Heavy Metal of the 1970s...

Temple of Blood wrote:

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.

Quote :

pomp·ous/ˈpämpəs/Adjective

1. Affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, self-important: "a pompous ass".

Nope, think I got it right.

You are presented with the facts, facts that would hold up in any logical debate, and you still refuse to even concede the simple fact that these bands were widely called heavy metal bands in the 70's by fans and media alike.

Sounds "pompous" to me.

I'm not being grand. We're having a debate.

My POV is no more pompous than yours. Yours is based on popular opinion, group think, and media hype. Mine is based on an analysis and categorization of the components of the songs.

Neither side is "pompous".

Is Ted Nugent pompous ult?

ultmetal wrote:

You are presented with the facts, facts that would hold up in any logical debate, and you still refuse to even concede the simple fact that these bands were widely called heavy metal bands in the 70's by fans and media alike.

You STILL do not understand my argument.

WOW

I did not dispute that fact. Ever. You have not been carefully reading my posts.

The fans and media alike called flower metal "power metal" too. Does that make them correct?
The fans and media alike called metalcore "thrash metal" too. Does that make them correct?
The fans and media alike called Limp Bizkit "metal" too. Does that make them correct?

"Greg Angel here from Action News. The standoff has now entered its SECOND day and yet neither side shows any signs of bending or attempting to resolve this controversial issue. Stay tuned to this station for further updates!"

Fat Freddy wrote:

"Greg Angel here from Action News. The standoff has now entered its SECOND day and yet neither side shows any signs of bending or attempting to resolve this controversial issue. Stay tuned to this station for further updates!"

Temple of Blood wrote:

I'm not being grand. We're having a debate.

My POV is no more pompous than yours. Yours is based on popular opinion, group think, and media hype. Mine is based on an analysis and categorization of the components of the songs.

Neither side is "pompous".

Is Ted Nugent pompous ult?

Now we are going to debate "pompous"?

Dude, you are discounting an entire generation of fans and their testimony, mountains of books on the history of music, periodicals that were actually printed during the era, and plain logic. So, yes, you are being 'self-important'. You think your opinion is right despite all the facts presented to the contrary. Pompous.

Mine is not an opinion. These bands I listed actually were called heavy metal bands in the 70's by fans and media alike. These bands, whether your like it or not, are part of the history of heavy metal. It's not an opinion, it's a bonafide, documented, and historical fact.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Is Ted Nugent pompous ult?

Sure as hell is! One of the most pompous guys ever! Just listen to him talk. Just because I like his music doesn't mean I have to agree with him on everything or can't see that he's very opinionated and "pompous" at times.

Temple of Blood wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

You are presented with the facts, facts that would hold up in any logical debate, and you still refuse to even concede the simple fact that these bands were widely called heavy metal bands in the 70's by fans and media alike.

You STILL do not understand my argument.

WOW

I did not dispute that fact. Ever. You have not been carefully reading my posts.

The fans and media alike called flower metal "power metal" too. Does that make them correct?
The fans and media alike called metalcore "thrash metal" too. Does that make them correct?
The fans and media alike called Limp Bizkit "metal" too. Does that make them correct?

I understand your point fine. You think that everyone was wrong, the fans, the books, the media, etc. in the 70's. The problem is, your examples don't work in context. You logic is flawed.

There was already a style of music called power metal that was later applied to a different style or offshoot, even if it is incorrect and misapplied. Regardless of calling it "power metal", "flower metal" or what you want, it's still heavy metal. I don't deny that bands from Metal Church to Rhapsody are a form of heavy metal.

There was already a style called thrash metal that was later applied to a different style or offshoot, even if it is incorrect or misapplied. Besides most metal fans weren't mislabeling these bands as thrash, but properly calling them metalcore. I hate most metalcore, but I don't deny it's a form and offshoot of heavy metal, and certainly heavily influenced by thrash metal.

Limp Bizcrap came two decades after the term heavy metal had already been applied to a music style. Regardless of whether it's misapplied to them or not, heavy metal already existed before them. They weren't on the ground floor of a style of music. Also, most metal fans I know were not calling them heavy metal but rapcore.

The 70's bands WERE heavy metal. There wasn't a style of music called heavy metal before them that was being misapplied. The fans and the media were the ones who deemed these bands as such. Now, 30 years later people are trying to strip that tag and say it was never so.

Just like the blues example given earlier, just because someone from the 1940's played a country style of blues and artists decades later played a very different style of blues, doesn't mean those founders of the style aren't still blues artists. There is variety in the genre as it progresses and grows, morphs and changes. The same holds true with heavy metal.

Those bands in the 70's were the founders of the style. It has since progressed, morphed and been given various subtitles, but it all still falls under the umbrella of heavy metal.

Quote :

Heavy metal started on February 13, 1970 with the release of Black Sabbath

And the term was coined by someone other than the band....to this day, Ozzy considers Black Sabbath "rock and roll" or "hard rock" (I've heard him say both)...I've also heard him say "I don't even know what Heavy Metal is..."

Point being: things evolve. Period. Aerosmith, Blue Oyster Cult, Ted Nugent, Van Halen...ALL got categorized as Heavy Metal by the same people who categorized Black Sabbath as Heavy Metal...the fans and the press. Only after decades of evolution and genre-splintering did people begin to get more specific and separatist and argue over what is and is not "Metal".

Fact STILL remains that, whether anyone here agrees or not, Heavy Metal in 1977 in America was made up of many bands that, by today's standards and guidelines, would be categorized as Hard Rock or Rock. In 1977, there was no Thrash Metal or Metalcore or Death Metal or Speed Metal or Prog Metal...there was Heavy Metal...KISS and Sabbath and Zep and Aerosmith and Queen and Motorhead. There is no way to redefine or change it.

It's like The Eagles being called Rock...by today's standards much of their music would be labeled Country or Americana...doesn't mean they are not a Rock band.

You can't relabel the past, especially historically documented past, by modern standards...things are what they are.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Quote :

Heavy metal started on February 13, 1970 with the release of Black Sabbath

And the term was coined by someone other than the band....to this day, Ozzy considers Black Sabbath "rock and roll" or "hard rock" (I've heard him say both)...I've also heard him say "I don't even know what Heavy Metal is..."

Point being: things evolve. Period. Aerosmith, Blue Oyster Cult, Ted Nugent, Van Halen...ALL got categorized as Heavy Metal by the same people who categorized Black Sabbath as Heavy Metal...the fans and the press. Only after decades of evolution and genre-splintering did people begin to get more specific and separatist and argue over what is and is not "Metal".

Fact STILL remains that, whether anyone here agrees or not, Heavy Metal in 1977 in America was made up of many bands that, by today's standards and guidelines, would be categorized as Hard Rock or Rock. In 1977, there was no Thrash Metal or Metalcore or Death Metal or Speed Metal or Prog Metal...there was Heavy Metal...KISS and Sabbath and Zep and Aerosmith and Queen and Motorhead. There is no way to redefine or change it.

It's like The Eagles being called Rock...by today's standards much of their music would be labeled Country or Americana...doesn't mean they are not a Rock band.

You can't relabel the past, especially historically documented past, by modern standards...things are what they are.

Thank you. Great post! EXACTLY!

This album is notable for the fact that its 1971 review in Creem contained the first documented use of the term "heavy metal" to refer to a style of music.



Sir Lord Baltimore-Kingdom Come (1971)

That's all I'm gonna say.

Wow, what did I miss.

detuned wrote:

Wow, what did I miss.

Not much. Just rehashing the same debate over and over again.

Man, reading this thread makes me dizzy.

I am so glad I don't consider myself a "metalhead" or I'd have to deal with this nonsense.


Please let me know if anyone starts trying to establish a definition of what is or is not glam/sleaze.

Until then, carry on...

Bon Jovi is not Glam Metal...

Darrell Abbott was once a nice lookin' chick...

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Bon Jovi is not Glam Metal...

No argument here.

Jerusalem Slim was the greatest glam-sleaze band ever! Or were they just Hard Rock?

Who?

Wait, I'm not getting drawn into this p!ssing contest.

At least not until it gets its own thread...

Now that I think about it, that sounds like a good idea for another argumentative thread.

Name your favorite glam/sleaze bands...

I can see it now. "Band A isn't glam sleaze at all. They don't wear enough eyeliner.".

tohostudios wrote:

Who?

you cannot be serious. You n Shine-ster are the godfathers of glam/sleaze around here. Go youtube them immediately.

I've heard of them. Don't know that I've heard them.

tohostudios wrote:

Now that I think about it, that sounds like a good idea for another argumentative thread.

Name your favorite glam/sleaze bands...

I can see it now. "Band A isn't glam sleaze at all. They don't wear enough eyeliner.".

Check out The Zeros.....purple hair all the way around and some catchy @$$ tuneage.

UNCLE SAXON wrote:

tohostudios wrote:

Who?

you cannot be serious. You n Shine-ster are the godfathers of glam/sleaze around here. Go youtube them immediately.

Holy crap! I had no idea this was a Michael Monroe band. Off to Amazon.

tohostudios wrote:

UNCLE SAXON wrote:

tohostudios wrote:

Who?

you cannot be serious. You n Shine-ster are the godfathers of glam/sleaze around here. Go youtube them immediately.

Holy crap! I had no idea this was a Michael Monroe band. Off to Amazon.

Saxon strikes again....must own stock in Amazon

tohostudios wrote:

UNCLE SAXON wrote:

tohostudios wrote:

Who?

you cannot be serious. You n Shine-ster are the godfathers of glam/sleaze around here. Go youtube them immediately.

Holy crap! I had no idea this was a Michael Monroe band. Off to Amazon.

And Sam Yaffa and Stevie Stevens!

nevermind