Is DLR era Van Halen Metal?

666_Evil_666 wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

666_Evil_666 wrote:

brokentulsa wrote:

Quote :

Does it matter where I was? or are you trying to play the metal elitist card.

  I am just agreeing with ult.. "You have the right to your wrong opinion."

Meh, saying "You have the right to your wrong opinion" is a cop out to being a metal elitist. Opinions are opinions, if he disagrees that's fine, but the opinion isn't wrong in the end.

I can say that I believe the South won the American Civil War, but that doesn't make my opinion right. The fact is, the Confederacy lost.

Same principle holds true here. In the 70's, the bands that were commonly called 'heavy metal' by fans, the media, critics, etc. were Aerosmith, Kiss, UFO, Ted Nugent, Scorpions, Thin Lizzy, Judas Priest, Black Sabbath, Uriah Heep, Deep Purple, Budgie, etc. etc. There is plenty of evidence there if you care to look at it. You can argue all you want that they are not heavy metal, but if you truly study the history your opinion is not based on any solid arguments and it thus wrong. Shoot, even Wikipedia will back up the claims. It's not "elitism", it's just stone cold facts.

There is a difference between an OPINION...and a FACT. Not hard to figure that out.

You are correct.

FACT. The Confederacy lost the US Civil War. (It's well documented in history)

FACT. Bands like Van Halen, Black Sabbath, Aerosmith, UFO, Uriah Heep, etc. were called heavy metal by fans, record companies, critics and the media alike in the 1970's. (Again, it's well documented in history.)

Whether you choose to believe those facts or not makes no difference on whether they are true or false statements.

ultmetal wrote:

666_Evil_666 wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

666_Evil_666 wrote:

brokentulsa wrote:

Quote :

Does it matter where I was? or are you trying to play the metal elitist card.

  I am just agreeing with ult.. "You have the right to your wrong opinion."

Meh, saying "You have the right to your wrong opinion" is a cop out to being a metal elitist. Opinions are opinions, if he disagrees that's fine, but the opinion isn't wrong in the end.

I can say that I believe the South won the American Civil War, but that doesn't make my opinion right. The fact is, the Confederacy lost.

Same principle holds true here. In the 70's, the bands that were commonly called 'heavy metal' by fans, the media, critics, etc. were Aerosmith, Kiss, UFO, Ted Nugent, Scorpions, Thin Lizzy, Judas Priest, Black Sabbath, Uriah Heep, Deep Purple, Budgie, etc. etc. There is plenty of evidence there if you care to look at it. You can argue all you want that they are not heavy metal, but if you truly study the history your opinion is not based on any solid arguments and it thus wrong. Shoot, even Wikipedia will back up the claims. It's not "elitism", it's just stone cold facts.

There is a difference between an OPINION...and a FACT. Not hard to figure that out.

You are correct.

FACT. The Confederacy lost the US Civil War. (It's well documented in history)

FACT. Bands like Van Halen, Black Sabbath, Aerosmith, UFO, Uriah Heep, etc. were called heavy metal by fans, record companies, critics and the media alike in the 1970's. (Again, it's well documented in history.)

Whether you choose to believe those facts or not makes no difference on whether they are true or false statements.

Let me fix this for you.

FACT. The Confederacy lost the US Civil War.

OPINION. Bands like Van Halen, Black Sabbath, Aerosmith, UFO, Uriah Heep, etc. were called heavy metal by fans, record companies, critics and the media alike in the 1970's.

Many of those bands, other then Sabbath will deny being heavy metal.

Hey Scott.



Go to 5:10...and you still wanna say DLR/Van Halen is metal?

666_Evil_666 wrote:

Hey Scott.



Go to 5:10...and you still wanna say DLR/Van Halen is metal?

How does that statement prove anything?

Quote Ozzy Osbourne on Black Sabbath...
I have never ever ever been able to attach myself to the word ‘heavy metal’ — it has no musical connotations…If it was heavy rock (& roll), I could get that…People come up to me and say, ‘Your Sabbath work was a big influence on me.’ I could go, ‘Oh, yeah, I can see that.’...


Does that mean that Black Sabbath aren't heavy metal? Absolutely not.

I also have a quote from Molly Hatchet, as Southern Rock band talking about how they were trying to be the first Southern rock band to incorporate a heavy metal sound.

Quote Dave Hlubek
"...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."

Doesn't change the fact that Molly Hatchet are Southern Rock.

Look, you can say, "compared to Slayer and Cannibal Corpse bands like Van Halen, UFO and The Scorpions are not as heavy." You'd be right. No argument from me. You could say that "by modern standards of what 'metal' has become, Van Halen and The Scorpions are not heavy metal" and I would concede to that point as well.

But to say those bands were not called heavy metal by the fans, by the critics, by the media, etc. in the 1970s is just flat out ignoring the facts and you don't have a leg to stand on. It's not an opinion, it is a fact.

At the time, I would say yes. They were called a metal band when I was first getting into metal in the early 80's. But now I would say definitely not a metal band. The first "metal" bands that got me started were AC/DC, Rush, and Van Halen, none of which I consider metal bands these days.

Fat Freddy wrote:

Quote :

I hope this doesn't turn into an argument.

Too late for regrets now. You already pulled the pin on this grenade!

And look at it now!!!!

THIS!!!!!!!!

ultmetal wrote:

I'll say it again, there could not have been a NEW WAVE of heavy metal in the early 80's if there wasn't a FIRST WAVE in the 70's. The term was very common in the 70's. How do I know? I was there. I lived it and am still living it.

I swear, other people's kids..............

ultmetal wrote:

Just because a "magazine" calls it that, doesn't mean it's fact...I guess people can't understand that concept lol

Wal-Mart labels AC/DC as heavy metal to this day, even the 70's stuff, so now they are metal? Don't be so ridiculous.

Exactly! They buy into anything that sells.

I posted this is another thread on this board a few years ago. (2011) Pretty much on this same debate.

"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:

I posted this is another thread on this board a few years ago. (2011) Pretty much on this same debate.

"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."

I guess you forgot Judas Priest right? Heavier then KISS, didn't use a f*cking gimmick to get over....

666_Evil_666 wrote:

I guess you forgot Judas Priest right? Heavier then KISS, didn't use a f*cking gimmick to get over....

yeah I forgot them...

Seen them in the 70's too.

666_Evil_666 wrote:

I guess you forgot Judas Priest right? Heavier then KISS, didn't use a f*cking gimmick to get over....

No gimmicks at all, everyone dressed like this in the late '70s

Boris2008 wrote:

666_Evil_666 wrote:

I guess you forgot Judas Priest right? Heavier then KISS, didn't use a f*cking gimmick to get over....

No gimmicks at all, everyone dressed like this in the late '70s

Gimmick compared to KISS? Gene Simmons himself said they were not musicians, they are entertainers. BIG difference from what Judas Priest did, and what KISS did. Of course it must be science to even figure that out right?

666_Evil_666 wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

666_Evil_666 wrote:

I guess you forgot Judas Priest right? Heavier then KISS, didn't use a f*cking gimmick to get over....

No gimmicks at all, everyone dressed like this in the late '70s

Gimmick compared to KISS? Gene Simmons himself said they were not musicians, they are entertainers. BIG difference from what Judas Priest did, and what KISS did. Of course it must be science to even figure that out right?

Figuring out your nonsense would indeed be science. Rob has spoken about the whole leather look, where it came from and the fact that it was a ploy to get the band noticed.

Newsflash! Both Kiss & Priest are entertainers both are musicians.

666_Evil_666 wrote:

Gimmick compared to KISS? Gene Simmons himself said they were not musicians, they are entertainers. BIG difference from what Judas Priest did, and what KISS did. Of course it must be science to even figure that out right?

You can be a crappy musician and still write a great song.

How do you know Gene Simmons said that ?  Did you read it someplace ? Can't believe anything you read cause they say anything to sell something, right ?

So it went from "gimmick" to comparing the "size" and "type" of "gimmick". Way to move the goal posts to make a point.

All metal is a gimmick....from wardrobe to corpse paint to lyrical themes to album cover artwork, to music videos to band mascots. I am sure guys in death metal bands scream "Hail satan" while changing the baby's diaper or growl when they sing in the shower.

Sure, there is a way to get noticed, and then there is a way to just be ridiculous with a bullshit gimmick, and really the only one in the band that took the whole leather gimmick overboard was Rob, and it worked, and they stuck with it, KISS took the makeup off, put it back on...Nothing wrong with gimmicks, but at least make the music as good as the gimmick. Which KISS hasn't done a really good album since Psycho Circus, and before that, Creatures Of The Night. Everything else has been decent to mediocre.

Say that to Gene Simmons. He said it, I want to say on some KISS documentary. Why do you think they got rid of Vinnie Vincent? Gene didn't want "musicians" he even stated that himself. Eric Carr, if he didn't die, would of been on his way out too. Why do you think Ace Frehley isn't in the band anymore? Sure there was his drug/booze past, but Gene doesn't want musicians. Ace is a musician, he didn't give 2 shits about being on TV, he wanted to play music.

Seen both bands in concerts. Judas Priest was great, they don't rely on a shitload of gimmicks live, sure you have fire, laser lights, and the motorcycle, but that's it. KISS...wasn't bad, but it was more time of bullshit gimmicks, and Paul Stanley babbling for 10 to 15 minutes between each song. Not saying all of the gimmicks KISS has are bad, the breathing fire is cool, the spitting blood is cool, but once again, their new music has been lackluster. To me, it's about the music being good, which it should be for any band, not some gimmick.

James B. wrote:

I am sure guys in death metal bands scream "Hail satan" while changing the baby's diaper or growl when they sing in the shower.

Well actually......

We're talking about whether Van Halen was metal. They were. A very important 70's metal band.

But then they moved on. In the 80s, even before DLR left, they chose not to stay in the confines of heavy metal.

And you know what? Heavy metal moved on, too. To more and more extreme sounding metal.

So the title in topic is debatable.

But to deny they ever were metal at all is just bizarre. And a revisionist version of history. It's something kids in the year 2054 will say about today's most brutal and extreme bands, "oh those guys weren't metal, they were soft pop-ish rock'n'roll. They used electricity for amplification instead of controlled nuclear detonations which is something all metal bands do now".

Asking band members about their own music is useless, too. If we were to believe them, every band would have their own genre, and even the worst bands would be making "good music".

Lari wrote:

We're talking about whether Van Halen was metal. They were. A very important 70's metal band.

But then they moved on. In the 80s, even before DLR left, they chose not to stay in the confines of heavy metal.

And you know what? Heavy metal moved on, too. To more and more extreme sounding metal.

So the title in topic is debatable.

But to deny they ever were metal at all is just bizarre. And a revisionist version of history. It's something kids in the year 2054 will say about today's most brutal and extreme bands, "oh those guys weren't metal, they were soft pop-ish rock'n'roll. They used electricity for amplification instead of controlled nuclear detonations which is something all metal bands do now".

Asking band members about their own music is useless, too. If we were to believe them, every band would have their own genre, and even the worst bands would be making "good music".

Lari wrote:

We're talking about whether Van Halen was metal. They were. A very important 70's metal band.

But then they moved on. In the 80s, even before DLR left, they chose not to stay in the confines of heavy metal.

And you know what? Heavy metal moved on, too. To more and more extreme sounding metal.

So the title in topic is debatable.

But to deny they ever were metal at all is just bizarre. And a revisionist version of history. It's something kids in the year 2054 will say about today's most brutal and extreme bands, "oh those guys weren't metal, they were soft pop-ish rock'n'roll. They used electricity for amplification instead of controlled nuclear detonations which is something all metal bands do now".

Asking band members about their own music is useless, too. If we were to believe them, every band would have their own genre, and even the worst bands would be making "good music".

You do know it's ok to say they are not a metal band right? Because they aren't. DLR even stated it in a video posted earlier. It's ok for them to be hard rock. They have influenced many in metal though, it's ok. It won't hurt those that were around back then to see them in their prime to say they are hard rock. They are still a great band.

Besides, I think Van Hagar is going to make a return anyways. I don't see Roth staying around anymore, and I think he's going to bring back the DLR band.

Lari wrote:

But to deny they ever were metal at all is just bizarre. And a revisionist version of history.

I wouldn't argue that they were never considered metal. Just as during the 80's, Bon Jovi & Nelson were considered metal by many.

Me personally though, I do not consider them metal. Never have. Even the DLR era. I call it hard rock, just as I do the Scorpions. When it comes to whats metal, rock, grunge, etc. I gotta paraphrase Potter Stewart. I know it when I hear it.

i'll still say the 70's had it's metal bands, shit Riot were in the 70's and i'll will consider them a metal band eventhough you have people consider the Guy Speranza era as Hard Rock than metal but i do consider those three albums to be metal, while there are hard rock songs on those albums but they are indeed Heavy Metal

so since i said Riot are a heavy metal band (eventhough they are) that was in the 70's does that make Van Halen metal?, in my mind (again) they are Heavy Rock band that has some metal-esque songs ("Torra Torra", "Loss of Control", "Romeo Delight", "Light Up the Sky", "On Fire") but those are songs that have a metal feeling to 'em but to me that does not make 'em a full on metal band.

Fair enough.

Just bear in mind it's 2016. Now imagine it's 1978, and then try listing your favourite metal bands.

Lari wrote:

Fair enough.

Just bear in mind it's 2016. Now imagine it's 1978, and then try listing your favourite metal bands.

They can't cause there dad was still in diapers then.