Heavy Metal of the 1970s...

What are you trying to prove ToB? Are you saying that all the fans were wrong? That they didn't know what heavy metal was in the 70's because it had not yet been truly created yet? Or perhaps only the European bands were metal and the American bands are "just hard rock"? All those publications, all those books on the history of heavy metal, all the fans are all wrong and your are the only one that is correct?

The way you argue, you'd have to say that Metallica, Megadeth, Testament and Anthrax were never thrash metal because they are not as "dark" or "heavy" as Kreator, Destruction, and Slayer. It's a ridiculous argument.

As Shawn stated,

Shawn of Fire wrote:

Nobody is changing any definitions...you are injecting personal perspective into actual history. In the 1970s, bands YOU do not consider to be Heavy Metal WERE in fact considered Heavy Metal by everybody else at the time...end of thread...case closed...your argument is pointless.

Temple of Blood wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

Yes, heavy metal and hard rock were interchangeable terms during the 1970's.

And what about right now? Are they the same?

manny, are you familiar with the term "thread drift"? I am not distracting from the argument I am having with ult, I am deviating from the thread title. Big difference.

In 2030 "thread drift" will mean something else and ToB will be arguing with someone on the internet about it...

Temple of Blood wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

Yes, heavy metal and hard rock were interchangeable terms during the 1970's.

And what about right now? Are they the same?

manny, are you familiar with the term "thread drift"? I am not distracting from the argument I am having with ult, I am deviating from the thread title. Big difference.

If you say so but introducing bands such as Alter Bridge and Killswitch Engage in an argument when this was about bands who started a career in the 70's and were defined as metal seems to me like it doing a little more then drifting.

ult, dodging the question again?

This thread is actually ultra insightful...holy sh!t, like I want to listen to every nugent album right now..ha.

I think TOB is saying that if you look at todays standart, those bands from the 70s are no heavy metal ANYMORE. Even if before they were calling them HEAVY METAL, in the magazines, the fans etc...TOB thinks that today those bands dont sound like heavy metal. I am not sure he is saying this. Anyway, facts are facts, and they call those bands HEAVY METAL back in the 70s of course. I call them today HEAVY ROCK bands (AEROSMITH, TRIUMPH, LEGS DIAMOND, BUDGIE, BLUE OYSTER CULT etc....) but they are part of the heavy metal family.

Temple of Blood wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

Yes, heavy metal and hard rock were interchangeable terms during the 1970's.

And what about right now? Are they the same?

Now? No. The genres have grown, progressed, split and become fragmented. There's this whole new modern rock sound that people now call "hard rock". No, I would not call bands like Creed, Nickelback or 3 Doors Down, Shinedown heavy metal. I've not heard Alter Bridge, so I can't really say. To be frank, I don't really keep up with what's going on in modern pop/rock and I don't spend any time listening to the radio. What's your point?

Ult, you had to know this was coming. From someone.

People today complain about the definition of "heavy metal" over the years.

Some (like me) understand the definition of the term "back in the day" and others insist on applying current definitions to early progenitors of the genre.

In the end, I really think it's a STUPID argument. People like what they like; who the heck cares how an individual listener categorizes it.

Oh wait, anal retentive people do.

[quote="manny"]

Fat Freddy wrote:

*SIGH* every time this subject comes up it turns into a Chinese fire drill....

Oh yea wait til Troublemagnet weighs in on how the goverment and Obama administration is using heavy metal to turns us into turn coat socialist and how only blind masses like us refuse to see the truth. After reading this posting, please erase in case big brother is watching.

Actually,my stance is POPULAR music is used by the elite to brainwash us.The elite use music through their record companies to destroy the masculine and feminine principals. A lot of what constitutes popular music is nothing more than fornication propaganda.Manny, you think by making fun of my views on life,you really think your gonna change my mind? If instead of poking fun at me at every oppurtunity, you would be mature and at least consider the wealth of information on the subject.
There are a plethora of people smarter than you and me who have risked their lives to bring us information.William Cooper,Fritz Springmeier,Dr.John Coleman,Henry Makow Phd,Lenon Honor etc. have been imprisoned, harrased and/or killed to talk about the NWO.What is so wrong about believing in conspiracies anyways?
Check out www.lenonhonorfilms.com Manny and watch his documentary "HipHop, the Hidden Hand, and the Degradation of Black Masculinity". It applies to popular rock/metal too.

OK, I'm outta this thread.

I never should have posted in what I knew was going to be a hornet's nest in the first place. Now it just got even weirder.

tohostudios wrote:

Ult, you had to know this was coming. From someone.

People today complain about the definition of "heavy metal" over the years.

Some (like me) understand the definition of the term "back in the day" and others insist on applying current definitions to early progenitors of the genre.

In the end, I really think it's a STUPID argument. People like what they like; who the heck cares how an individual listener categorizes it.

Oh wait, anal retentive people do.

It's not a stupid argument. It's an informative debate IMO.

Facts are facts. In the 70's, heavy metal was a widely used term to describe heavy bands like Aerosmith, Black Sabbath, Ted Nugent, UFO, Kiss, Judas Priest, Uriah Heep, etc. The fans called 'em heavy metal. The press called 'em heavy metal. It's not until a couple decades later that people started arguing the point and trying to make a big distinction between hard rock and heavy metal.

I started this thread as a nostalgia thing, which it started off as until it was hijacked by one guy who wants to redefine history. I don't really mind the debate, but it was not the intent of the thread either.

ultmetal wrote:

tohostudios wrote:

Ult, you had to know this was coming. From someone.

People today complain about the definition of "heavy metal" over the years.

Some (like me) understand the definition of the term "back in the day" and others insist on applying current definitions to early progenitors of the genre.

In the end, I really think it's a STUPID argument. People like what they like; who the heck cares how an individual listener categorizes it.

Oh wait, anal retentive people do.

It's not a stupid argument. It's an informative debate IMO.

Facts are facts. In the 70's, heavy metal was a widely used term to describe heavy bands like Aerosmith, Black Sabbath, Ted Nugent, UFO, Kiss, Judas Priest, Uriah Heep, etc. The fans called 'em heavy metal. The press called 'em heavy metal. It's not until a couple decades later that people started arguing the point and trying to make a big distinction between hard rock and heavy metal.

I started this thread as a nostalgia thing, which it started off as until it was hijacked by one guy who wants to redefine history. I don't really mind the debate, but it was not the intent of the thread either.

OK, poor choice of words on my part. Not a stupid argument but a USELESS one given the particpants.

I would agree with Ult on this one, Hell some bands such as Manowar consider thrash "false metal"
I guarentee twenty years from now the kids will say "Immortal?? they're not very heavy compared to Anal Sphincter Pulverizer!"

troublemagnet wrote:

Anal Sphincter Pulverizer!"

Ok, that one for the win.

It is at this point that we have to call on Chuck Norris to go ahead and give ToB a round-house kick to his noggin to bring some sense into him. Ult's experience and well made argument over ToB's opinion anyday anytime.

ultmetal wrote:

I started this thread as a nostalgia thing

So how'bout posting some more of those vintage magazine covers then? They're a hoot.

Anything for you, Freddy

troublemagnet wrote:

I would agree with Ult on this one, Hell some bands such as Manowar consider thrash "false metal"
I guarentee twenty years from now the kids will say "Immortal?? they're not very heavy compared to Anal Sphincter Pulverizer!"

Awesome stuff.

Thats another thing I don't get.... (surprise surprise surprise as Gomer used to say)

I took Ult's original post as meaning what something meant back in the 1970's. Not a comparison of bands from then to bands from now. The topic had nothing to do with what is or isn't metal today in conjuction with what defined the term over thirty years ago.

I get what ToB is saying, does similar bands of today still apply ?

To me, due to the way they sub-genre every type of musical style... the answer is no.
Context is a pretty heavy word and often folks forget to check that out.

You can't apply a definition of a term deemed for artisitic expression when that tree only had a branch or two. Then turn around some thirty or so years afterwards and have the same perspective. For one thing that lone tree is now an orchard and the trees in that orchard are not all the same species. What applied to the begining of something may describe it's attributes back at it's conception but rarely can you apply those same attributes to whatever progression that thing has made over time.

A perfect example is a home computer. What was called a home computer in the 70's would merely be calleda typewriter today, Given the context of definition applied to todays standards from the perspective of most who know there is still a difference between the two.

Okay, I put my shovel away. If I dug way too deep into this.

troublemagnet wrote:

Anything for you, Freddy

Niiiiice. I think I had that issue of "Thrash Metal" with Mustaine on the cover!

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Sweet. Did you hang up the John Travolta poster?

Of course, even with print proof right in front of them, there will still be those that claim Nugent, Aerosmith, Kiss, etc. were never "heavy metal". Although, is that Stevie Nicks in the bottom corner? Even I'd have to draw the line at calling Fleetwood Mac "heavy".

Anyone else have to Google Yvonne Elliman?

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

What I find disturbing is that her picture is there, but there's no mention of Blue Oyster Cult or Black Sabbath anywhere.