Discussion MediaNotes / MohsScaleOfRockAndMetalHardness

Obviously not, since otherwise, there would be no distinction between levels 9 to 11 (and off the scale). Do you really think there's no difference between Melodic Death Metal and Brutal Death Metal?

Hello!

A Ninja With AIDS and anty21, please tell me.

anty21, please tell me.

Hard 10, borderline 11. Please note that I'm not an "expert" on the scale, and I will not automatically answer your messages.

It’s okay, the reason why I’m asking you is because I’m not an expert either. I do have a question about the song, though ; what kind of Electronic Music is it?

Also, there should be a detailed explanation for why each song is in the level that it is. Again, if you can, please answer this alongside my previous message, anty21.

Add any examples you want. The Wiki Magic will get rid of any that don't actually fit.

hrm, I too think 11 should be a bit more well defined. Though some of these might be closer to 10. Speaking of 10, some more black metal should populate 10: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdnnCFo8Z-4&feature=related https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=revelation+of+doom&aq=f I'll throw in some stuff for 11: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPw0JUptfUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-eipPcqtjs&feature=related https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt1OsomqlAg&feature=related https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwIt77jL2sY&feature=related https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_AsK3rv5so

You should expand the definition of power metal bands to 6 and 8. You should point out at 8 you can find the 'heavier' power metal. Like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBYmRtYYhNI&feature=related and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfSAcSPcBPs&feature=related https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYdbLfLnIHk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiELvMf9zo8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpE2eqPbapk At 6 you find the lighter european power metal, the stuff that gets labeled 'flower metal' by some metal fans. Like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vJAPiRhRT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEMeBTmiX4g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUP6LlIloXA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr2feVpBFVQ&feature=related https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6FKP80mbio

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.

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.

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?

• sorry, delete this. I replied instead of starting a new topic*

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

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".

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.

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.

Hello!

That's a good idea, especially as this page is currently starving for wicks.

Yeah, I've been trying to implement that, and I've done so for the big 4 of 80's thrash pages.

That's a brilliant idea. I like it.

Great idea!

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.

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.

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"?

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.

Rock is often heavily pop-influenced these days, and pop is often heavily rock-influenced, I think most pop belongs on this scale somewhere

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.

Sometimes, extreme electronic blends in with extreme metal. What would any metal-loving tropers have to say about this, a black metal/speedcore combo?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WVPHQt1QbI

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.

Whoops...I seem to have typed my topic as a reply instead of posting a new one xD Anyway, I'll just repost it :)

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_Paper . 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.

Same here. I love everything on 12, but I find 11 too extreme. I'll fix it.

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.

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.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

We can alt-title that maybe?

Hello!

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.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

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.

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.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

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).

Okay, I see what you're saying.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

Not unless the page breaks due to its size.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

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.

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?

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.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

Oh, the variation in lyrical content. Fair enough — I apologise for misunderstanding what you were saying.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

Hello!

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.

I don't think anything thats actually 'metal' (IE, not counting ballads or a Surprisingly Gentle Song) could be below a 6.

Yet "Smoke On the Water" and "Immigrant Song" are both rated 5. Are they metal or hard rock?

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.

@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.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

Hello!

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

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?

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.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

Don't really understand that one either. Just remove it if you don't want it listed.

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.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

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.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

Changed "really" to "usually."

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

Probably a 1.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

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.

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.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

Hello!

the key word here is USUALLY.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

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.

I think at their time they would've been a 10. XD

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

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.

If I genuinely have to explain why Korn isn't 8 then you're not worth arguing with.

so you have no argument and you're passing it off as being superior. Great.

Fine.

• 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?

• 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.

• 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.

• 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? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyPVJYAoMQw 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.

• 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.

• 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.

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

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QnyhPyld_0 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

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

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.

My Chemical Romance's cover of Desolation Row might be a borderline 7.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

you mean like ballads?

When people think of post-grunge, they usually think of Creed or Nickelback.

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.

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.

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.

I agree with this. I'm going to modify the post-grunge descriptions on the main MSORAMH page.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

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).

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?

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

Black Friday may veer into 9 territory with its rather gruesome lyrics.

"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.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

The whole list is biased in favor of metal, unfortunately.

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).

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

It's synthpunk. I'd say that song in particular maxes out it's hardness around 8 or 9 or so.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

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?

See the Megadeth page for their general standing. AC/DC is mostly 4 or 5, while The Rolling Stones are generally a solid 4.

well my original question still hasn't been answered but this is a somewhat similar one: http://youtu.be/lmpU0Uo5RCc 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?

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.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

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).

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

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.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

I agree that such a split would make the list a bit more detailed. But it would also probably make it too cluttered. :(

Should we give it a try to see how that turns out anyways?

I think splitting it up would create too many needless categories and too much hassle trying to sort all the songs further.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

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).

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?

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.

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...

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.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

Hello!

Honestly, i'd say Crazy Train is a five at best.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

I'd say at least 6. I mean, would people classify bands like minor threat as a 5?

For Level 5, "hardcore punk" should be replaced with "early punk" (ie. The Sex Pistols, The Clash etc).

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

P Sure it's just pretense. Though it doesn't seem that far-fetched.

I remember when there was one, but there was just an example by Merzbow.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

Fixed it. Don't know how that happened, however. XD

Thanks for fixing it so quickly! Your computer had a connection error, so some of the page wasn't saved after you edited it.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

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.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

They're usually a pretty solid 7. I'd say that level would be your best bet.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

I also really don't think Redneck by Lamb Of God belongs at Level 10. It's a hard 8 IMO.

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.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

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.

Apparently, there are Scorpions examples at level 8, but I don't agree with any of them.

The closest to this is Alien Nation, but it only gets this close because of its drums. It's more of a solid-hard 7, all in all.

Even with its shouted vocals, Virgin Killer is somewhere between a hard 6 and an average 7, and does not go beyond that. "He's a woman, She's a man" by the same band is definitely a harder song.

Ditto for Animal Magnetism, despite its Doom Metal-like sound, and "Sails of Charon", despite its somewhat disorienting Oriental influences.

Hard Rock at this level could exist in theory, but it's usually Hair Metal with a lot of thrash influence in practice.

I finally removed Scorpions examples at level 8, as I think that with the possible exception of Alien Nation, no one of these songs sounds even remotely close to Thrash Metal and/or Doom Metal at this level (Animal Magnetism is way too ethereal, compared to Doom Metal at this level).

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

I agree. It's a matter of influence: many Electronic music artists are blatantly influenced by rock and metal^note Nero's sound is influenced by electronic rock and industrial metal, while Excision's sound is heavily influenced by brutal death metal, for example, 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.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

It would be easy enough to split each level into a separate page but I wonder if anyone wants to do something more substantial.

Hello!

Hello!

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

Sounds about right to me.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

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.

Hello!

Always remove broken links that you cannot replace, but remember to leave an edit reason out of politness.

Hello!

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.

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.

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.

I think a soft 11 fits pretty well. While level 11 dubstep is oppressive and hard in that sense, Merzbow (also level 11) is not.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

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.

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

Hello!

@anty21 What's their GTSK? (Genre, Tempo, time Signature and Key)?

I'd love to work on this: we're algamating genres that have too little in common. A lot of music at the upper levels is just music that is weird or annoying but not really "hard". Maybe returning to a pure rock-metal scale, creating a electronic music scale, a classical music scale, etc...

Hello! Yes, this is a good idea.

Hello!

I'm not sure about the second movement of Shostakovitch's String Quartet No. 8, but the third movement of his Symphony No. 8 is at least a hard 6, and quite possibly a soft 7 (especially given the drums at the end).

Penderecki's Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima sounds like a fairly soft 11.

Those are definitely other contenders. Prokofiev's Scythian Suite, especially "The Evil God and the Dance of the Pagan Monster" is another one that comes to mind. It must have sounded insane in 1916.

Modernism in general is on the upper ends of the scale. Even Stravinsky is more extreme than most metal (at least outside of extreme metal), and the Serialists are a step further. I’d place The Quartet for the End of Time up there with Threnody for Hiroshima. Whoever made the description about classical becoming symphonic metal at around 6 doesn’t know much about classical.