (arguably) noticeably heavier than the other stuff. On the other hand, when you take something like Fleshgod Apocalypse (which I personally would rank at 11), Sigh, or Lyfthraysr, in these cases the symphonic elements provide a contrast between the blast beats that make it just as hard as conventional Death/Black Metal.

I agree pretty much entirely with what you say regarding Doom bands, although I'm not familiar enough with Stoner Doom to argue much about it.

Black Metal - again, pretty much agree. I would put atmospheric and ambient stuff at around 8, with some of the heavier stuff maybe at 9, namely the stuff with constant and harsh vocals.

When it comes to melody, my answer is the same as for symphony - it sometimes makes it softer, sometimes not. With your example, seeing as how I added both the Devourment and Cryptopsy examples to the scale, I can offer somewhat informed input as to the reasoning: Cryptopsy is a 10 (and Devourment 11) because while Cryptopsy is fast and intense, it's much more conventional and (for me) easy to listen to. Devourment is far more alien and has far more disturbing vocals, while still being fast and heavy by many standards. I don't actually think Cryptopsy is lighter, I was going by what the scale prioritizes (in this case, a band that has occasionally melodic parts and conventional death growling is "softer" than one with "pig squeals" and, as you said, bugger all melody), but I'm not sure that the scale is right. In sum, the scale says no, but I wouldn't say that.

So, in terms of implementing these as guidelines, if we (and obviously other editors) could do some refining, I think it would be a great idea. Hope that helps.
04:28:07 PM Sep 24th 2010
Disclaimer: I actually know nothing about music hardness.

That being written, you guys seem to have a really good handle on what you're talking about. Why not edit the page to enact these clearer standards, and trust in the Wiki Magic to fix any errors you may inadvertently commit?
07:04:17 AM Sep 28th 2010
OK, I've prepared a couple notes for the page. I'm going to place them on the article right after I've posted this, since there seems to be consensus; as Some Guy says, hopefully Wiki Magic will help (especially with the part about melody, which I feel needs work, the problem being that I'm not quite sure how to improve it).

  • Sometimes, songs with symphonic elements can be at a lower level of hardness than they would be without the symphonic elements. It depends on how the elements are implemented in the song, however; some more extreme artists use symphonic elements to provide a contrast between blast beats and the like, and manage to be just as heavy as other conventional death/black metal bands. Sorting these songs out on a case-by-case basis is the best solution.
  • Melodic tendencies can play a part in the song's hardness. Similar to the above note regarding symphonic elements, melody can decrease the hardness of a song, but it depends on how it's used, and as such the songs will be handled on a case-by-case basis.
02:36:16 AM Sep 18th 2010
Can you possibly have too many songs?
02:33:26 AM Sep 20th 2010
Not unless the page breaks due to its size.
10:20:43 AM Jul 28th 2010
edited by movie007
Should there be a Level 0 for all-acoustic songs? As it's sort of become trendy for rock bands to do a few acoustic songs, they should probably be mentioned somewhere - even if they aren't, technically, rock.
04:19:58 PM Aug 1st 2010
The scale makes it pretty clear that an all-acoustic-song qualifies as a 1 at minimum. There's no reason to create a level 0, since under the definitions given, every acoustic song is already well accounted for (IE they all fall between 1, which is extremely soft rock, and 6, which is where Hard Rock meets Heavy Metal). So no, I would argue that a Level 0 is unnecessary, and that the scale is sufficiently well-developed that no major structural changes are needed (at least for now anyway).
04:36:11 PM Aug 3rd 2010
Okay, I see what you're saying.
01:50:52 AM Jul 14th 2010
We need an example of a really heavy acoustic song. I can't see how an acoustic song could be a 6 in heaviness. Maybe an acoustic version of a Death Metal band's song?
04:35:07 AM Jul 14th 2010
Where would Planet Caravan by Pantera go on the list? I think it would more a 2 than a 1. Cemetery Gates could probably be a 5 or a 6, though. I guess songs that combine light and shade (acoustic and heavy riffs) could be ranked as high. Perhaps, so could Fade to Black (or One) by Metallica.
06:59:03 AM Jul 27th 2010
According to our Metallica page, Fade to Black is a six. I'd say One is harder, but its hard parts are on electric, not acoustic. Hardest song on acoustic instruments I can think of would be some songs by Judgement Day, like The Cobra's Strike. I'd reckon those'd be around an 8, about as hard as typical Thrash Metal.
09:39:01 AM Jun 25th 2010
What about groups with songs of varying hardness, like Opeth or Between the Buried and Me?
10:02:51 AM Jun 25th 2010
I feel the page is more about specific songs than the artists that make them. That said, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to have more than one song for an artist if that artist has songs of varying hardness.

Using Opeth as an example, the songs "Bleak" and "Harvest" (just to pick two) could both be on the list, "Bleak" at 9 (where it currently is) and "Harvest" at 3 (my guess as to its hardness level). If we do this, I think there should be a 2-song maximum to make sure the page doesn't become too concentrated on certain artists.
07:56:53 PM May 13th 2010
Seems like a missed moment of awesome to not call this the "Mosh Scale of Rock And Metal Hardness".
09:06:30 AM Jun 23rd 2011
We can alt-title that maybe?
05:54:01 PM Apr 24th 2010
What's that about weight 12? I mean, sure, there might be some over the extreme, but I don't see music without guitar, bass, drums nor vocals being harder/heavier than tier 11 ones, or even rock/metal.
04:39:47 PM Apr 26th 2010
I'm slightly confused myself as to what exactly is so extreme about 12. Merzbow, granted, is quite alien and intense, but the Whitehouse example wasn't so much (in my opinion anyway). The scale measures "Hardness" which is an abstract quality, a hard one to exactly monitor, and I'm not 100% that the examples for 12 are any harder, more extreme, or even more difficult to listen to than the examples for 11, or even 10. Still, if there were better examples of noise, or other extreme electronic genres, I wouldn't be opposed to stretching "hardness" to include them. I just think they should be genuinely more extreme or hard than the 11s and 10s. Just my two cents on the issue.
07:06:51 AM Apr 27th 2010
I was considering using a different Whitehouse example, I just thought it would be most representative of their "sound", and as a group they DEFINITELY belong square in 12, maybe I could revert it to my older idea of a Wolf Eyes/early Black Dice example? I concur, however, that it should be a "special category", like X or 0 or just "Unclassifiable", because grind is harder, objectively.
01:35:53 PM Apr 27th 2010
I had a thought; Perhaps the point of 12 isn't that it's harder, but instead that it stretches the definition of music. It's the point at which music becomes noise, and vice versa. If we included a hypothetical 0 (for things like John Cage's [1], which do the same thing in the opposite direction, it might work better as a logical extreme. Also, premature apology if I formatted the link wrong.
05:17:18 AM Apr 30th 2010
I agree that Noise is very far from Celine Dion, but it's far in another way than grindcore is. (Just as South America and Australia are both far from Europe, but still not close to each other.) That's why I suggested above that we use two dimensions, or maybe even add a third one for the content of the lyrics (if existent). Going from love songs and fun songs to songs about everyday life, then to songs about sad themes, then political and protest songs, then fighting and war, then about crime (like Gangsta Rap), and finally Rape The Dog material. (This would work for every musical genre, not only for rock and metal.) Often related to the existing hardness, but not necessarily.
05:50:43 PM May 1st 2010
Personally, I don't think there should be a twelve, because it could lead to escalation. We already have edit wars about what belongs at eleven. I think we should have have a category for "Is this music?" though, but it shouldn't just be noise, it could include strange, yet nonabrasive things such as this . Personally, I'd suggest the number i because just as imaginary number stand on a separate axis from real numbers, this stands apart from normal music.
12:29:23 PM May 2nd 2010
Same here. I love everything on 12, but I find 11 too extreme. I'll fix it.
03:50:10 PM Jun 2nd 2010
Speaking of those edit wars at 11, feel free to shuffle around stuff i put down for 11, I might be grading some bands/songs a bit too high, I think most of my edits (mindly rotten, Origin, Portal) are a good fit for 11, if you dont think so you can move them aruond or delete them. Oh, Someone should edit back in the 'i' or noise music level, just don't put it at 12 again.
03:50:10 PM Jun 2nd 2010
Speaking of those edit wars at 11, feel free to shuffle around stuff i put down for 11, I might be grading some bands/songs a bit too high, I think most of my edits (mindly rotten, Origin, Portal) are a good fit for 11, if you dont think so you can move them aruond or delete them. Oh, Someone should edit back in the 'i' or noise music level, just don't put it at 12 again.
11:08:14 AM Mar 28th 2010
Hey, I was wondering, could this scale be applied to other genres of music? I was thinking electronic music personally, with the lighter end being occupied by things like uplifting trance or synthpop, the lower end having things like terrorcore and speedcore, and the other genres filling in the middle. So, is this exclusive to rock/metal, or could I start adding electronic examples?
04:45:37 PM Mar 29th 2010
I would say, go for it, but with this caveat; The scale was designed for rock and metal bands, and so it might need some revision to work for other genres.
10:55:37 PM Mar 30th 2010
Actually, now that I've thought about it, it might be better to create a page specifically for electronic music. Extreme electronic music is, in my opinion, hard to compare with extreme metal, or indeed metal in general. Electronic music is insanely diverse, easily a category by itself, so it might even be easier to simply make a new scale.
10:17:20 AM Apr 9th 2010
Seeing as they already stuck Celine Dion on the examples for this one... Even given that it's the softest end of the scale, who would call her "rock"?
05:11:35 AM Apr 30th 2010
I'd second making another page for electronic music. Or we add a second dimension to this: One scale for hardness (loudness, distorted guitars, faster drums), one scale for electronic-/synthness (for lack of a better word). Artificiality, maybe? Human voices << violins and other string instruments << guitars << distorted guitars << electronic music << electronic noise.
03:24:33 AM May 10th 2011
Rock is often heavily pop-influenced these days, and pop is often heavily rock-influenced, I think most pop belongs on this scale somewhere
04:44:19 AM Jun 9th 2012
edited by buddyholly
I'd love a scale for electronic music personally, since I don't think electronic music is generally directly comparable to rock music - it's often apples and oranges, really. You could cite some overlap between synthpop and New Wave (usually 3-5), and some overlap between industrial and some forms of metal (7 and above) and gothic rock (all over the place), but generally speaking electronic music has few blurred lines with rock. Given this, the way electronic hardness manifests would often differ from how rock hardness manifests.

On that note, hip hop could also warrant its own scale for similar reasons - even more glaring diversion from rock stylistic elements at times, in fact, barring some marginal overlap in nu-metal (6-7). The sliding scale of its hardness also warrants analyzing, and it would also be an apples and oranges comparison if placed in this chart. R&B could maybe be placed on that chart as well given that there is strong overlap between modern R&B and more club-oriented rap.
09:53:43 AM Mar 13th 2013
Sometimes, extreme electronic blends in with extreme metal. What would any metal-loving tropers have to say about this, a black metal/speedcore combo?
08:23:19 PM Mar 26th 2015
It would be nice to have a separate scale for electronic music, or in general, music from any and all genres outside of rock and metal. Crossovers of rock/metal with other genres would do fine in our current hardness scale, but the purely electronic/orchestral/dance/hip-hop/etc songs don't seem to fit in with the general idea of why the scale was here in the first place (and why it was named as such); additionally, the scale is already very large and confusing for some, and songs that stick out like a sore thumb would certainly add to that confusion. Furthermore, rock/metal hardness is a "quality" unique to the genre, but it somehow falls under the whole perception of what I would call "musical intensity" in other genres (in other words, hardness, for me, is just a perception of musical intensity unique to rock/metal).

I'm planning to make a separate scale for the songs that have less in common with rock/metal to lessen the bloat and to further define the idea of what musical intensity is. The new scale could be a Super Trope to our current scale for rock/metal (as it would encompass music other than the rock/metal we have in our scale right now) and have a punny name as well, like...hmm...the Mercalli Scale of Musical Intensity (a pun on the real-life scale for measuring earthquake intensity)...or something :)

Though this will be a big project and will require some planning and collaboration. I'd love to have someone to work with on this.
08:28:27 PM Mar 26th 2015
Whoops...I seem to have typed my topic as a reply instead of posting a new one xD Anyway, I'll just repost it :)
05:03:09 PM Mar 21st 2010
edited by
Does anyone else believe that perhaps every rock or metal band should have this on their page describing their level? For example, Metallica could have something there that says something like "The '80s songs were 7 & 8 usually, though The '90s songs were in the 5 to 6 range, with some country and blues thrown in for good measure. Now, they're back to the 80s mayhem, though it is somewhat apparent that they aren't QUITE as hard as they used to be." As horrible sounding as that was, I'm kinda new here still, so... but still I think it would be a good idea, though.
07:07:01 PM Mar 21st 2010
That's a good idea, especially as this page is currently starving for wicks.
05:02:15 PM Mar 27th 2010
Yeah, I've been trying to implement that, and I've done so for the big 4 of 80's thrash pages.
04:47:05 AM Jun 9th 2012
That's a brilliant idea. I like it.
03:52:24 PM Mar 15th 2010
edited by CBanana
I'm pretty confused as to why examples were deleted. If they didn't fit their level, wouldn't it be better to move the songs to a better suited level? There's really no sufficient explanation for why examples were deleted.

Since this wiki is about collecting and cataloging examples, it does seem odd that we'd be deleting them.
04:16:09 PM Mar 15th 2010
I was afraid people wouldn't want it to look excessively cluttered, and I think it would be awkward to have multiple examples for a single artist, so I removed the ones that I thought were the least useful. Some of the examples that were "deleted" were merely replaced by a different song by the same artist—"All Nightmare Long" being replaced by the thrashier and more representative "Dyers Eve".
04:20:11 PM Mar 15th 2010
Alright then, thanks. I'll put the one's back that weren't by the same artist. This is mostly because our very wiki mission statement is to collect examples. We shouldn't worry about being cluttered as we could use that criteria for all trope pages.
08:53:04 PM Mar 16th 2010
Since people might be curious about where certain songs by their favourite artists may fit on the scale, we should maybe have a section for each band.

If Immigrant Song by Led Zeppelin is Level 5, I'm guessing that Over the Hills and Far Away would be either Level 3 or 4 - while Stairway to Heaven would be either Level 2 or 3.
10:33:38 PM Mar 3rd 2010
This scale is a great idea, and I think most of the levels are well defined so far. However, The examples for 11 seem to be poorly illustrative of what 11 is. Carcass, while a great band, is hardly one of the most extreme bands ever, and aside from incredibly over-the-top lyrics, neither is Anal Cunt. I have some examples that I think would be more representative of what 11 sounds like, but I don't want to crowd the examples section too much. Nor do I want to delete someone else's work without allowing for justification, so I was wondering if someone would like to tell me what they think.

As for the music I would consider more representative, I was thinking about something like This, This, and This. Feedback would be appreciated.
10:50:53 PM Mar 12th 2010
Add any examples you want. The Wiki Magic will get rid of any that don't actually fit.
11:25:41 AM May 21st 2010
edited by
I have no problem with this page existing but it seems to me that it is incredibly subjective and probably needs to be marked as that, if not even marked as Just for Fun. Other than that, stuff like Optimistic by Radiohead weighing in at 2, when it's one of the bleakest songs I've ever heard, seems like it should give it a bit more weight. Same for Black Hole Sun and Hurt.
11:45:38 AM May 21st 2010
edited by CBanana
It says specifically on the page that lyrics don't change what level of the scale they're on. Lyrics do tend to get more edgy, depressing, and violent as you go up the scale but that's incidental to the scale itself.
02:04:04 PM Dec 9th 2012
Any opinions on the average hardness of The Rolling Stones, AC/DC, Megadeth, or any other bands that aren't too prominently featured on the examples?
05:29:17 AM Nov 23rd 2013
edited by
  • sorry, delete this. I replied instead of starting a new topic*
Collapse/Expand Topics