Heavy Metal of the 1970s...

Just for giggles I posted this topic over at Bravewords.

If I was a college student, imagine the thesis one could propose on this subject.

As Jack Webb used to say, "just the facts mam"

So, for the record ult ... you consider Triumph to be a heavy metal band?

Also, please give me some examples of:
hard rock bands -
rock-n-roll bands -

Thanks.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

OK, maybe it's because I'm dazed on DayQuil and other cold medicines this morning, but I don't "get" this. Someone please explain?

Fat Freddy wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

OK, maybe it's because I'm dazed on DayQuil and other cold medicines this morning, but I don't "get" this. Someone please explain?

"dumb as a................."

Ahhhhh, now I gotcha. Thanx. That's been buggin the hell out of me all morning. Damn anti-histamines.

I was there in the late seventies, and I thought those bands were heavy metal. But I was 12 to 14 during that era .

James B. wrote:

Fat Freddy wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

OK, maybe it's because I'm dazed on DayQuil and other cold medicines this morning, but I don't "get" this. Someone please explain?

"dumb as a................."

Actually its "Arguing with a..."

This was a great discussion/debate. Ult, thanks for posting pictures of those old magazines. Man, they bring back memories. I wish I had kept my stacks of old Circus, Creem, and Hit Parader magazines. You are right, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Aerosmith, Kiss, BOC, and Ted Nugent were the heavy metal hitters during that amazing era of music. But like Martin Popoff states in The Collector's Guide to Heavy Metal Volume 1: The Seventies, "...the definition of what is heavy intensifies, gets faster, more violent, much heavier over time (and it even moves sideways and back and forth a bit)." So it's really a matter of age and perspective. Of course, being older, being there, our perspective is much clearer

70s rock-n-roll bands - 10cc, Peter Frampton, Kansas, Yes, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Genesis, David Bowie, CCR, The Guess Who, Foreigner, ZZ Top, Santana, Neil Young, Crosby,Stills&Nash, Greatful Dead, Supertramp, Robin Trower, Bruce Springsteen, Steve Miller Band, Glass Harp, Sweet Comfort Band, The Outlaws, Bob Segar, Styx, Traffic, King Crimson, Blondie, The Knack, Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers, Heart, Marshall Tucker Band, Meatloaf, Jeff Beck, Eric Clapton, Rare Earth, Nektar, Average White Band, T.Rex, Spirit, Be Bop Deluxe, Tod Rundgren, Bad Company, Rubicon...this could be a very long list.

70's hard rock/heavy metal bands - Aerosmith, Ted Nugent, UFO, Led Zeppelin, Judas Priest, Black Sabbath, Uriah Heep, Budgie, Kiss, Rush, AC/DC, Deep Purple, Rainbow, Thin Lizzy, Van Halen...

Then there were the bands that sort of rode the line like Foghat, BTO, Nazareth, Frank Marino & Mahogany Rush, Triumph, The Sweet, Molly Hatchet, etc. Sure, Triumph might have been pegged as a heavy metal band in the 70's.

Then there are the bands that I would consider proto-metal; Blue Cheer, Hawkwind, Golden Earring, Cream, Jimi Hendrix, Alice Cooper, Elf, Vanilla Fudge, Steppenwolf, etc.

Wiikipedia wrote:

The terms "heavy metal" and "hard rock" have often been used interchangeably, particularly in discussing bands of the 1970s, a period when the terms were largely synonymous. For example, the 1983 Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll includes this passage: "known for its aggressive blues-based hard-rock style, Aerosmith was the top American heavy-metal band of the mid-Seventies."

So who are some modern hard rock bands in your opinion?

If Alter Bridge had formed in 1971, would you consider them a "heavy metal" band?

Temple of Blood wrote:

So who are some modern hard rock bands in your opinion?

If Alter Bridge had formed in 1971, would you consider them a "heavy metal" band?

What's your point? Listing a bunch of modern bands doesn't disprove that those band in the 70's were commonly called "heavy metal bands" by both the fans and the press.

I just read the Wikipedia definition of Heavy Metal and it pretty much agrees with me as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music

If you are trying to get me to admit that by today's standards bands like Aerosmith and Kiss wouldn't be considered heavy metal, so be it. Heavy metal has obviously progressed from the 70's and 80's. Comparing Aerosmith to Slayer, sure, Aerosmith are tame by comparison. However, that doesn't change the historical fact that those 70's bands were the bands on the ground floor of the genre. Those were the bands that helped define the style.

Temple of Blood wrote:

So who are some modern hard rock bands in your opinion?

If Alter Bridge had formed in 1971, would you consider them a "heavy metal" band?

Some folks list them as a heavy metal already.

Scott seems to be making the point that, despite personal tastes or agreeances, the bands he's referencing were commonly considered to be "Heavy Metal". Arguing this point, in light of the evidence, is pointless...it is what it is whether anyone likes it/agrees with it or not.

And I am saying just because many people call it that doesn't make it so.

How many times do I need to explain this?

Many fans/mags call a lot of flower metal "power metal".
Many fans/mags call metalcore "thrash".
Many fans/mags called mallcore like Limp Bizkit and \"thebandthatshallneverbementionedagain\" "metal".

It makes no sense whatsoever to have redundant genre definitions or to say the definitions of genres change over time. That's completely absurd. Did the definition of swing music change over time? Are blues and jazz the exact same thing?

The fact that he has to reference when a band was formed to classify it says a lot about how ridiculous these musical definitions are. So is the ridiculous "I'm older and I know better" ad hominem angle.

Your argument is ridiculous, it is a historic fact, like Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president that is a historic fact, so is the fact that Aerosmith, KISS, Ted Nugent were called and accepted as heavy metal artists. They were labeled this in the 70's when the genre was developing and for the most part still are.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Did the definition of swing music change over time? Are blues and jazz the exact same thing?

You make a good point here. Actually, yes they did change over time.

Quote :

The blues genre is based on the blues form but possesses other characteristics such as specific lyrics, bass lines and instruments. Blues can be subdivided into several subgenres ranging from country to urban blues that were more or less popular during different periods of the 20th century. Best known are the Delta, Piedmont, Jump and Chicago blues styles. World War II marked the transition from acoustic to electric blues and the progressive opening of blues music to a wider audience. In the 1960s and 1970s, a hybrid form called blues-rock evolved.

Blues progressed and changed over time. New sub-genres are formed, but the old blues artists are still considered blues artists despite the changes and progressions over the decade. Obviously Blind Willy Johnson doesn't sound like Stevie Ray Vaughn who doesn't sound like B.B. King, but they are all still blues artists. Same holds true for the many subgenres of jazz, swing, etc.. The originators of the styles don't get relabeled down the road as the style progress.

manny wrote:

Your argument is ridiculous, it is a historic fact, like Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president that is a historic fact, so is the fact that Aerosmith, KISS, Ted Nugent were called and accepted as heavy metal artists. They were labeled this in the 70's when the genre was developing and for the most part still are.

I concur.

Blues didn't change. Blues stayed the blues. People tweaked it and new subgenres/hybrids were formed from it, but the original blues sound can still be played and recognized today by old and new musicians alike.

The idea that a group influenced the development of a style so therefore they PLAY that style is also absurd. Cream influenced Rush but Cream are not a progressive rock band.

Temple of Blood wrote:

And I am saying just because many people call it that doesn't make it so.

...to you.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Blues didn't change. Blues stayed the blues. People tweaked it and new subgenres/hybrids were formed from it, but the original blues sound can still be played and recognized today by old and new musicians alike.

The idea that a group influenced the development of a style so therefore they PLAY that style is also absurd. Cream influenced Rush but Cream are not a progressive rock band.

Nope but Rush did not start out that as a prog band either, and their first self titled album was very much influenced by power trios such as Cream and The Jimi Hendrix Experience, with a heavy sprinkling of Led Zeppelin. Cream have been cited, along with Hendrix as important in the development of heavy metal.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Blues didn't change. Blues stayed the blues. People tweaked it and new subgenres/hybrids were formed from it, but the original blues sound can still be played and recognized today by old and new musicians alike.

The idea that a group influenced the development of a style so therefore they PLAY that style is also absurd. Cream influenced Rush but Cream are not a progressive rock band.

And the same thing can be said of Heavy Metal. Aerosmith doesn't sound like Black Sabbath doesn't sound like Iron Maiden doesn't sound like Slayer doesn't sound like Emporer, but it's all Heavy Metal of some sort...get over it before you have an aneurysm.

And for the time, Cream were very progressive...it just so happened that they were never called that...whereas Aerosmith and BOC and Queen WERE actually called Heavy Metal by and large by a great many fans and publications.

Blues didn't change? Does Muddy Waters sound like B.B. King? Does Howlin' Wolf sound like Bonnie Raitt? Does Stevie Ray Vaughn sound like John Lee Hooker?

In 1977 you could not compare KISS to Slayer in regards of musical and/or lyrical content.
Slayer wasn't around, or anything similar to make anykind of debate over.

In 1977 standards. the application of defintion regarding the term, "heavy metal", Kiss and contemporaries apply to what was merited to that time.

In today's standards, you have many many bands to compare with as far as musical, "heaviness", "agression", "tempo" or lyrical "imagry" or "mood".

ToB is putting the cart before the horse. Ult's entire point is those bands were "metal" in the 70's but opposed to what transpired in the 30 something years since...well the size of the brush has not only broadened but diversiified in the colors one can paint.


For example, in 1980, I could tell somebody that I played in a metal band and they would pretty much know where I was coming from. In 2010, I could tell somebody that I play in a metal band and they would reply, "what kind of metal band ?" Point being, back then it didn't need to be explained, it was understood what the term meant or implied. Nowadays, it is so broken down and dissected that what it isn't seems to mean more than is.

James B. wrote:

In 1977 you could not compare KISS to Slayer in regards of musical and/or lyrical content.
Slayer wasn't around, or anything similar to make anykind of debate over.

In 1977 standards. the application of defintion regarding the term, "heavy metal", Kiss and contemporaries apply to what was merited to that time.

In today's standards, you have many many bands to compare with as far as musical, "heaviness", "agression", "tempo" or lyrical "imagry" or "mood".

ToB is putting the cart before the horse. Ult's entire point is those bands were "metal" in the 70's but opposed to what transpired in the 30 something years since...well the size of the brush has not only broadened but diversiified in the colors one can paint.


For example, in 1980, I could tell somebody that I played in a metal band and they would pretty much know where I was coming from. In 2010, I could tell somebody that I play in a metal band and they would reply, "what kind of metal band ?" Point being, back then it didn't need to be explained, it was understood what the term meant or implied. Nowadays, it is so broken down and dissected that what it isn't seems to mean more than is.

This.

In the 1970's, "Heavy Metal" in America described Aerosmith, BOC, Queen and whoever else Ult posted about earlier...if you don't like it, build a time machine, go back and tell them how wrong they are...the fact remains that it DID happen and all the arguing to the contrary is pointless. Like James said, Slayer did not exist in 1977, so Aerosmith, Sabbath, Zeppelin, Queen, BOC, etc was the heaviest crap on the block...they were Heavy Metal...end of story.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Blues didn't change. Blues stayed the blues. People tweaked it and new subgenres/hybrids were formed from it, but the original blues sound can still be played and recognized today by old and new musicians alike.

The idea that a group influenced the development of a style so therefore they PLAY that style is also absurd. Cream influenced Rush but Cream are not a progressive rock band.

They didn't "influence the development" of the style, they WERE THE STYLE! You are one of the few people with a deep knowledge of heavy metal who actually thinks that heavy metal didn't exist in the U.S. until the 1980's, despite the evidence to the contrary. This is exactly what history revisionism is.

How is it you seem to discount years of documented history; books, periodicals, testimony from people that were there, etc. etc. etc.

Just because Aerosmith doesn't sound like Slayer doesn't sound like Quiet Riot, doesn't minimize the fact that all these bands are part of heavy metal history.

The old style of heavy metal can still be played and recognized today by old and new musicians alike. Bands like The Sword and Airbourne are examples.