The Book of Heavy Metal...Metal or Not?

My two cents:

I think The OCI and TOB are talking about the same thing when it comes to what defines heavy metal in terms of its specific elements. I understand completely and concur. I have experienced many instances where I KNOW a band is not metal based on this and NOT by their guitar tone, popularity, image, etc. Real heavy metal is defined by its elements.

That said, I would never think of applying that to the 70s bands, or even the 60s ones, because what I've heard of most of them element-wise is the SAME as "true" metal bands that we all know and love.

Heavy metal does not have to be "dark" to be metal. Granted, that is definitely ONE element, but not the defining one. I've heard lots of other genres with a "dark" feel to them, but are they metal? (Classical music, Michael Jackson's 'Thriller', etc.) Nope. It's a "heaviness" factor, which can be present in lots of musical genres, not only metal. Heaviness is a mood, if you will, not a sound in and of itself. This is the problem with nu-metal bands like Slipknot, K O R N, etc. Lots of loud sound, but little actual heaviness. There is some, though. Those bands are not totally without it, but I still don't like 'em. Heaviness can be dark, or it can be something that makes you feel like shouting and like you can fly. Power metal bands (or 'flower' metal, haha), can be put in that category. Those bands can be just as heavy as the darker ones. It's merely a different kind of heavy. I've heard some black metal songs that aren't very heavy at all. Same with some thrash, and power metal, as well.

Following up with ToB.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Interesting points to consider Black Coffee.

Black Coffee wrote:

By the mid 70s, heavy metal was an established genre, with a defined scene. Both the media and fans referred to it as such. It was not a nebulous term. When I was a wee metal lad, learning at the feet of my elders (who had been in the scene for years), they never referred to Aerosmith, AC/DC, or Zeppelin as "hard rock".

What specific musical elements/parameters define "hard rock" vs. "heavy metal" then? I think this will help clarify why I don't think the children inspired by Aerosmith and the children inspired by Black Sabbath should be placed in the same genre.

But the thing is, the children were, for the most part, inspired by both bands. There wasn't any line between the two, even after I got into the scene in the early 80s. In fact, I can't remember any debate about the 70s metal bands even coming up until the late 80s. As for the musical parameters, those were initially laid down by those in the 70s scene.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Black Coffee wrote:

It was always heavy metal. Hard rock was The Who and David Bowie.

This is the first time I have ever heard Bowie referred to as hard rock.

Not even The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars?

Temple of Blood wrote:

Quote :

I assert that musical genres don't retroactively change to exclude the originators of the genre. This doesn't happen with any other genre of music, why would it happen with metal?

Agreed.

If bluesy hard rock a la Led Zep, Deep Purple, Aerosmith, etc. is "heavy metal" then the movement inspired by Black Sabbath needs its own name. To state it simply, the majority of BS's music was "dark" and the other artists were more about "good time" music about sex and such. There are exceptions of course but in general I think those divisions are true.

The heavy metal fans of the time didn't seem to think that division was necessary. And while Sabbath was indeed the "darkest" of the original HM bands, that simply puts them on the far end of the genre spectrum, just as John Coltrane was on the "far end" of jazz for much of his career. Coltrane took jazz in directions that Charlie Parker didn't, but Coltrane's jazz style didn't mean Charlie Parker's jazz style wasn't jazz, just as Sabbath's heavy metal style didn't keep Aerosmith's or Zeppelin's style from being heavy metal. Sabbath was/is obviously important, and their influence has only grown as time goes on, but they weren't the fulcrum of the entire thing.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Black Coffee wrote:

All of the aforementioned artists vary wildly from each other in both sound and composition, yet nobody seems to have an issue with them coexisting in their respective genres.

But genres still need parameters somewhere on what constitutes their sound and composition and if the lion's share of a band's work is outside that genre then they shouldn't be included in that genre. Case in point, if Will Smith released a thrash song tomorrow, he would still not be a thrash artist. If Slayer released a jazz song tomorrow, that would not make them a jazz artist because the bulk of their work is still thrash. It doesn't matter what people say, it matters what the music IS.

Absolutely, and those parameters for heavy metal, and what heavy metal is, were established in the 70s. What came after doesn't invalidate those initial parameters.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Black Coffee wrote:

If you say the original bands of the genre are "no longer metal", you are attempting to

I'm not sure who you are quoting with that because I never said that phrase.

It was a "you" in the general sense. I wasn't specifically referring to anyone.

Now, to answer the original question:

60s: Iron Butterfly, Blue Cheer, Mountain, Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles (to an extent)

70s: Deep Purple, Judas Priest, Led Zeppelin, Alice Cooper, Aerosmith, Black Sabbath, KISS, AC/DC, Ted Nugent, Diamond Head, Rainbow, Motorhead

80s: Metallica, Slayer, Anthrax, Megadeth, Overkill, Testament, Exodus, Ratt, Quiet Riot, Yngwie Malmsteen, Deliverance, Helloween, Running Wild, Destruction, Kreator, Sodom, WASP, Dokken, Stryper, Nuclear Assault, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Grave Digger, Flotsam & Jetsam, etc etc

90s: Blind Guardian, Gamma Ray, Helloween, Ultimatum, Metallica, Slayer, Megadeth, Running Wild, Testament, Morbid Angel, Death, Cannibal Corpse, Obituary, Grave Digger, Carcass, Believer, Sodom, Kreator, Destruction, Iron Savior, etc etc

00s: tough call without merely naming lots of the same bands again, which I did in the other decades because lots of them helped keep real metal alive. That's why I named several of them multiple times. One band I can honestly say I think has added to real metal in some way is Dark At Dawn, but that may be because I'm on a DAD kick right now, heh heh...amazing band, whatever the case. Killer harmonies, unique vocals, and deep, heartfelt lyrics, mostly.

Another good reason I can't name any for the new millennium is that there are so many bands I haven't heard, yet. Surely there are lots of others out there that have added to metal and improved it and/or furthered it in some way.

Quote :

Do you consider bands like Quiet Riot, Ratt, Stryper, Motley Crue, Dokken etc. that came out of the 80's California scene to be heavy metal?

Yes.

Quote :

And finally, what about bands like Slipknot, K0RN, etc. Do they deserve a place in a book about the History of Heavy Metal?

Yes and no. Yes in terms of how they evolved out of real metal, and no in terms of how that evolution was tainted by trendiness, rap, and true heaviness being replaced by the false "downtuned guitar is heavier" heaviness.

[/quote] Notice how I haven't done this to anyone here or told anyone to shut up or that their opinion shouldn't be expressed here. Not all who disagree here can say they have treated me the same.[/quote]

Are you kidding me TOB? In your 2nd post on this thread, for all intents and purposes, you questioned the relevancy of this thread. You asked Ult why he was bringing this topic up AGAIN. I'm not saying you should be called names, but this isn't the first time that you bring your negative attitude into a thread. Stop with the belly aching already.

metalinmyveins wrote:

Quote :

Notice how I haven't done this to anyone here or told anyone to shut up or that their opinion shouldn't be expressed here. Not all who disagree here can say they have treated me the same.

Are you kidding me TOB? In your 2nd post on this thread, for all intents and purposes, you questioned the relevancy of this thread. You asked Ult why he was bringing this topic up AGAIN. I'm not saying you should be called names, but this isn't the first time that you bring your negative attitude into a thread. Stop with the belly aching already.

Ugh. His second post was not negative at all. Your post here is, however. You're taking a swipe at him.

ToB has simply been defending himself against accusations that he's being rude and attempting to start a flamewar. That's what his post above is in response to, the belly-aching replies of others.

Now, ToB has surely come off this way in past threads, but he hasn't done so here. Reality is truth, not perception.

And now I sound like a pretentious twat. Great.

ult,

If you want to start a new thread on this topic, please do. But this particular thread has lost its focus. Locked.

Eyesore wrote:

And now I sound like a pretentious twat. Great.

Sound like one? I thought you were a pretentious twat?

Damn it, now I'm all confused....

Perhaps the issue of 'Influence' is mixed with 'Inspiration.'

I mean if someone is influenced/inspired does that automatically mean that said group or musician must 'show' those inspirations or influences through their music???? I would find that to be a narrow point of view.

Case in point.... Lots of drummers say they were influenced/inspired to play by Neil Peart, yet not many drummers sound like him....

Or for instance guitar players... K.K. Downing says he was influenced by Hendrix.... These days how much Hendrix do you hear in his playing....

Just because Ultimatum doesn't sound like Aerosmith doesn't mean Steve Tyler didn't influence Scott Waters to be a singer/vocalist....

In Brian Johnson's audition with AC/DC they played NutBush City Limits by Tina Turner at Brian's request.... Now I don't hear Tina in Brian's voice...

Any book dealing with this topic that fails to discuss the importance of Ted Nugent, AC/DC, Thin Lizzy, UFO, Blue Oyster Cult, Aerosmith, Deep Purple ect... wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on.... especially if it claimed to be authoritative....

SideShowDisaSter wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

And now I sound like a pretentious twat. Great.

Sound like one? I thought you were a pretentious twat?

Damn it, now I'm all confused....

This thread is reopened? Awesome.

Curse you, sir, curse you to hell.

Or Jersey.

Calling someone a pretentious twat is fine, but cursing someone to eternal damnation in the Garden State is stepping over the line. I request this thread be locked again. Thank you and good day, sir.

Thank you for re-opening this thread.

IMO the book would open with The Yardbirds, The Kinks, and make it way to the Jimi Hendrix Experience, Mountain, Jeff Beck, Iron Butterfly, and Blue Cheer, then works it way down to of course the bands most folks consider responsible for what would later be called heavy metal, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and Black Sabbath.

It would of course include Aerosmith, KISS, Alice Cooper and some obsure (at least to most folks) Starz, Angel, some of the English glam bands that inspired alot of the 80's pop/hair metal bands such as Slade, The Sweet and T. Rex, with a side of David Bowie.

I would even include a small chapter on punk such as Sex Pistols and the Ramones for instance that where an influence on later day bands.

manny wrote:

I would even include a small chapter on punk such as Sex Pistols and the Ramones for instance that where an influence on later day bands.

agreed. punk was a major influence on various forms of metal.

mc666 wrote:

manny wrote:

I would even include a small chapter on punk such as Sex Pistols and the Ramones for instance that where an influence on later day bands.

agreed. punk was a major influence on various forms of metal.

Yeah I agree, hardcore should definately have a place in the book. Hardcore influenced thrash, crossover, and grindcore alot.

mc666 wrote:

manny wrote:

I would even include a small chapter on punk such as Sex Pistols and the Ramones for instance that where an influence on later day bands.

agreed. punk was a major influence on various forms of metal.

Punk and the NWOBHM movement were the basic ingredients in thrash metal. Megadeth, Metallica, Anthrax, Exodus, etc. were all inspired by the speed and anti-image of punk, thus the many punk covers that have come from the early thrash bands.

This book might as well list 50% of the bands released since the late 60s, the way it is heading. One sentence for each.

Temple of Blood wrote:

This book might as well list 50% of the bands released since the late 60s, the way it is heading. One sentence for each.

OK if you where to write a book on history of metal, where would you start? What early metal/hard rock bands would you include?

I think it should be begin with a proto-metal section discussing Hendrix, Zeppelin, Cream, Iron Butterfly, etc. Chapter 2 would be BLACK SABBATH.

It kindof depends on what the purpose of the book is. Seems like there are a lot of books on this subject already and just listing a bunch of bands and saying how they rule doesn't add much to what's already out there.

I'd be interested in reading a book specifically about the progression of metal. Which elements were introduced over time. Defining what metal is at its core. Quoting interviews from different bands about what inspired them. Show the whole evolution and lay it all out.

I would mention hard rock artists only so far as they specifically influenced the evolution of real metal.

And like I said, once metal is properly defined it would be clear why "thebandthatshallneverbementionedagain", Slipknot, Limp Bizkit, and all that stuff is not really metal in this tradition.

Proto metal bands are important in the history of metal, so i would include them...

Especially:

Cream
Hendrix
Iron Butterfly
Blue Cheer