Heavy Metal of the 1970s...

Nice. I'll post some more tomorrow.

Danzig is now my new favorite power metal band, right up there with Celtic Frost!

Soundgarden are a thrash metal band. After all, the magazines said so!
http://cgi.ebay.com/9-90-THRASH-METAL-mag-CLIFF-BURTON-SLAYER-VOI-VOD-/360281780178?pt=Magazines&hash=item53e277afd2

Fat Freddy wrote:

Why do I keep reading this thread?

Temple of Blood wrote:

Danzig is now my new favorite power metal band, right up there with Celtic Frost!

Soundgarden are a thrash metal band. After all, the magazines said so!
http://cgi.ebay.com/9-90-THRASH-METAL-mag-CLIFF-BURTON-SLAYER-VOI-VOD-/360281780178?pt=Magazines&hash=item53e277afd2

SIGH

First of all, just because Soundgarden were in a magazine titled "Thrash Metal" doesn't mean the writer of the article called them a thrash metal band. Yes, the magazine focused mostly on Thrash Metal, but it wasn't the only style they focused on, obviously.

Besides, IT WASN'T JUST ONE ARTICLE OR ONE MAGAZINE that labeled the 70's bands heavy metal! IT WAS ALL OF THEM! IT WAS EVERYONE! The magazines, the history books, the fans, EVERYONE! Get it through your thick, pompous skull. You are wrong! There is no arguing this fact.

If you don't want to call Aerosmith, UFO, etc. 70's heavy metal bands, then don't! Call them whatever you want. You're argument, however, is completely and totally without base.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program...

Another from the 70's:


A few from the 80's:








And the 90's:








2003

Wow!! I knew Stryper sold a few albums in the 80's but had no idea they were successful to make the cover of Hit Parader and have a whole magazine devoted just to them.

Quote :

If you don't want to call Aerosmith, UFO, etc. 70's heavy metal bands, then don't! Call them whatever you want. You're argument, however, is completely and totally without base.

This.

manny wrote:

Wow!! I knew Stryper sold a few albums in the 80's but had no idea they were successful to make the cover of Hit Parader and have a whole magazine devoted just to them.

Yep,and I still have those magazines in my collection of Stryper Artifacts.

The Heavens Metal with Deliverance is cool,never saw that one.Love the White Throne with Farkas on the cover!

I had a bunch of those pictured...

I was gonna say something to the effect of how does somebody who says it ain't metal without "dark" aspects/tendacies and then play in a christian metal band at the same time.

I guess Deliverance, Vengeance, Martyr, Mortification, Emerald, or anyother band with christian members or claim to be a music ministry could never really be a heavy metal band.

but I'll comment on the kewl magazine covers instead....

James B. wrote:

I was gonna say something to the effect of how does somebody who says it ain't metal without "dark" aspects/tendacies and then play in a christian metal band at the same time.

I guess Deliverance, Vengeance, Martyr, Mortification, Emerald, or anyother band with christian members or claim to be a music ministry could never really be a heavy metal band.

but I'll comment on the kewl magazine covers instead....

I think he means "dark" in the sense of the music, not necessarily in the lyrical sense. I understand what he means by "dark", but he's comparing modern bands to 70's bands and saying "they aren't dark" or "Aerosmith isn't as heavy as Black Sabbath". Like I said, those statements reek of ignorance to me. Anyone intimately familiar with the music knows that albums like "Rocks" and "Draw the Line" are every bit as heavy and dark as Sabbath in the 70's, and certainly heavier and darker than the average 1970's rock band.

James B. wrote:

I was gonna say something to the effect of how does somebody who says it ain't metal without "dark" aspects/tendacies and then play in a christian metal band at the same time.

I guess Deliverance, Vengeance, Martyr, Mortification, Emerald, or anyother band with christian members or claim to be a music ministry could never really be a heavy metal band.

What???

Last time I checked the Bible had dark aspects to it too. It's not all sunshine and lollipops.

Temple of Blood wrote:

James B. wrote:

I was gonna say something to the effect of how does somebody who says it ain't metal without "dark" aspects/tendacies and then play in a christian metal band at the same time.

I guess Deliverance, Vengeance, Martyr, Mortification, Emerald, or anyother band with christian members or claim to be a music ministry could never really be a heavy metal band.

What???

Last time I checked the Bible had dark aspects to it too. It's not all sunshine and lollipops.

Don't blow a gasket pal....I was being cynical.

In context, you are correct but let's not forget that the majority of "dark" metal bands do not get material from that source. I too can jump around and play with what someone says to make a point but jumping around and side stepping an issue. Still won't change what something really is, or in the case of this topic... what something was.

By the way, enjor your bands music. Very talented indeeed

Temple of Blood wrote:

James B. wrote:

I was gonna say something to the effect of how does somebody who says it ain't metal without "dark" aspects/tendacies and then play in a christian metal band at the same time.

I guess Deliverance, Vengeance, Martyr, Mortification, Emerald, or anyother band with christian members or claim to be a music ministry could never really be a heavy metal band.

What???

It's not all sunshine and lollipops.

This should be the title of your next ToB album.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Quote :

Some great replies on Bravewords:

And remember, Bravewords is more representative of the Metal scene as a whole than we are here...

You guys shot that down when I said it. No one agreed with me. Opportunist much?

Temple of Blood wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Quote :

Some great replies on Bravewords:

And remember, Bravewords is more representative of the Metal scene as a whole than we are here... </SPAN>

You guys shot that down when I said it. No one agreed with me. Opportunist much?

I was making fun of when you said it...clueless much?

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Quote :

Some great replies on Bravewords:

And remember, Bravewords is more representative of the Metal scene as a whole than we are here...

You guys shot that down when I said it. No one agreed with me. Opportunist much?

I was making fun of when you said it...clueless much?

And yet you state it as a reason to support what ult said .... which you agree with.

That's logical.

I posted this on another board and here were some responses:

Quote :

It's an interesting subject, but that thread over on that site is awful. What's up with all the fogies and the whole "You weren't there maaaaaan, I was and Heart was totally heavy metal!"

I'll try to post some cogent thoughts about the subject later, but I generally agree with your points of view as you expressed them over on that other site and I also think it's naive to take the word of a magazine as gospel on the subject. Generally speaking, the top priority of a magazine is to continue to sell more magazines.

I'll close by stating there's a reason why everyone (justifiably) laughs at the ridiculousness of Jethro Tull winning a Grammy Award for best heavy metal album.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The thing is, it wasn't like *poof* and the entirety of heavy metal suddenly sprang into existence from nothing. It was a progression as bands became heavier and darker -- I argue in reaction to the happy-flower-power of the '60s.

The hippies wanted you to think that mankind was one with each other and if we all could just sing kumbaya and give the Earth a big ol' hug, we could stop fighting and start loving. Heavy Metal said Smurf all that, humankind is evil and there are dark forces out there beyond our control. Oh, and ps, the universe is an uncaring and harsh place. And the music was intended to be a reflection of that.

You really need a band to reflect that whole attitude towards the world in order to embody heavy metal. That's the essence, in my opinion. Led Zeppelin had a heavy metal sounding song or two, Steppenwolf may have used the term in a song and Edgar Rice Burroughs may have called Blue Oyster Cult "heavy metal" in a novel of his, but that dosn't make them heavy metal bands. It's absurd.

The whiners who were there "back in the day" may have called KISS and Ted Nugent heavy metal, but that was simply a reaction to the direction hard rock music was taking. Yes, the music was getting harder, heavier, faster and they needed a name for it. So they called it heavy metal, but the bands hadn't truly reached that point yet although they were headed in that direction. Consider it a transition period. Call it proto-metal if you must, but it was really hard rock.

Heavy metal started on February 13, 1970 with the release of Black Sabbath which really unified both the dark themes with the harder, heavier musical style. That's the bright line for me when you stand and look back. Some bands had one (the themes), some had the other (the heavier music), but Sabbath put them together like no other band up 'til then.

* * *

I don't know why, but oldsters claiming bands like Kiss are heavy metal reminds me in an bizarre way of World War One -- we all call the war from 1914-1918, "World War One." But it wasn't called that until 1938.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no objective definition of heavy metal. There are a lot of general agreements by most people, but at the end of the day its all subjective.

Blue is the color with wavelengths 440-490nm (and probably only one of those to be precise), but if you saw something with 439nm wavelength you'd probably call it blue and no one would argue, but you'd be wrong.

What most people think of as metal today was not around at all when the term first started to be used.

Many music labels are post-humorously applied. I'm pretty sure Bach wouldn't tell you he was composing Baroque music, Mozart Classical nor Beethoven Romantic music. Those labels were added at a latter date, most 70s stuff is called "classic rock" today (a really stupid label if you ask me), but it certainly wasn't called that then, much of it was 'heavy metal' at the time. Which is really, if you want to be strict, means we listen to something else and those bands were heavy metal.

Like most things its use is contextual.

[quote="Temple of Blood"]

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Quote :

Some great replies on Bravewords:

And remember, Bravewords is more representative of the Metal scene as a whole than we are here... </SPAN>

You guys shot that down when I said it. No one agreed with me. Opportunist much?

I was making fun of when you said it...clueless much?

:
And yet you state it as a reason to support what ult said .... which you agree with.

That's logical.

OK Spock...again I WAS MAKING FUN OF YOU!! LOL! I was not backing up Scott...LOL!

hypothetical situation:

Triumph release a new album today with 10 new tracks in exactly the same style they played in the 70s.
The Darkness also release a new album today with 10 new tracks also in the exact same style as Triumph played in the 70s.

Q: Which (could be neither or both) album is played in the style of heavy metal?

Temple of Blood wrote:

I posted this on another board and here were some responses:

Quote :

It's an interesting subject, but that thread over on that site is awful. What's up with all the fogies and the whole "You weren't there maaaaaan, I was and Heart was totally heavy metal!"

I'll try to post some cogent thoughts about the subject later, but I generally agree with your points of view as you expressed them over on that other site and I also think it's naive to take the word of a magazine as gospel on the subject. Generally speaking, the top priority of a magazine is to continue to sell more magazines.

I'll close by stating there's a reason why everyone (justifiably) laughs at the ridiculousness of Jethro Tull winning a Grammy Award for best heavy metal album.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The thing is, it wasn't like *poof* and the entirety of heavy metal suddenly sprang into existence from nothing. It was a progression as bands became heavier and darker -- I argue in reaction to the happy-flower-power of the '60s.

The hippies wanted you to think that mankind was one with each other and if we all could just sing kumbaya and give the Earth a big ol' hug, we could stop fighting and start loving. Heavy Metal said Smurf all that, humankind is evil and there are dark forces out there beyond our control. Oh, and ps, the universe is an uncaring and harsh place. And the music was intended to be a reflection of that.

You really need a band to reflect that whole attitude towards the world in order to embody heavy metal. That's the essence, in my opinion. Led Zeppelin had a heavy metal sounding song or two, Steppenwolf may have used the term in a song and Edgar Rice Burroughs may have called Blue Oyster Cult "heavy metal" in a novel of his, but that dosn't make them heavy metal bands. It's absurd.

The whiners who were there "back in the day" may have called KISS and Ted Nugent heavy metal, but that was simply a reaction to the direction hard rock music was taking. Yes, the music was getting harder, heavier, faster and they needed a name for it. So they called it heavy metal, but the bands hadn't truly reached that point yet although they were headed in that direction. Consider it a transition period. Call it proto-metal if you must, but it was really hard rock.

Heavy metal started on February 13, 1970 with the release of Black Sabbath which really unified both the dark themes with the harder, heavier musical style. That's the bright line for me when you stand and look back. Some bands had one (the themes), some had the other (the heavier music), but Sabbath put them together like no other band up 'til then.

* * *

I don't know why, but oldsters claiming bands like Kiss are heavy metal reminds me in an bizarre way of World War One -- we all call the war from 1914-1918, "World War One." But it wasn't called that until 1938.

If I wrote a whole albums of songs that sound exactly like "Denim & Leather", "Rats in the Cellar", "Breaking the Law", "Parasite" and "Paranoid" today, people would claim it was "just hard rock". However, those who know their history and aren't trying to redefine it, know that these were classic tracks of the metal age regardless of what the "kiddies" want to label them now.

Don't recall anyone ever saying Heart was metal. Their sound was mostly acoustic and folk based with the occasional hard rock song. "Barracuda" was a great rock and roll song, and the closest they ever came to a heavy metal sound.

The World War One argument is just flat out incorrect because people DID call the 70's band :Heavy Metal: at the time, as is proven by the many magazine articles I posted and quoted and the many fans that were there that claim so.

Lots of other straw man arguments there. I could refute each one of these posts, but I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over and over again to pigheaded "youngsters" who don't know the roots of the music they claim to love.

ultmetal wrote:

Get it through your thick, pompous skull.

Another personal jab from you.

It's not pompous to stand your ground when holding a minority position. Or to use sarcasm to illustrate the absurdity of a particular point of view.

I'm not sure you understand what "pompous" means. Again, this is an bizarre criticism from a guy who loves The Nuge.