Heavy Metal of the 1970s...

ultmetal wrote:

Of course he was. He's one that thinks there was no heavy metal scene in the US in the 70's.

I think the term "heavy metal" got co-opted by softer, more commercial forums of music much the same way the term "power metal" has been co-opted in recent years.

There were many hard rock bands that had the occasional heavy metal song but 70s bands tended to have much more variety in what they played than the bands we have today.

I think taking one's views of what constitutes "heavy metal" from a mag with a John Travolta fold-out poster speaks for itself.

"Softer"? Dude, you really have no clue what you are talking about? It wasn't just this one magazine. It was ALL the magazines. It was the fans. It was all of us. Circus, Creem, Grooves, etc were the music magazines. Why do you discount them? Back in those days, the writers were fans of the bands. They didn't make this stuff up. Who cares if they feature articles on TV shows, movies, sports, etc. What does having a poster of John Travolta have to do with anything? He was a popular movie star at the time.

I know you are younger than me and weren't around at the time, but bands like Aerosmith, Kiss, Ted Nugent, Rainbow, Deep Purple, AC/DC, Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, etc. were heavy metal in the 70's.
'
They were the defining bands of heavy metal. In the 1970's heavy metal and hard rock MEANT THE SAME THING! The terms were interchangeable. Heavy Metal had variety to it in the 70's and 80's. A metal band could do ballads, have some blues influences, some classical influences, etc., but they were still a heavy metal band. Few people deny that Judas Priest or Black Sabbath are are heavy metal bands, but they did ballads, they had variety to their songwriting. There were jazz influences, blues influences, classical influences, etc. It was all rolled up into one electric, heavy hitting rock and roll machine.

There was no "co-opting by softer, more commercial forums of music". Please tell me what was heavier than Aerosmith "Rocks" in 1976? Not even Black Sabbath were as heavy as "Nobody's Fault", "Rats in the Cellar" and "Combination". Who was cranking out the riffs and the solos harder than Ted Nugent?

An article from Grooves Magazine written in 1978...
Aerosmith Masters of the Metal
Aerosmith is heavy metal...
And the sledgehammer that powers the American heavy metal machine is undeniably Aerosmith.


Creem Magazine, January 1980. The new wave of heavy metal...


A 1982 ad for Aerosmith's "Rock in a Hard Place" stated...
"The Ultimate Rock Formation.
Aerosmith rocks with enough power to blow this country back to the Metal Age. And you are there."

The proof is before you. Learn your metal history. I was a fan of it in he 70's. I was there. Where were you?

ultmetal wrote:

I almost bought a copy of this exact same Creem magazine at a garage sale about ten years ago. Unfortunately I flipped through it and the entire "Heavy Metal" article I wanted to read had been cut out of it!!!

Temple of Blood wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

Of course he was. He's one that thinks there was no heavy metal scene in the US in the 70's.

I think the term "heavy metal" got co-opted by softer, more commercial forums of music much the same way the term "power metal" has been co-opted in recent years.

There were many hard rock bands that had the occasional heavy metal song but 70s bands tended to have much more variety in what they played than the bands we have today.

I think taking one's views of what constitutes "heavy metal" from a mag with a John Travolta fold-out poster speaks for itself.

It was not just Circus magazine but Creem, Rolling Stone, Hit Parader, Crawdaddy and Sounds who also defined and wrote what bands they considered heavy metal in the 1970's, when the genre was still developing and growing.

manny wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

Of course he was. He's one that thinks there was no heavy metal scene in the US in the 70's.

I think the term "heavy metal" got co-opted by softer, more commercial forums of music much the same way the term "power metal" has been co-opted in recent years.

There were many hard rock bands that had the occasional heavy metal song but 70s bands tended to have much more variety in what they played than the bands we have today.

I think taking one's views of what constitutes "heavy metal" from a mag with a John Travolta fold-out poster speaks for itself.

It was not just Circus magazine but Creem, Rolling Stone, Hit Parader, Crawdaddy and Sounds who also defined and wrote what bands they considered heavy metal in the 1970's, when the genre was still developing and growing.

Exactly!

Here is a quote from Sound in 1978 about Ted Nugent. The band and record company liked the quote so much, they had stickers printed of it and put it on the from of "Double Live Gonzo"...
"The madman's band is the greatest gonzoid heavy metal outfit to be found anywhere-but anywhere-on the whole of our beleaguered planet"

The history revisionism that goes on today by younger heavy metal fans really irritates me. They should respect the roots of the genre, and not try to dismiss it because they don't consider it heavy enough.

manny wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

Of course he was. He's one that thinks there was no heavy metal scene in the US in the 70's.

I think the term "heavy metal" got co-opted by softer, more commercial forums of music much the same way the term "power metal" has been co-opted in recent years.

There were many hard rock bands that had the occasional heavy metal song but 70s bands tended to have much more variety in what they played than the bands we have today.

I think taking one's views of what constitutes "heavy metal" from a mag with a John Travolta fold-out poster speaks for itself.

It was not just Circus magazine but Creem, Rolling Stone, Hit Parader, Crawdaddy and Sounds who also defined and wrote what bands they considered heavy metal in the 1970's, when the genre was still developing and growing.

Exactly!!!!! Those bands were the Heavy Metal of the 70's!!!! We all called them Metal bands back then too!!!!

This isn't about "respect", despite how personal you are trying to make this discussion.

Temple of Blood wrote:

This isn't about "respect", despite how personal you are trying to make this discussion.

Please tell me, what is it about? You are the one who at one time argued that the term "heavy metal" wasn't really even used in the 70's. You are the one who said there was no heavy metal in the U.S. in the 70's. The proof is before you, yet you still deny the obvious.

If it doesn't really matter, why is it that younger metal fans argue that those bands "were never really heavy metal" but are "just hard rock"?

ultmetal wrote:

"Softer"?

That's right. Aerosmith are not as heavy as BLACK SABBATH.

Quote :

Dude, you really have no clue what you are talking about?

Not sure why you are wanting to get personal. You state your case and I'll state mine.

Quote :

It wasn't just this one magazine. It was ALL the magazines. It was the fans. It was all of us. Circus, Creem, Grooves, etc were the music magazines. Why do you discount them?

Because the same thing is true of "power metal" today. The mags, the bands, the fans, etc. But real power metal clearly sounds different than flower metal. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

Quote :

What does having a poster of John Travolta have to do with anything? He was a popular movie star at the time.

It illustrates that those mags catered to popular schlock, and had no real musical integrity and thus wouldn't be opposed to calling anything "heavy metal" if it meant it could cash in on a trend and sell more mags.

Quote :

In the 1970's heavy metal and hard rock MEANT THE SAME THING! The terms were interchangeable.

Oh, so you are the one saying the terms have changed! So now hard rock and metal mean different things? I contend their definitions haven't changed, even if the terms were widely misused.

Quote :

Heavy Metal had variety to it in the 70's and 80's. A metal band could do ballads, have some blues influences, some classical influences, etc., but they were still a heavy metal band. Few people deny that Judas Priest or Black Sabbath are are heavy metal bands, but they did ballads, they had variety to their songwriting. There were jazz influences, blues influences, classical influences, etc. It was all rolled up into one electric, heavy hitting rock and roll machine.

But the difference is that more than 50% of those bands material throughout their careers were metal songs, not 2 metal songs per album and then 8 songs in other categories.

Quote :

There was no "co-opting by softer, more commercial forums of music". Please tell me what was heavier than Aerosmith "Rocks" in 1976? Not even Black Sabbath were as heavy as "Nobody's Fault", "Rats in the Cellar" and "Combination". Who was cranking out the riffs and the solos harder than Ted Nugent?

Just because a band write a few metal songs doesn't make them a metal band if the majority of their output belongs in other genres.

It's not about being "hard". That's a necessary but not sufficient condition. It has to be dark too.

Quote :

The proof is before you.

So, just for the record ... all the bands in black according to that mag are metal bands. Humble Pie, Blue Oyster Cult, Triumph, Blackfoot. And you say this is a reputable source? Will you for the record say those are all metal bands, as this mag contends?

Quote :

Where were you?

Again, you have to make it personal. State your case and let that stand on its own.

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

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.

Saying "Where Were you?" is not a personal attack. It's saying, "I was there, you were not." It's stating a fact.

Saying "you have no clue" is not a personal attack either. It's stating the obvious. You don't know the history of the very music you claim to love or you wouldn't be making this argument.

"That's right. Aerosmith are not as heavy as BLACK SABBATH."
This is the perfect statement of ignorance. I can only assume from this statement that your knowledge of Aerosmith's catalog stems from a handful of hits or something, not from personal knowledge or from being familiar with their catalog. Sure, Aerosmith had a different sound than Sabbath and Priest, but they were just as heavy, just as hard hitting and sometimes moreso. How "dark" they were is a matter of opinion. I'd put "Rocks" up against any Sabbath album personally. Aerosmith were just as heavy as Sabbath in the 70's.

For the record, YES, I consider Blue Oyster Cult and Blackfoot to have been heavy metal bands in the early 80's. Blackfoot's sound was a bit more Southern Rock, but they were a hard rocking band that was actually more accepted in the European metal scene than they ever were in the U.S. BOC were one of the defining bands of the genre.

Yes, power metal has become something it once was not. 80's power metal and modern flower metal are not the same thing. However, that argument only makes mine stronger. I still find it amazing that you discount all the journalists of the time. It's not like the flower metal/power metal argument. There was no heavy metal before these bands to redefine. The term and the genre was new and fresh in the 70's. These were the bands on the ground floor of heavy metal. These were the bands that defined heavy metal in the 70's.

What I find amazing, really I do.....is this !


Ult didn't offer an opinion of what he believed something is or was. He gave proof. If this was before judge and jury as an actual legal case. Ult-pros. Tob-def. The surmise of the proceedings would be a s followed. Ult provided evidence of actual credible sources backing his case. ToB only gave conjecture, heresay, and mere own opinion for his case. In the end, ToB would be another inmate crying about innocence just because they thought they were smarter than everybody else.

Humor aside or lack thereof....

ToB still is entitled to an opinion
In real world application, an actual witness who lived thru the actual occurance will always hold more merit than somebody who only read about it years later. Yes perspective counts but look at it this way. Would ya rather hear it from somebody who was there or read it on the internet from somebody who still wrote with crayons when the 70's was over.

ToB, the last sentence is not a personal attack. It is a generalized observation of anybody born the same yaer as you.

thejokeriv wrote:

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".

[/url]

I am sure SOMEONE will chime in and say 'No, they weren't heavy metal"

I just knew the Chinese fire drill would start........ and I had a pretty good guess as to who would start it.

James B. wrote:

What I find amazing, really I do.....is this !


Ult didn't offer an opinion of what he believed something is or was. He gave proof. If this was before judge and jury as an actual legal case. Ult-pros. Tob-def. The surmise of the proceedings would be a s followed. Ult provided evidence of actual credible sources backing his case. ToB only gave conjecture, heresay, and mere own opinion for his case. In the end, ToB would be another inmate crying about innocence just because they thought they were smarter than everybody else.

Humor aside or lack thereof....

ToB still is entitled to an opinion
In real world application, an actual witness who lived thru the actual occurance will always hold more merit than somebody who only read about it years later. Yes perspective counts but look at it this way. Would ya rather hear it from somebody who was there or read it on the internet from somebody who still wrote with crayons when the 70's was over.

ToB, the last sentence is not a personal attack. It is a generalized observation of anybody born the same yaer as you.

Great post!!!!!!! It does seem to be true that those who were still wetting the bed at the end of the 70's have that view

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Is that his 2643rd one or regards to that ol' adage ?

First of all, the term "heavy metal" was used even before the 70s. Ult is absolutely correct: it irritates me to no end when I hear people who listen primarily to stuff like black/death/grindcore and other stuff of that ilk and say that just because the older stuff isn't as "heavy," it's not metal.

The term "heavy metal" was actually lifted from a book written by William S. Burroughs entitled Naked Lunch by Sandy Pearlman, and he in turn applied it to a band he had just formed called Blue Oyster Cult. Of course Steppenwolf mention it in their timeless song "Born to Be Wild," and I believe it was some Rolling Stone writer who used it to describe Hendrix's sound: he said something along the lines of "it sounds like heavy metal falling from the sky." Those are two bands right along with Iron Butterfly, Cream, and Blue Cheer that pioneered the sound for Black Sabbath, Blue Oyster Cult, Led Zeppelin, Thin Lizzy, Budgie, and many others in the 70s.

The term has been thrown around for much longer than many realize, and lots of people today are big history revisionists, much like those douchers down in Texas who are trying to get history books changed.

Heavy metal is basically just rock 'n' roll turned all the way up anyway.

Actually Black Foot, Triumph, Blue Oyster Cult and Humble Pie where considered heavy metal bands in the early 70 to mid 70's.

As a matter fact the term heavy metal was used in print in Rolling Stone magazine to describe the sound of their album 'As Safe as Yesterday'

and Blue Oyster Cult was described by critics of the day, as a 'thinking man's metal band' but of course these statements were written in the early 70's so I am sure they are wrong.

:glee: oh this is getting good!!














and finally......

The irony is that I'm sure a lot of these bands' members would probably deny that they ever were, seeing the term as being inane and "invented by some pencil neck nerd sitting in an air-conditioned office all day giving their portentous blowhard opinion on what is and what isn't."

Either way, they were, and while I'm here I've to ask this question: what does "heavy" really mean?

Is it more of a concept, like the theme of the lyrics? Or is it they actual sound of the music itself?

dude wrote.....

Quote :

Either way, they were, and while I'm here I've to ask this question: what does "heavy" really mean?

Is it more of a concept, like the theme of the lyrics? Or is it they actual sound of the music itself?

That is a good and valid question but an actual rabbit trail from the gest of the title and initial post of this topic.

Notice there isn't a question mark after "1970s"

True. Maybe it could be made into another thread for another day.

James B. wrote:

dude wrote.....

Quote :

Either way, they were, and while I'm here I've to ask this question: what does "heavy" really mean?

Is it more of a concept, like the theme of the lyrics? Or is it they actual sound of the music itself?

That is a good and valid question but an actual rabbit trail from the gest of the title and initial post of this topic.

Notice there isn't a question mark after "1970s"

Actually I think the above Grooves description is rather fitting:

Quote :

Heavy Metal–stacks of speakers and high voltage amps; deep, thunderous, surging sounds from the bass; screaming lead guitars emitting doomsday warnings; pumped up percussion; instruments (and minds) being demolish on stage. There is no subtlety in Heavy Metal; it's the hardest of hard rock with electric shock treatments and vibrating air churning right before your eyes.

It's hard to believe in this day and age that this was a description of Aerosmith, a band considered quite tame by comparison to the extremes in metal we have now.

ultmetal wrote:

James B. wrote:

dude wrote.....

Quote :

Either way, they were, and while I'm here I've to ask this question: what does "heavy" really mean?

Is it more of a concept, like the theme of the lyrics? Or is it they actual sound of the music itself?

That is a good and valid question but an actual rabbit trail from the gest of the title and initial post of this topic.

Notice there isn't a question mark after "1970s"

Actually I think the above Grooves description is rather fitting:

Quote :

Heavy Metal–stacks of speakers and high voltage amps; deep, thunderous, surging sounds from the bass; screaming lead guitars emitting doomsday warnings; pumped up percussion; instruments (and minds) being demolish on stage. There is no subtlety in Heavy Metal; it's the hardest of hard rock with electric shock treatments and vibrating air churning right before your eyes.

It's hard to believe in this day and age that this was a description of Aerosmith, a band considered quite tame by comparison to the extremes in metal we have now.

By today's standards both Black Sabbath and Judas Priest would also be considered tame but that does not change the fact that they are labeled heavy metal, well that is everyone but ToB labels them metal.