First American metal band???

S.D. wrote:

The "metal image" proved to more of a hindrance on the music being taken seriously by anyone outside the scene.

So, The Tubes and the Mothers and Genesis had ridiculous images. I can pretty much guarantee that you [and yours] would have to agree that their music was taken seriously.

Ignorance spans every molecule of this planet. I mean, I don't take Lady Gaga seriously simply because of her look. But I have only ever heard one of her songs. So, I am totally ignorant about her. Maybe she is awesome. I really do not want to investigate that though.

Iggy Pop smearing peanut butter on himself.
David Bowie running around in full Nazi regalia.
David Johansson? Don't get me started.

All beloved to this day by critics much outside those scenes.

You can find goofy imagery throughout every genre in music history if you look hard enough. I was saying that the prevalence of it in metal (especially in the early to mid-80s) definitely didn't help them to be taken seriously by people outside the scene.

S.D. wrote:

You can find goofy imagery throughout every genre in music history if you look hard enough. I was saying that the prevalence of it in metal (especially in the early to mid-80s) definitely didn't help them to be taken seriously by people outside the scene.

And I am agreeing with half of that. I think hip-hop imagery and culture is stupid. I think country hick shitkicker imagery and culture is stupid. The whole Mudvayne/Slipknot thing is stupid. I don't take any of that seriously. But I am not in those scenes and those people would not care for a second if I take them seriously or not. I sure as hell didn't care about the opinions of the Connecticut Bluehairs or anyone else for that matter. Music is not supposed to be taken "seriously". It is supposed to be a release for the performer and listener.

My point is that if you get tunnelvision about one single aspect of a genre of music - that is elitism incarenate.

Since when does beeing taken seriously have anything to do with anything? Beeing an artist is as much dressing up as it is creating music. That goes for EVERY style of music. It's entertainment. It didn't hold back metal any more than Madonna wearing cone-bras! Are we forgetting how popular metal was in the '80s? Not to forget how that whole style is fashion today! Have you not seen the late teenagers in Converse and studded belts today? Or the H&M store selling Iron Maiden and Motörhead shirts?

Yay. It's the "What was Metal and what Wasn't Metal in the 70s?" Chinese Fire Drill all over again.

I repeat... BILLY JOEL tr00 arkayne mettle steele ATTILA!! Attack from 1970! Wouldst that I had six sacred vinyls, four unopened!! Ehehehehehehe!!!

S.D. wrote:

In the end does it really matter? Not in the slightest. If you like a band you like them, PERIOD, what someone else calls them means absolutely nothing.

We've had this discussion about once every 3 months for the past several years, we all essentially say the same thing each and every time.

True. True.

However it does make for interesting discussions between music geeks like us on boards like this.

I can't speak for anyone else here but to me at least, my friends, magazines and even MTV defined what metal was, and that included Aerosmith, AC/DC etc.

Magazines like Creem and Sounds were written by journalist, but journalist that were fans of the above bands, who felt their music was slighted by music journals such as Rolling Stone and a slew of British magazines. Despite the commerical success of artist like Alice and even Led Zeppelin, the so called establish media treated them like they were ass clowns. While I like some of the artist that these snobs championed, they made it seem if you prefered KISS over Elvis Costello, not only did you have bad taste in music but you probably were a meathead.

As far as me, in my neighborhood, not Circus magazine, dicated bands we saw as hard rock as Journey, Boston, Reo Speedwagon, to separte it from Sabbath, AC/DC, Deep Purple etc

I don't really care that much, I love music and don't get too hung up on labels but it is very true that the music press had a lot of influence on the labeling of bands. For the first couple of years slogging around the London pub scene, AC/DC were considered a punk band purely because elitist journos didn't want to be seen to like a straight up rock band. How many on here would agree with them?

I think that we will always be going round in circles on this as we can't even agree what 'Heavy' is.

The biggest question is what is heavy metal and then decide which was first. Easy to say who was first team to win the super bowl, but hard to come up with a first on a floating definition. Interesting points and I've enjoyed reading all these posts. I would say that the first band appearing in print labeled as heavy metal would be the winner. If I was making the case, it would be MC5 or Blue Cheer and that is simply because that's what I've read and heard over the years. My opinion is that Jimi Hendrix was the first because he was loud, outrageous and lit his guitar on fire.... On top of all that he kicked serious butt in a way that ain't nobody seen before. How much more metal could you get in the late 60's. The rub is he went to England and came back as an import, so he might be disqualified according to the rules of metal.

Mystery solved!

Or possibly more seriously, I always thought of these guys as Metal at the time I was getting into it (1980) even though by no means super heavy.

kmorg wrote:

Since when does beeing taken seriously have anything to do with anything?

You don't get it, Kurdt. Everyone has to bury themselves in progressions and classical structures. Otherwise, whatever you feel when you listen to any other musical form, or put on a t-shirt with your favorite band, or strap a studded wristband on, or pack a cucumber in your drawers, is inferior and not worthy of seriousness.

UNCLE SAXON'S KICKASS CDS wrote:

kmorg wrote:

Since when does beeing taken seriously have anything to do with anything?

You don't get it, Kurdt. Everyone has to bury themselves in progressions and classical structures. Otherwise, whatever you feel when you listen to any other musical form, or put on a t-shirt with your favorite band, or strap a studded wristband on, or pack a cucumber in your drawers, is inferior and not worthy of seriousness.

Well, if you put it that way! Lol

Heck, I even take pride in the fact that you misspell my name in a way that it identical to how Kurdt Vanderhoof of Metal Church fame does

After joining this board and hearing some of my favorite bands I considered metal being called "not metal" I have bowed out of these disscussions. However, it is a fun read to hear everyone talk back and forth on the subject.

DallasBlack wrote:

After joining this board and hearing some of my favorite bands I considered metal being called "not metal" I have bowed out of these disscussions. However, it is a fun read to hear everyone talk back and forth on the subject.

ha, me too. I've read each and every post in this thread and I have nothing really profound to add. I'm just gonna keep on reading these posts on this thread while I rock out to some 70's heavy metal!

Sir Lord Baltimore, definitely, followed by Riot, Legend and Survivor. Can't think of any other metal American bands that debuted before 1980 at the moment.

Now that everything is cyrstal clear let's hear what people think the answer is (the first US metal band) regardless of what everyone thinks (like I stated before: we all have different experiences, listening beginnings, geographical locales, people influences --ie older brothers, friends, etc-- that have influenced our thoughts and definitions and understandings). We need to learn to appreciate that as we can't seriously think that any one of us has all the correct answers, viewpoints, etc as they are surely skewed by the above mentioned variables.

So if you you think it was KISS, Aerosmith, MC5, Petra (that was hilarious), Twisted Sister, Bad Company, Kansas (their early was quite heavy rock), Suffocation....I don't care--just wondering what everyone's thoughts are.

Without worrying about anyone else's personal thoughts, please state who you consider to be US's first metal band (however you define it). Just for my own food for thought.

Thanks.

I may have mentioned this before but Blue Cheer!

This was pretty "heavy" for 1968

That guitar tone was as dirty and black as Tony's (IMHDO)

TheGreatDuck wrote:

Sir Lord Baltimore, definitely, followed by Riot, Legend and Survivor. Can't think of any other metal American bands that debuted before 1980 at the moment.

Sir Lord Baltimore is a good choice. Formed in the late 60's they are one of the first groups who were referred to as "heavy metal" in a review long before "heavy metal" had become a common term for the heavy rockers.

In regards to my Iron Butterfly nomination......


"ya gotta listen to the entire song to get where I am coming from, or not"

good call on Sir Lord Baltimore

Bumping so folks can add any new insights. Or just to stir the pot. Could go either way.

Blue cheer or Jimi Hendrix

Frank Sinatra. *drops mic*