Heavy Metal of the 1970s...

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

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.

Yep - they WERE called Heavy metal!!!!!

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.

As usual!!!!

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.

ultmetal wrote:

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.

Once again, Ult get is right!!!!!!

James B., Shawn, and Ult are correct.

And the one thing that bugs me about metal these days is that it's splintered off into so many different silly sub-genres that it's almost impossible to fit it all under one umbrella, whereas a very concise answer could be given thirty to forty years ago as James stated.

Look at the NWOBHM: you had so many different bands lumped into that category, but you'd be hard-pressed to find any two that sounded indentical.

Iron Maiden had progressive tendencies, while Motorhead and The Handsome Beasts had more of a punk delivery.

It's really all over the place.

TOB, if you were there in '77 and reading about those bands being called Heavy Metal and accepted they were that at what point do you decide they aren't really that? You are the one changing the definition it seems to me.

ultmetal wrote:

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

I have never said this. You still do not understand my argument. Let me lay it out for the umpteenth time. Copy this into a file on your desktop to refer back to.

Heavy metal is dark, powerful, guitar riff-based hard rock music. This was true in 1969 and is still true in 2010. It didn't change. This can be expressed in many different ways (with many different types of guitar, drum, and vocal stylings) but the basic hallmarks of the genre did not change.

Heavy metal SONGS (read that word a million times) existed in the U.S. before 1980. In order for a band to be properly termed a heavy metal band, the majority of their songs should be heavy metal songs. I can't think of many examples of U.S. bands from the 1970s that fit this description. If Seals and Croft released a metal song they still would not be a metal band because the majority of their output is not heavy metal.

If you love Nugent, great. But the majority of his music is not dark. It may be heavy. It may rock really hard. It may be powerful. But it is not dark.

Hard rock music has no less musical integrity than heavy metal. It seems this needed to be said because I get the impression people are taking this as some sort of slight against those bands for some reason.

Terms get co-opted over time. I listed examples before. Does anyone refute those examples?

Why do we run around in circles? Aren't we like dogs, chasing their own tails?

Temple of Blood wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

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

I have never said this. You still do not understand my argument. Let me lay it out for the umpteenth time. Copy this into a file on your desktop to refer back to.

Heavy metal is dark, powerful, guitar riff-based hard rock music. This was true in 1969 and is still true in 2010. It didn't change. This can be expressed in many different ways (with many different types of guitar, drum, and vocal stylings) but the basic hallmarks of the genre did not change.

Heavy metal SONGS (read that word a million times) existed in the U.S. before 1980. In order for a band to be properly termed a heavy metal band, the majority of their songs should be heavy metal songs. I can't think of many examples of U.S. bands from the 1970s that fit this description. If Seals and Croft released a metal song they still would not be a metal band because the majority of their output is not heavy metal.

If you love Nugent, great. But the majority of his music is not dark. It may be heavy. It may rock really hard. It may be powerful. But it is not dark.

Hard rock music has no less musical integrity than heavy metal. It seems this needed to be said because I get the impression people are taking this as some sort of slight against those bands for some reason.

Terms get co-opted over time. I listed examples before. Does anyone refute those examples?

You are still injecting your own personal perspective into the argument. Ult is not. Who sat down and canonized Heavy Metal to be exactly as you described it? Yeah, nobody...that's who. You're injecting your own personal perspective as to exactly what Heavy Metal is (based on your own life and experience and opinion) and back-dating it to cover a time period where you were eating strained peas and drooling onto your shirt. Ignoring historical document will get you nowhere, no matter how you want to reinterpret it.

So is Killswitch Engage a thrash band?

No need to listen to any of their music and analyze what they are doing on their instruments .... Let's consult the magazines! Let's also see what their fans across the internet are calling them.

Temple of Blood wrote:

So is Killswitch Engage a thrash band?

No need to listen to any of their music and analyze what they are doing on their instruments .... Let's consult the magazines! Let's also see what their fans across the internet are calling them.

Killswitch Engage is Heavy Metal.

Why do I keep reading this thread?

Temple of Blood wrote:

So is Killswitch Engage a thrash band?

No need to listen to any of their music and analyze what they are doing on their instruments .... Let's consult the magazines! Let's also see what their fans across the internet are calling them.

Why do keep bringing up modern bands when the argument was about 70's and 60's bands, of course no need inject logic or stick the topic when you can toss a red herring into the argument.

kmorg,
Nah, it's all fun. I don't have any ill will towards ToB from this discussion. I just flat out disagree with him. He's entitled to his opinion. It's all part of the discussion board experience. Debating sharpens the mind and makes you think. I've had my mind changed on some issues due to debates like these. This one, however, I've lived and breathed since I was a kid in grade school and was fighting with my friends who liked The Bay City Rollers and the Jackson 5.

ToB,
So you can compare Aerosmith, Nugent, UFO, Kiss, etc. to the hordes of 70's rock bands I listed earlier and you don't think they are "heavy" and "darker" by comparison? Again, I question how much you really know about these bands if you disagree. You don't just disagree with me, you disagree with history itself.

Also, who made up this "it has to be dark" to be metal definition that you have? Why is it that your definition of heavy metal disagrees with just about everyone else who has a deep knowledge of the history of the genre?

Fat Freddy wrote:

Why do I keep reading this thread?

Because it's a good read.

Fat Freddy wrote:

Why do I keep reading this thread?

"Hey, check this out!!"

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

So is Killswitch Engage a thrash band?

No need to listen to any of their music and analyze what they are doing on their instruments .... Let's consult the magazines! Let's also see what their fans across the internet are calling them.

Killswitch Engage is Heavy Metal.

I find them to be quasi-thrash/epic spazzcore/emo/dubstep with just a light touch of dill.

Fat Freddy wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

So is Killswitch Engage a thrash band?

No need to listen to any of their music and analyze what they are doing on their instruments .... Let's consult the magazines! Let's also see what their fans across the internet are calling them.

Killswitch Engage is Heavy Metal.

I find them to be quasi-thrash/epic spazzcore/emo/dubstep with just a light touch of dill.

...on a stick.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

So is Killswitch Engage a thrash band?

No need to listen to any of their music and analyze what they are doing on their instruments .... Let's consult the magazines! Let's also see what their fans across the internet are calling them.

Killswitch Engage is Heavy Metal.

If mags and fans say they are thrash, then they must be. These are objective infallible sources. Popular opinions are always right. Terminology is meaningless. Let's change the definitions of everything to fit our whims ... as long as enough of us agree!

Once again ult, is Alter Bridge a metal band?

Temple of Blood wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

So is Killswitch Engage a thrash band?

No need to listen to any of their music and analyze what they are doing on their instruments .... Let's consult the magazines! Let's also see what their fans across the internet are calling them.

Killswitch Engage is Heavy Metal.

If mags and fans say they are thrash, then they must be. These are objective infallible sources. Popular opinions are always right. Terminology is meaningless. Let's change the definitions of everything to fit our whims ... as long as enough of us agree!

Once again ult, is Alter Bridge a metal band?

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:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

So is Killswitch Engage a thrash band?

No need to listen to any of their music and analyze what they are doing on their instruments .... Let's consult the magazines! Let's also see what their fans across the internet are calling them.

Killswitch Engage is Heavy Metal.

If mags and fans say they are thrash, then they must be. These are objective infallible sources. Popular opinions are always right. Terminology is meaningless. Let's change the definitions of everything to fit our whims ... as long as enough of us agree!

Once again ult, is Alter Bridge a metal band?

Red herring is an idiomatic expression referring to a rhetorical tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance

manny wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

So is Killswitch Engage a thrash band?

No need to listen to any of their music and analyze what they are doing on their instruments .... Let's consult the magazines! Let's also see what their fans across the internet are calling them.

Killswitch Engage is Heavy Metal.

If mags and fans say they are thrash, then they must be. These are objective infallible sources. Popular opinions are always right. Terminology is meaningless. Let's change the definitions of everything to fit our whims ... as long as enough of us agree!

Once again ult, is Alter Bridge a metal band?

Red herring is an idiomatic expression referring to a rhetorical tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance

I learned that Triumph and Blackfoot are heavy metal bands, so this thread has really taught me something.

I'm also wondering if Alter Bridge is as metal as those two to also qualify. And if not, why in the world not?

Also ult, what is the distinction between hard rock and heavy metal music? Funny that these should be the only two genres in the entire spectrum of music that are supposedly completely the same (or at one time supposedly were).

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

So is Killswitch Engage a thrash band?

No need to listen to any of their music and analyze what they are doing on their instruments .... Let's consult the magazines! Let's also see what their fans across the internet are calling them.

Killswitch Engage is Heavy Metal.

If mags and fans say they are thrash, then they must be. These are objective infallible sources. Popular opinions are always right. Terminology is meaningless. Let's change the definitions of everything to fit our whims ... as long as enough of us agree!

Once again ult, is Alter Bridge a metal band?

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.

Indeed.

Temple of Blood wrote:

I learned that Triumph and Blackfoot are heavy metal bands, so this thread has really taught me something.

I'm also wondering if Alter Bridge is as metal as those two to also qualify. And if not, why in the world not?

Also ult, what is the distinction between hard rock and heavy metal music? Funny that these should be the only two genres in the entire spectrum of music that are supposedly completely the same (or at one time supposedly were).

I'm an unfamiliar with Alter Bridge. Sorry. Cannot answer that question.

I said that Blackfoot were accepted as a heavy metal band moreso by the European metal scene in the early 80's than by the U.S. I also said they leaned more towards the side of Southern Rock, but read some interviews with Blackfoot from the 80's. They do say they purposely were going for a heavy metal sound and that Quiet Riot in 1983 was a big influence to their sound. In the early 1980s, yes, me and most of my friends considered Blackfoot to be a heavy metal band, though we didn't deny their Southern Rock roots either. Same with Molly Hatchet.

Quote :

"...then the Allman Brothers came along and made the sound heavier and started churning out these 15-minute songs. Next, Lynyrd Skynyrd came along and refined that sound: made, it more powerful and crunchier. Then you had Marshall Tucker and Grinderswitch and they added a country flavor to it and then came Molly Hatchet and we were the first to put a heavy metal edge to it. That was the evolution of the things that were taking place then."
- Dave Hlubek, Kerrang! No 86, February 1985

You'll notice I also listed some bands that sort of walked the line, and Triumph were one of those I listed.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Also ult, what is the distinction between hard rock and heavy metal music? Funny that these should be the only two genres in the entire spectrum of music that are supposedly completely the same (or at one time supposedly were).

I think I already answered that one several times and even posted a quote from Wikipedia. Yes, heavy metal and hard rock were interchangeable terms during the 1970's.

And the difference between hard rock and heavy metal is what again?

You keep dodging that question.

Sorry, I missed it the first time and went back and answered your question again in my edit.

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

Temple of Blood wrote:

And the difference between hard rock and heavy metal is what again?

You keep dodging that question.

Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.

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.

manny wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

And the difference between hard rock and heavy metal is what again?

You keep dodging that question.

Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.

Another GREAT post Manny!!! The point is that KISS, Ted Nugent, Aerosmith, Led Zep, Black Sabbath, UFO, Scorpions, AC/DC where ALL considered Heavy Metal in the 70's!!! That is what I called them (and everyone one I knew called that style of music) in the 70's. Heck, the posters older than me have testified they all called it Heavy Metal. What does that tell you? Hmmm - it's Heavy Metal.

It's always the kids that started to listen in the 80's, most likely because they were still being potty trained in the late 70's, that say "that's not metal"