First American metal band???

The Alice Cooper band was far more consistent in their direction and sound than the others mentioned in those 3. If it weren't for Roth's input and the trademark swing of Alex, Van Halen could have may well ended up a heavy metal group.

Credit also should go to the early efforts of Riot and Manilla Road. 'Fire Down Under' has to be about the most consistent 'metal' recording by a U.S. band up to that point (early early 1981). Pentagram needs to be mentioned also...those demos got pretty heavy...although it was still a lot of "guys, uh, so what are we doing?"

I think it's slightly easier to find the first American metal song than the first band who went full-fledged heavy metal, but it's certainly interesting.

The answer to your question is Pentagram. They were consistently heavy from their earliest incarnation, and were directly influenced by the first metal band, Black Sabbath.

Too many people relate 1970's heavy metal to what came afterwards and then compare. That is putting the cart before the horse as far as I'm concerned. We listened back then and that is what we called it. I joined a band of twenty somethings in 1979 and that is what they called the music they played. But I guesss being there and living it means nothing because the sound and image just wasn't what fit into anothers preconceived notion while looking back in hindsight.


Ya see I can read a book or two about the 1960's countercultur today and then think I have it figured out. Or I can go talk to my siblings. One lived in haight/asbury while it was all going down and another followed the Dead around for almost a decade. Where do you think the experience is gonna be gleaned from ? Knowledge is one thing but experience is another thing altogehter. I hope that explains my perspective a lil bit clearer.

James B. wrote:

Too many people relate 1970's heavy metal to what came afterwards and then compare. That is putting the cart before the horse as far as I'm concerned. We listened back then and that is what we called it. I joined a band of twenty somethings in 1979 and that is what they called the music they played. But I guesss being there and living it means nothing because the sound and image just wasn't what fit into anothers preconceived notion while looking back in hindsight.


Ya see I can read a book or two about the 1960's countercultur today and then think I have it figured out. Or I can go talk to my siblings. One lived in haight/asbury while it was all going down and another followed the Dead around for almost a decade. Where do you think the experience is gonna be gleaned from ? Knowledge is one thing but experience is another thing altogehter. I hope that explains my perspective a lil bit clearer.

Agreed.

Perspective is obviously important but it can introduce relativism into an objectively-based topic. The root significance is how the recordings sound, and it really shouldn't be anything past that. We're trying to find the bridge because if X heavy metal from an earlier time is not metal, than X heavy metal from a later time is, and vice versa - pinpointing one specific thing automatically places exclusivity on something. The future can't negate the past but it can't work the other way either. So we look at the evolution. Time is gonna march on regardless of whether we like it so we have to look at the evolution from beginning to present.

That is the basis of my perspective, sound. Bands back in the 70's that we called "heavy metal" had that sound. Subjective or not, that may not be all they did on a particular record either. Doesn't change nor negate the sound of those songs and records.

Objectivity is easy to clamor onto when you fail to have a personal attachment to something.
So in some minds, because I listened to "heavy metal" and played in a "heavy metal" band in the late 70's. it introduced relativism to a discussion that is objectively based. Thus making my expeience null and void, due to its lack of continuity within a congruent aspect of somethings "assumed" evolution. Okie-dokie

James B. wrote:

Too many people relate 1970's heavy metal to what came afterwards and then compare. That is putting the cart before the horse as far as I'm concerned. We listened back then and that is what we called it. I joined a band of twenty somethings in 1979 and that is what they called the music they played. But I guesss being there and living it means nothing because the sound and image just wasn't what fit into anothers preconceived notion while looking back in hindsight.


Ya see I can read a book or two about the 1960's countercultur today and then think I have it figured out. Or I can go talk to my siblings. One lived in haight/asbury while it was all going down and another followed the Dead around for almost a decade. Where do you think the experience is gonna be gleaned from ? Knowledge is one thing but experience is another thing altogehter. I hope that explains my perspective a lil bit clearer.

Great post!

Nothing irks me more than to see people dismiss an entire era of music because it doesn't fit into their modern idea of what "heavy metal" should be when the fact is, those of us who were there, who lived it, who loved it, know it!

There was a reason they called the 80's the NEW WAVE of heavy metal, because the FIRST WAVE had already come in the 1970's, and that first wave didn't consist of just Black Sabbath and Judas Priest.




Is it possible for Heavy Metal to survive past the 1970s? Gee, I don't know.

it's not "null and void", I just think it's more relevant what something actually is then the perspective in of itself. I don't know your experience so I can't say you're wrong. I'm just saying how it looks is not always how it is and there are pros and cons to certain perspectives.

In the 70's Pink Floyd was a "drug band", yet the majority of the chemical intake was by Syd Barrett and that debut record wasn't even in that decade. Is Pink Floyd a "drug band" because the founder chugged them and because people with that habit listened to them? What about their records INHERENTLY make Pink Floyd a "drug band"? That to me is how to place and judge music. The records.

Also, because I'm being more centrist and not necessarily jumping on some side doesn't make me dismissive of some huge thing, I realize there is this paranoia that some people have that the young folks are out to revision all this history, and that even in my 50s I will probably have to listen to it, but it's simply not true.

Witchfinder wrote:

The answer to your question is Pentagram. They were consistently heavy from their earliest incarnation, and were directly influenced by the first metal band, Black Sabbath.

Unit Randy ( Trog) I never heard their music, I can't disagree, but Pentagram was a band that passed me by as a kid, and most of my adulthood.

Manny, even though you were in the era, would you say because Pentagram passed you by, e.g. you "weren't there" and didn't hear them, suddenly Pentagram was not a progeny of American metal? Probably not.......because it's about the recordings, and they were there whether anyone heard them or lived the scene. I rest my case.

Orion Crystal Ice wrote:

Manny, even though you were in the era, would you say because Pentagram passed you by, e.g. you "weren't there" and didn't hear them, suddenly Pentagram was not a progeny of American metal? Probably not.......because it's about the recordings, and they were there whether anyone heard them or lived the scene. I rest my case.

As much music as I listen to, I missed out on a lot of great bands, metal or not, Pentagram may have passed me by but they certainly were important building block in the history of metal but I would say so was Aerosmith or KISS, who when I was growing up, where labled heavy metal.

Another question:


I've already outlined why something like the Pink Floyd "drug band" thing in that era doesn't make sense. Here's another one. Today's culture, lots of kids and magazines say that there is a whole bunch of stuff which is heavy metal. I don't think it is. Who's right? They're living it, and the media is current. Halestorm won a Grammy in a metal category. Is Halestorm metal? Today is the future's "back in the day". Are people going to look at the records, or the general outside consensus?

I would love to chime in here, but this discussion is beyond my knowledge or experience short of what I have read or documentaries that I have watched. Let's keep this going, as I am really enjoying reading it.

Seems to me, most of these comments are sort of missing the mark on the original question. Many are claiming that the music/bands of the 70's were considdered heavy metal by the general public and media (and it very well may be), but not by the bands themselves. Anyone of those mentioned would have said "We play hard rock".

Judas Priest seems to be the first band that stepped up and embraced the title of "heavy metal". The look, the sound, the attitude. They took it all, wrapped it in black leather & spikes and said "YES, we are a HEAVY METAL band".

So who was the first American band to embrace the "heavy metal" moniker?

Armored Saint is a good choice. Pentagram? I don't know enough of their backstory. Same deal with Cirith Ungol. Maybe they did. I don't know.

Very nice discussion. Again these are the things I went back on forth on in trying to answer her question. My issue with the 70's bands being called heavy metal, is that even though they were called that--they weren't it. I loved those bands so it is not in insult to them. But in those the same days, I listened to the Scorpions, Motorhead, Judas Priest, Black Sabbath, etc and Aerosmith, Nugent, Alice Cooper, etc had clearly a different sound. They had more in comon with Journey, REO Speedwagon, the southern rock bands, etc than the British and German counterparts I mentioned. IMO.

My struggle is "which US band first played 'metal'? Because like I stated earlier the US scene just exploded so quickly I never really remember one US band coming before another. In thinking back (one, it was a long time ago and 2. I'm not that bright) it just seems that Riot, Quiet Riot, Motley Crue, WASP, Armored Saint, etc (those are the ones that come to mind) all came out so quickly after the 'famous' '80-'81 british releases.

As I am writing this...when did Quiet Riot release their pre-Metal Health japanese cds?

Well, the real difficulty with this question is that the term "Heavy Metal" is amorphous and constantly changing. Thus, a 27 year old has a different concept of the term than a 44 year old or a 14 year old. For instance, Van Halen called themselves heavy metal at one point. Is Van Halen a heavy metal band? In 1978, they were, but were they in 1988, 1998 or now?

If we mean a band that took the Priest template and ran with it, then there are a raft of Priest imitators in the US in the early 80s. I am not so sure that's the best way to judge who is heavy metal, as there are certainly metal bands that don't sound/look like Priest.

Witchfinder wrote:

Well, the real difficulty with this question is that the term "Heavy Metal" is amorphous and constantly changing. Thus, a 27 year old has a different concept of the term than a 44 year old or a 14 year old. For instance, Van Halen called themselves heavy metal at one point. Is Van Halen a heavy metal band? In 1978, they were, but were they in 1988, 1998 or now?

If we mean a band that took the Priest template and ran with it, then there are a raft of Priest imitators in the US in the early 80s. I am not so sure that's the best way to judge who is heavy metal, as there are certainly metal bands that don't sound/look like Priest.

It's amorphous, but it is a tree and has roots. allthingsmetal is listed as being 45 and believes that some - SOME, not ALL - of the harder American bands still didn't QUITE step that far into the still new, still burgeoning sound of metal.

Also, since I own (and have listened to) everything from King Crimson to Cirith Ungol to Riot to Pentagram and et cetera et cetera et cetera all the way up to the year's present releases, since I was 12, - since I'm obsessed with music and metal in particular (besides being a musician myself) - and since it is, I guess, unusual for somebody of my bracket to fit this criteria, I do feel that whatever concept I may have is a whole lot more than just hanging out being a younger dude.......

I agree that we can't really just see who necessarily copied Priest the best or anything. It's a bridging thing and I think Cooper or Pentagram or Riot were clearly further down the bridge than other bands.

I thought this little article was intersting.

http://www.classicrockmagazine.com/blog/when-two-tribes-go-to-war-or-how-the-music-press-spoiled-rock/

It's not really directily on point of this discussion about who was the first heavy metal band, but it does discuss how the punk-era of the 70's and the media's take on them started the whole splintering process of rock into all the sub-genres we have today.

The article says basically before punk, everything was just "rock n roll" more-or-less. Noone labeled it otherwise. It covered allot of ground. However, when punk rock started making an impact, it was the antithesis of everything rock'n roll was. The media was forced to take sides. And then that's where the splintering began.

Could you cover Pink Floyd, Aerosmith and The Damned in the same magazine? The answer was no. So they started grouping bands into different categories, either to satisfy their readership, or more directly, influence the readers to also pick sides.

It should be noted too that this article is from Classic Rock magazine, which is a British publication. The whole article has things from an English perspective when punk was much more relevent in society than it's impact on the States. Still valid though.

I sort of feel like it's a little more of, the fans splintered as a result of the media. I think there needed to be separation of obviously different sounds and directions in order to write up or promote something cohesively, so there's nothing wrong with that, but it seems that when looking at human behavior and how it works, that the media also spurred a seedling of divisiveness e.g. we can't listen to this genre, we belong to this....which we see has continued to the present day...it amplifies record sales by targeting a tightly grouped audience, but the listener ultimately does miss out. Thoughts?

MetalGuy71 wrote:

I thought this little article was intersting.

http://www.classicrockmagazine.com/blog/when-two-tribes-go-to-war-or-how-the-music-press-spoiled-rock/

It's not really directily on point of this discussion about who was the first heavy metal band, but it does discuss how the punk-era of the 70's and the media's take on them started the whole splintering process of rock into all the sub-genres we have today.

The article says basically before punk, everything was just "rock n roll" more-or-less. Noone labeled it otherwise. It covered allot of ground. However, when punk rock started making an impact, it was the antithesis of everything rock'n roll was. The media was forced to take sides. And then that's where the splintering began.

Could you cover Pink Floyd, Aerosmith and The Damned in the same magazine? The answer was no. So they started grouping bands into different categories, either to satisfy their readership, or more directly, influence the readers to also pick sides.

It should be noted too that this article is from Classic Rock magazine, which is a British publication. The whole article has things from an English perspective when punk was much more relevent in society than it's impact on the States. Still valid though.

Yeah, that was basically when everything started to go to shit. What I mean by that statement is I think better music was created overall before all the sub-genres got shoved down our throats, when bands had the freedom to be themselves and create whatever music they wanted.

After the sub-genres came into play all of a sudden bands had to "choose sides" as to what sub-genre they were in. That caused the music to become less experimental and more focused in one particular direction, which in turn trained new music fans to only hear certain things within a specific context. That was where moronic viewpoints like "you can't have keyboards in metal" came from.

Basically, the sub-genres latched on by the media and record labels (and the labels only signed bands they could easily market) essentially dumbed down their audience by offering only pre-packaged styles they could easily market and control. They put blinders on us and we let them.

Thankfully the record labels really don't mean much anymore and bands are starting to take over their own careers again, free to experiment in whatever sounds they want. That's a great thing from an artistic standpoint. Hopefully metal will also feel free to experiment a little more and relax some of the ridiculous sub-genre walls a little bit.

I don't mind a band who has a passion for a certain sound and what they write comes out as such....whether it's experimental or not.... but when a band rides out one single idea that works forever and ever and ever, that's when it gets stagnant more often than not.

Orion Crystal Ice wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

Well, the real difficulty with this question is that the term "Heavy Metal" is amorphous and constantly changing. Thus, a 27 year old has a different concept of the term than a 44 year old or a 14 year old. For instance, Van Halen called themselves heavy metal at one point. Is Van Halen a heavy metal band? In 1978, they were, but were they in 1988, 1998 or now?

If we mean a band that took the Priest template and ran with it, then there are a raft of Priest imitators in the US in the early 80s. I am not so sure that's the best way to judge who is heavy metal, as there are certainly metal bands that don't sound/look like Priest.

It's amorphous, but it is a tree and has roots. allthingsmetal is listed as being 45 and believes that some - SOME, not ALL - of the harder American bands still didn't QUITE step that far into the still new, still burgeoning sound of metal.

Also, since I own (and have listened to) everything from King Crimson to Cirith Ungol to Riot to Pentagram and et cetera et cetera et cetera all the way up to the year's present releases, since I was 12, - since I'm obsessed with music and metal in particular (besides being a musician myself) - and since it is, I guess, unusual for somebody of my bracket to fit this criteria, I do feel that whatever concept I may have is a whole lot more than just hanging out being a younger dude.......

I agree that we can't really just see who necessarily copied Priest the best or anything. It's a bridging thing and I think Cooper or Pentagram or Riot were clearly further down the bridge than other bands.

The reason why these questions about "who was the first" or "is this band metal" are simultaneously interesting and ridiculous is that we are applying some objective standards to a completely subjective area. I myself would side with those who are from that era and their definition. They actually applied it to the bands and therefore, they would be in the best position to say who was considered a heavy metal band at the time. Anything else is merely revisionist history.

Witchfinder wrote:

I myself would side with those who are from that era and their definition. They actually applied it to the bands and therefore, they would be in the best position to say who was considered a heavy metal band at the time. Anything else is merely revisionist history.

I became focused on heavy metal in 1982. The first bands I became obsessive about were Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Black Sabbath w/Dio and Ozzy's solo band and as far as I was concerned those groups had the definitive "heavy metal" sound.

I was also a big fan of Kiss (since 1976), AC/DC (since 1979) and Van Halen, I considered those bands to be "hard rock".

My opinion of those groups and how I would categorize them hasn't changed over the years.

Witchfinder wrote:

The reason why these questions about "who was the first" or "is this band metal" are simultaneously interesting and ridiculous is that we are applying some objective standards to a completely subjective area. I myself would side with those who are from that era and their definition. They actually applied it to the bands and therefore, they would be in the best position to say who was considered a heavy metal band at the time. Anything else is merely revisionist history.

Well, the discussion is 100% about trying to apply objectivity to something which is usually viewed in a subjective light so either we should never discuss it or continue and see what we can learn.

An individual's definition of a thing can't be to any other standards beyond the *actual properties* of the thing and still be firsthand and legitimate. It's that reasoning which is behind misinformation and miseducation about topics ranging from religion to economics. Claiming otherwise is essentially saying that history should be written by the winners - which is in itself revisionist in practice.

In the 1980's, X person did well during the Reagan era...Y person did not. Was Reagan's administration a success?

In the 1970's, X person did drugs while listening to Floyd, Y person did not. Is Pink Floyd a drug band?

In the 2000's, people think Halestorm is heavy metal. That's BS.


Who is right? They are from the era and if viewpoint in itself is the supreme judging point, we have a paradox, which is a conflict of something that can only happen one way or another.