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

I'm just a dumb @$$ drummer who likes to ride my Harley and If I think something is metal, guess what ?...It is. Regardless of what the kiddiez say or think. The worst thing that ever happened to METAL was the inception of genre and sub-genre, ect. ect. People started doing something other than enjoying the music.

"Ina-gadda-da-vida" was a heavy song when I first heard it in the early 70's and it came out in what, 1967 ? Compared to the times, it was brutal. Definitily a seed planted.

The bands that played around with "heavy" sounding music in the late 60's and 70's are an integral part of any book regarding the history of heavy metal. It's the progression of things, as well as the reaction of various things going on. If there wasn't any 70's hard rock and punk, w'd have no thrash. Plain and simple !

From the 60's you gotta give mention to Iron Butterfly, MC5, Blue Cheer, Zeppelin, Sabbath, and I am sure there are alot of obscure bands that touched base on not only heavy in the music department, but the vocal approach and content of the lyrics.

From the 70's, there are the usual suspects from both sides of the Atlantic Ocean and there is also bands like The Sweet, Mott The Hoople, Slade, ect. Those bands brought pop and melody into the scene. Then without all of what I mentioned so far, there wouldn't of been a punk movement.

The 80's was the cultivation of everything that went on in the 60's and 70's, played around with a bit here and alot in other places. A book with obscure bands might alienate those who briefly played around with being metal back then and a basic scope of the estblished acts would just cause the elitist to blow it off as frivolous diatribe.

The 90's have hard based music that in itself I personaly find irritating as hell, but oh well. Still... without the grunge aspect of revisiting the 70's and NuMetal's flirtation with rap and the statement made form songs with no solo's. I believe there wouldn't be this current fancy of revisiting the past once more.

It seems like I drank too big of a cup of coffee or something, sheeesh
Since most have way too short attention spans, who knows if if all that will get read.

I agree with James B, excellent post.

James B - AWESOME post!!!!!!!!!! I agree with you - if I think it's metal, then it is metal!!!!!!! I like some 90's hard music and they do have their roots in the 70's - just listen to Pearl Jam, they were influenced by the 70's hard rock and metal bands big time.

And ToB, I don't care if you disagree that Aerosmith isn't Metal, they were consider it and I still consider the 70's Aerosmith and even some of the 80's Aerosmith Metal.

I also respect anyone's right to make any music they want. If I don't like it, I won't buy it or listen to it. OCI has NOTHING to worry about!

Ult, the history of anything requires at least a glance at where it came from, so count me in for including a chapter or two on proto-metal from the 60s and 70s. As for the side argument that's been going on, you can't apply a modern definition of metal (even with all the sub, sub, sub genres) to music that occurred thirty or forty years ago. The music of Aerosmith, 70s KISS, and even some Sabbath, as well as many other bands mentioned in this thread was very heavy at the time it was released and was labeled "metal" by fans and press, though sounds like "hard rock" when compared to some of today's bands. Yet their music has been an influence on hundreds, if not thousands, of bands and musicians in subsequent years. I tend to take people at their word and if an artist cites a band as an influence, even if the musical style of those two artists are vastly different, I believe that the newer artist must have been inspired somehow by the "older" artist. Maybe its not even a musical influence. Maybe someone is struck by only by another artist's stage presence or overall attitude, yet still cites them as an influence.

Okay, I'll get off my soapbox, now!

I don't want to miss the obvious, either! Ult, if you end up taking on this project, keep us informed. That'll be a must-buy!

It's interesting since I just bought a used book- The Encyclodedia of Hard Rock & Heavy Metal by Tony Jasper and Derek Oliver (1983). I'd been trying to get this book for years, as our local library had it and nobody but me ever took it out-ever! It was totally obsolete for one thing. But the library wouldn't 'donate' it to me, so I finally found my own copy.
The funny thing paging through it is that there are only 5% or so of those bands that many of us would call Metal now, and a lot of it wouldn't even pass for Hard Rock anymore (Mellencamp, Player, etc). Almost all of the 'Metal' beyond Sabbath and Priest in this book is from the NWOBHM.
The book is a fantastic source though for obscure Pomprock bands, which why I wanted a copy of it.

The other thing I'd like to say is that while I agree with the other old-timers in being cynical and somewhat bemused by the revisionist history that has occured in my life-time concerning the concept of "Metal", I'm not bothered too much about the issue any more. We've been over this (interesting and perpetual) argument several times here, and somewhere along the line I realized that I don't like Metal nearly as much as I like Hard Rock (blasphemy, but true), so why would I be offended if some kid calls Deep Purple a Hard Rock band? It's a compliment in my world.

Let me add my 2cents. Do you think HEAVY METAL magically appeared in the 80's without any influences from the 60's or 70's bands? The 70's had such a huge underground hard rock metal scene as it does today.
I think many here know the main influence bands from the 60's and 70's, Scorps, UFO, Deep Purple, Uriah Heep, Rush, Triumph.......But the genre goes much deeper.

If you grew listening to hard rock metal from the 60's/70's you know what I'm talking about. I don't know what it is with the younger generation disregarding the 70's as non metal for bands. Music is a progression for the decades it started somewhere and just didn't magically appear!

Oh it's 1980 lets start a new genre heavy metal, it started in the earlier decades and progressed into a gazillion metal defining genres. Back when I grew up we knew it as hard rock or heavy, southern rock, punk........not to difficult to comprehend.
It todays musically genres there are so many talks about what band is what in what genre.

Hell I even get confussed.

60's this can be confussing you could make a cause for Led Zep, Mountain, Blue Cheer, Iron Butterfly. I think most from this era would call alot of this music acid rock.

70's UFO, BOC, Rush, ELP, Budgie, White Witch, Starz, Trapeze, Judas Priest, Detective......

80's Overkill, Testament, Slayer, Megadeth, Exodus, Dream Theater.........

90's you would most likely have to say "thebandthatshallneverbementionedagain", Slipknot, Mudvayne, Annihilator.......

00's Primal Fear, Wizard, Wolf, Vanishing Point, Riverside.....


We could hash this arguement for years and years. Yes bands from the 60's and 70's to belong in the book.

Wargod50

(Smacks forehead)
OY, I knew this was gonna turn into a Chinese fire drill before long.

Ult -- if and when you do write a book maybe you oughta just focus on one band, not the whole genre.

Great posts everyone. Some really good points being brought up. Thanks for the continued discussion.

Wargod, some excellent choices for each decade there.

manny wrote:

At my age, growing up
reading magazines like Creem, Circus, and Hit Parader, for example
Aerosmith and AC/DC where labeled as metal bands and that is the way I
see them.

If you are 16 today, I am not sure if bands such as
Judas Priest and Deep Purple would classify as metal considering more
modern bands such as Slipknot, Children of Bodom, etc have so little in
common with the roots of the genre.

Exactly. Good post. I've actually had on-line discussions with guys that claim that bands like Priest and Saxon are "just hard rock" or "just classic rock". I think I have one of those discussions posted on my site.

Temple of Blood wrote:

I believe I already addressed it. They like AEROSMITH. Great. I do too.

I
like a lot of bands from MANY genres. There isn't a single riff in any
of my band's songs that reflect many of those artists though.

Point to some individual trait in TESTAMENT's music that must've come from AEROSMITH and I'll reconsider my view.

Right, but you don't have to have any single riff or borrow from the singer's style for them to be an influence on your music. It goes beyond just "liking the music." You won't hear any Aerosmith riffs in Ultimatum's music, and I certainly don't sing like Steven Tyler, but I can guarantee you they are a big influence on me. Anyone that he seen me perform live can probably see the influence, even though it can't be heard.

I wish I still had the magazine article, but I swear one of the two Testament guitarists, when talking about why they recorded Nobody's Fault, said that Aerosmith was one of the big reasons they picked up a guitar to begin with. think it was in Metal Maniacs or Metal Edge, or one of those old mags. That's obviously a pretty big influence right there. I also think the fact that the band has recorded two Aerosmith songs over the years speaks volumes about their influence, be it totally noticeable or not.

I also remember watching an interview with Slash, where he credits Aerosmith 'Rocks' with being the album that inspired him as a kid to pick up a guitar. Really, you didn't get much heavier than 'Rocks' in 1976.

If Aerosmith isn't metal, though they certainly were termed that at their inception, single shot rifles aren't weapons because they don't shoot more then one bullet at a time.
Just because things change, does that really make once was something different?

Let's see...

I definitely would make at least some references to the bands that helped pave the way for what would eventually become metal.

Much of it would be spent on early metal, such as Sabbath, Priest, etc., and then the NWOBHM.

As for the 80s, the thrash movement is blatantly obvious. Doom metal pretty much started in the 1980s with bands like Candlemass and Saint Vitus, although more of it came around in the 1990s. There were a few death metal bands in the late 1980s, but I suppose it's more of a 1990s thing. I am not a fan of the "hair bands" at all, but at least some mention would be made, as many people got into heavier music as a result of it.

As for the 1990s, groove/post-thrash would be mentioned, as bands such as Pantera and Machine Head were quite successful. Also, the growing of the death, doom, and black metal movements. The Gothenburg/melo-death style started in the 1990s. Also, even though I am not a fan of nu-metal, I do believe if you were not to make any references to it in the book, it wouldn't be 100% complete. As was the case of the "hair band" movement, many metal fans got into heavier music through nu-metal.

As for the last decade, power metal, the return of thrash, and perhaps some metalcore (which I know a lot of people don't care for, but still) would probably be mentioned more than anything.

Whell after reading a bit, and with my minimal experience in music this is my messy opinion.

Aereosmith influence can be heard in a bunch of hard rock/ glam bands like THE DARKNESS, THE CULT, GREAT WHITE, KIX, ETC. So yes, they have to be considered to be big part of the metal movement.

THE same with bands like Thin Lizzy and Ted Nugent. They had a big influence in bands of today. Just like duo of guitars that Thin Lizzy created


If I was in the situation to talk about modern metal. It would be a summary of the movenet and not describing each band. The only bands I listen from that nu-metal scene are ORGY, DEFTONES and Godsmack. Is there Metal on those bands?
There is attitude, they were heavier than regular bands, they had their own thing going, and was the rebellious music on their time.
But going on hardcore bands like SLIPNOT, the story changes. those guys of slipnot don't have the witting skills, nice hooks, can't sing, and don't deserve to be called metal. Their popularity is based only by the music media manipulating the music scenes of the day. I don't see these bands to gain popularity like metallica did it on clubs back in the day

I got into hard rock/heavy metal around 1977/78 or thereabouts, and at that time, the friends,magazines, and local record store that were introducing me to heavier music used the terms heavy metal and heavy rock and hard rock interchangeably.

When 1980 brought the NWOBHM to my ears, there were quite a few bands that were not as heavy as others in the scene, but they were all a part of the NWOBHM. And if was the new wave, there must have been an old wave.

But I was 12/13 when I got into metal, so what did I know .

I would definately have a few chapters mentioning the proto 60s and 70s bands.

From there the rest of the subgenres that evolved into during the 80's and early 90's like the NWOBHM, glam, thrash, crossover, Death.

Instead of mentioning what the media called heavy metal during the latter half of the 90s and present, I would focus on the older bands that are still playing at this time and describe how their sound changed or if it didnt change, etc. Still focusing on the "real" metal bands at the end of the book and leave out the modern hard rock as someone before coined it.


Ult, I think you should write the book man, I would definately buy it.

It all belongs in the book.


Starting with the 60s bands like Cream, The Who, The MC5, and The Kinks that gave us the big heavy rock sound.

A special chapter needs to be set aside specifically for Jimi Hendrix. His impact and influence on heavy metal cannot be overestimated.

All the bands that were originally grouped under the heavy metal banner in the 70 absolutely must be included. Iron Butterfly, Zeppelin, Sabbath, Purple, SLB, BOC, Aerosmith, Nugent, Priest, UFO, Scorpions, AC/DC, etc.

Then you have a chapter apiece dedicated to the NWOBHM, thrash, glam, US and Euro power metal, death, doom, black. An additional chapter will be dedicated to those bands who don't neatly fit into an established sub-genre, but are undeniably heavy metal.

After that, you have a chapter called "Related", where hybrid sub-genres such as funk-metal, rap-metal, nu-metal, and deathcore are mentioned.

Where is MC666 when we need him?

Maybe Nickelback was "influenced" by "metal" such as Def Leppard and need to be included as well.

ultmetal wrote:

Don't forget to answer the other question.

What would be the primary bands you would list from each decade? The 70's, from the 80's, 90's, 00's, etc.

considering influence, popularity, and new levels of volume-

60's-Cream, Hendrix, Blue Cheer, Led Zeppelin, Jethro Tull
70's- Sabbath, Deep Purple, Judas Priest, Rainbow, UFO
80's- Iron Maiden, Metallica, Malmsteen, Queensryche, Slayer
90's- Trouble, Soundgarden, Amorphis, Pantera, Paradise Lost.
00's- Dimmu Borgir, Disturbed, Rhapsody, Mastodon, and The Sword.

I tried to cover a lot of bases there so I had to leave a lot out, I admit.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Maybe Nickelback was "influenced" by "metal" such as Def Leppard and need to be included as well.

Maybe TOB needs to stop making further comments on this thread.

ignoring the argument of what is "true metal", in actuality, you'd have to include all of what's been mentioned if you want to be thorough. every band mentioned represents some sub genre within, that has played an influential role in having metal expand/change/stay relevant. in one way or another, despite the path each band took.

my primary picks (not my favorites, mind you. only a list of bands that definitely helped metal, not only stay alive, but in the spotlight. also not necessarily chosen by the decade they formed, but rather the time they became relevant to the scene.)...

60's: Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Scorpions, Led Zeppelin
70's: Venom, Motorhead, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest
80's: Slayer, Metallica, Megadeth, Napalm Death
90's: Fear Factory, Sepultura, Pantera, Machine Head
so far i haven't found a band after 2000, that has furthered the scene. some great bands, sure, but nothing redefining or futhering. it's mostly in a nostalgia stage right now.

i would also, most definitely include the proto metal bands. if you wish to detail such a genre, you need to explore it's history.

my personal opinion of the early US scene was that it was more commercially viable, therefore more commercial sounding, IE, lighter. it wasn't altogether "metal" but still in the same family. so it should most definitely be apart of the story.

i personally do not consider the "hair" scene to be metal, but rather hard rock, which is a relative of metal & therefore merits inclusion.

main inspiration for metal imho should be, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, & Black Sabbath.

in my unpopular opinion, bands like "K0rn", Slipknot, & Lamb of God (no matter how far apart they are sound wise) are also apart of the scene. are they good? that's subject to opinion. one either likes a band or not. however, nu-metal, & the NWoAHM are still offshoots of heavy metal & should also be included.

heavy metal is such a vast genre. no matter what our personal tastes are, we should be proud of how our favorite genre has grown.

It is an overwhelming taks trying to write the history of metal, and one that very few have done a really good job of. I'm currently reading Ian Christie's 'Sound Of The Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal'. It's a good book, but it is of course very colored by the authors own tastes. He claims, and I agree with this, that the first true metal band was Black Sabbath. So in the first chapters he is following them very closey. But he also mentions the influence from bands like Deep Purple, Blue Cheer, Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix.

I've also been following the series on the history of metal in Sweden Rock Magazine. I think they started with the year 1966, and each issue of the magazine devotes 5 pages per year, up 'til the year 1999. They have now started the series again after a hiatus. At lest 10 years had to pass before they could put things in hortorical perspective. In the beginning they went thouroughly through the proto-metal years and the 70's. They include bands like Blue Cheer, Deep Purple, Rainbow, Led Zepelin, Black Sabbath etc. from the early years. But with the 80's, '90, and now the new millenium, they are staying a little too much on the surface. They also spend a lot of time with the bands that sold the most, so Bon Jovi, Def Leppard, Marlilyn Manson, Slipknot and other mainstream acts get mentioned a lot.

Here are key bands from each era for me:

60's: Steppenwolf, Blue Cheer, The Kinks, MC5, The Who, Cream, Vanilla Fudge, Led Zeppelin

70's: Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Rainbow, AC/DC, Kiss, Judas Priest, Scorpions, The birth of the NWOBHM

80's: This is really a vast decade. You have the NWOBHM explosion, with key bands Iron Maiden, Motörhead, Venom, Saxon & Def Leppard, but also other very influential bands such as Diamond Head & Budgie. Then you have the thrash metal scene kickin' in, with key bands Metallica, Slayer, Anthrax & Megadeth, again with other influential bands such as Testament, Overkill & Exodus. At the same time the thrash metal scene in Europe grew, with key bands Destruction, Kreator, Sodom & Celtic Frost. Those bands, together with Mercyful Fate and Venom, also helped spawn the early black metal scene, with bands like Mayhem, Bathory and DarkThrone. In America hair metal and sleaze appeared, and bands like Ratt, Quiet Riot (the first metal band to sell 1 million albums), Mötley Crüe, Twisted Sister, W.A.S.P., Great White & Stryper etc. made it big. Then Guns 'n' Roses appeared, and topped them all. Influential underground bands include Hanoi Rocks & Rose Tattoo. Germany also spawned the melodic speed metal scene, with bands like Running Wild, Grave Digger, Rage and Helloween.

90's: Death metal grew big. Key bands: Death, Possessed, Cannibal Corpse & Obituary. Metal grew in diveristy, yet most of the popular bands from the 80's went more underground. One cannot fail to mention grunge, and the more metallic acts from that "genre". Key bands: Nirvana, Soundgarden & Alice In Chains. Metal was claimed dead, but still new bands like Pantera, Rage Against The Machine, Tool & Nine Inch Nails all made impact. Metallica & Guns 'n' Roses kept outselling them all. Towards the end of the era, modern power metal took over, side by side with the melodic death metal, or Gotherburg scene. Key bands: Hammerfall, Iced Earth, Gamma Ray, Rhapsody, In Flames, Dark Tranquility & Soilwork. Black Metal also grew bigger, and the incidents here in Norway needs to be addressed of course. Key bands: Immortal, Gorgoroth & Satyricon (in addition to thos that started during the 80's). Black Metal even went mainstream, with Cradle Of Filth & Dimmu Borgir. The 90's was also the birth of nu-metal, with bands like Linkin Park, "thebandthatshallneverbementionedagain", Coal Chamber (the first band to get this tag) & Slipknot.

00's: Not sure what this new millenium has brought us, other than more of the same. The metal scene today sees all the subgenres co-existing more or less on their own terms. Of course there was the resuregence of thrash metal, but we all know it never really went away. The only newer band with some sort of impact I can think of is System of a Down.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Maybe Nickelback was "influenced" by "metal" such as Def Leppard and need to be included as well.

...and it's everyone else that offers childish responses?

Temple of Blood wrote:

Maybe Nickelback was "influenced" by "metal" such as Def Leppard and need to be included as well.

Since Nickelback aren't a metal band, they shouldn't be included. Hard rock bands like Aerosmith are only included because they made the genre what it is.
Silly comments that are only there to provoke others, should be kept to yourself.

MC666 & kmorg, thanks for the thorough responses.

I think if a book like this were to be written it would have to be mentioned right up from that the genre is too vast to cover everything and that it certainly involves personal taste. For me personally bands like Bathory and Possessed were never as influential as lesser known bands like Vengeance Rising, though I can understand and appreciate their influence of the scene in general.

The whole reason this came up is that someone at a publishing company saw my site, read my Personal History of heavy metal and some of my reviews and thought it would make a great read, if I could expand on it a lot more. Like I said, I've got a lot on my plate right now, so I am not sure I am going to do it but I am still pondering it.

metalken wrote:

I got into hard rock/heavy metal around 1977/78 or thereabouts, and at that time, the friends,magazines, and local record store that were introducing me to heavier music used the terms heavy metal and heavy rock and hard rock interchangeably.

When 1980 brought the NWOBHM to my ears, there were quite a few bands that were not as heavy as others in the scene, but they were all a part of the NWOBHM. And if was the new wave, there must have been an old wave.

But I was 12/13 when I got into metal, so what did I know .

metalken,
you and I are around the same age and got into music about the same time. I'm actually a couple years younger than you (I'm 42) but got into the heavy metal and hard rock scene a couple years earlier (75-76). I was probably one of the few kids in my elementary school into bands like Deep Purple, Kiss, Aerosmith, Thin Lizzy and Ted Nugent. I had a couple friends I hung out with that were. Most of the kids were into the Jackson 5, Bay City Rollers and whatever else was popular at the time. I can remember a handful of kids into The Who, Bruce Springsteen, Fleetwood Mac and Led Zeppelin, but few were into heavy metal like I was. Back then we did use the terms heavy metal, heavy rock and hard rock interchangeably. Even through the early 80's the term was interchangeable, but heavy metal became the more popular term for sure. By the mid 80's, with the advent of various sub genres within heavy metal, power metal, thrash metal, glam metal, etc., I think the term hard rock and heavy metal were also becoming separated.

I'm not sure how anyone could argue that there was no heavy metal scene in the U.S. in the 70's. Obviously many of these bands are now called "just hard rock". Compared to what heavy metal has become, most of the 70's bands are probably better labeled "hard rock" in comparison, but it's not up for interpretation whether they were called heavy metal or not back then. They were. I was there. I still have the magazines from back then. I have an issue of Grooves from 1978. In that issue they were featuring Queen and Aerosmith. Europe vs. America. As part of the magazine they had a mail in ballad so you could vote for one of those two bands as the best heavy metal band on 1978. I sent in my ballad back then. Loved both bands, but Aerosmith were my favorite.

And the sledgehammer that powers the American Heavy Metal machine is undeniably Aerosmith. -Grooves Magazine, 1978

Actually, the whole argument over what is heavy metal and what is not, that has become popular in the last 15 years or so would probably make an interesting final chapter in the book. The evolution of heavy metal, or something like that.

Black Coffee is correct Jimi Hendrix should be included in any book detailing the history of heavy metal, and I am not just stating that because I am a fanboy.

ok, only public input: if metal - what it is and isn't and what is good and isn't - is largely based on what a majority or loud voice thinks, well.....we already have books on that. I can go anywhere and read how anything that isn't 'Puppets' or 'Machine Head' is irrelevant. I would like something offering a new and fair view based on *objective*, *tangible* properties within music that defines and unifies it, and also, finally gives the underground it's due, instead of such things as how metal supposedly wasn't around at all in the 90's except for the groove stuff...it's always highly ironic to me how that particular view is so incredibly..well, American....