I'll gladly defer to anyone and everyone who may not categorize QOTSA (or any others in my brief blurb list) as metal. In my book, there's a lot of subjectivity inherent in the tag, as there is in most other genres/labels, too (i.e. quagmires such as "pop" "r&b" "jazz" "punk" "folk" or "rock"). That's why I placed quotation marks around the word ("metal") before listing those bands. I simply wanted to list some bands that might establish some context for Kevin.

"Metal" has been pounded, bent, stretched, and worked over in so many directions over the past 35 years, that, in my opinion, the word can arguably encompass anyone from Judas Priest to Nazareth to Primus -- not necessarily in my book, but perhaps in at least some folks' books. -Alternately, the word can mean little if anything at all, by itself. Even if we add a qualifier, there's no consensus. I know folks who consider "prog metal" to mean anything from Rush to Metallica to Tool. Heck, I'd hardly tag any Rush or Led Zeppelin as "metal" of any sort.  Others may and have and do.

As for physical appearance, it has little or no bearing on my own personal consideration of a particular band's alloy or lack thereof. Perhaps a given genre might better be defined not by sound, tone, crunch, amp technique, or peak volume interface (amp? guitar? mike?). Perhaps "metal" might bear further (better?) definition through themes, subject matter, and musical structure. To me, the stereotypical "metal" band's physical appearance has been just about as dynamic as its sound. Perhaps "metal" is more an ideal or target, than an accurate tag -- something for which musicians strive and by which they try to differentiate themselves from others they consider totally nonmetallic -- shall we say dielectric?  :-)

You are by no means way off base. And I completely agree with your closing paragraph.

And, yes, I've heard of Ass-Suck.

Cheers