Is DLR era Van Halen Metal?

Quote :

"The Big 4 - Slayer, Metallica, Megadeth and Anthrax" are boring "Dad-Rock"

Well I'm a Dad, and those are some of the bands that I rock, so at much as I might hate to admit it, that tag is somewhat accurate.

Fat Freddy wrote:

Quote :

"The Big 4 - Slayer, Metallica, Megadeth and Anthrax" are boring "Dad-Rock"

Well I'm a Dad, and those are some of the bands that I rock, so at least the tag is somewhat accurate.

It's totally, completely accurate from a teenagers perspective. To a teenager those bands are all old men, we just don't see it because we are also old men It would be the weirdest thing ever if teenagers thought that we (and our music) was cool.

Is there really a band called Eskimo Callboy?

I wasn't going to weigh in on the Van Halen thing as I don't care but you can't have as profound an influence on metal as EVH without being considered in some way part of the genre, even though I never liked them.

Van Halen has always been a hard rock band with a few metallic songs to me, although their impact on metal can't be overlooked at all. Anyone who doesn't think that Van Halen, Kiss, or Led Zeppelin were integral to metal's early years probably isn't worth your time. The thing is that this only boils down to yet another pointless "debate" about who was the "first" metal band. Can't we just say it started with Black Sabbath or at least Judas Priest and leave it that way?

Like Mc666 said, you either consider them metal or you don't, and there's nothing wrong with either. All I think we're doing at this point is just beating a dead horse on the subject.

Van Halen have got maybe an EP-worth of songs that would qualify as heavy metal, otherwise they're far more hard rock than metal.

TheGreatDuck wrote:

Van Halen have got maybe an EP-worth of songs that would qualify as heavy metal, otherwise they're far more hard rock than metal.

I understand this point. Van Halen haven't been predominantly metal for most of their career. However, they were at some point. So the proper answer to this thread is "yes" AND "no". When it's a band not obsessed with being metal, they might often do something that's not metal.

That's why there's a thing called "True Metal" to put emphasis on the fact how these bands never stray. Bands like Wizard.



If every band that ever played heavy metal never went beyond metal, there would be no point and no sense in having a subgenre like True Metal. Manowar would be just as metal as any other metal band.

This seems to be this board's favorite argument, even after so many years, lol.

The resounding answer, at least in my eyes, is that it doesn't matter. People act like being considered metal makes a band somehow better or worse, which is silly. Just digest the music the artists you like release -- if you like it, you like it; if you don't, you don't. If you think Van Halen (or any band) somehow gets some more credibility for being considered metal rather than hard rock, that just comes off as childish and a little insecure.

I think all of this stems, at least in part, from the tendency towards elitism in metal. Genres are subjective to a degree. If someone wants to come along and say that Sabbath (or even *gasp* our beloved Maiden and Priest, etc.) don't fit in their idea of metal, who the hell are we to tell them that their opinion is wrong? Just because some magazines and fans called anything with a raw guitar sound "heavy metal" doesn't mean that is what heavy music means to another set of people.

I'm going off on tangents now, but I think the important thing is to realize that it doesn't really matter what someone else thinks at all about the classification (not even the artistic merit, which would make a little more sense to get your panties in a wad over) of what music you like. You shouldn't be offended if someone tells you Iron Maiden isn't heavy enough for them. They're heavy enough for you, right?

Wurthless wrote:

This seems to be this board's favorite argument, even after so many years, lol.

The resounding answer, at least in my eyes, is that it doesn't matter. People act like being considered metal makes a band somehow better or worse, which is silly. Just digest the music the artists you like  Iron Maiden isn't heavy enough for them. They're heavy enough for you, right?

No they are not. Neither are you!!!! Time to die now false metallian!!

On a slightly more serious note (but not much) it's the kind of thing that I've learned to really not care about. If you want to say that REO Speedwagon is brutal death metal then great, let me know how it goes

I was going to post a poll entitled R2D2's Asshole, Is It Metal? but I figured that it was a little too inflammatory, even for me!

Wurthless wrote:

T If someone wants to come along and say that Sabbath (or even *gasp* our beloved Maiden and Priest, etc.) don't fit in their idea of metal, who the hell are we to tell them that their opinion is wrong?

In the end it doesn't matter. Listen to what you like and ignore the rest. However, there is nothing wrong with discussing it, which is what we are doing.

As far as people dismissing Priest, Saxon, Maiden, Sabbath, etc. as metal and it just being "their opinion", well, it's may be their opinion but their opinion is wrong. I can say that B.B. King isn't a blues artist because I don't think he is one based on the fact that he doesn't sound like Stevie Ray Vaughn, but that doesn't make it so. Fact is, B.B. is a blues artist and Maiden and Priest are heavy metal artists. So in that respect, it does matter, at least it matters to me.

It's like saying.....

In 1903 this was a motorcycle

Then comparing it to this in 2016

Then saying the first photo is just a bicycle with a motor/gas tank on it while looking back in hindsight/retrospect.

The ones who are most guilty of this are the ones who were still pooping in their diapers in the 1970's are still hanging out someplace south of their daddy's belt buckle.

Be careful Ult, don't get them upset or they will cry to the admin.  Wait that is you

James B. wrote:

It's like saying.....

In 1903 this was a motorcycle

Then comparing it to this in 2016

Then saying the first photo is just a bicycle with a motor/gas tank on it while looking back in hindsight/retrospect.

The ones who are most guilty of this are the ones who were still pooping in their diapers in the 1970's are still hanging out someplace south of their daddy's belt buckle.

Be careful Ult, don't get them upset or they will cry to the admin.  Wait that is you

That's a brilliant analogy James!

James B. wrote:

It's like saying.....

In 1903 this was a motorcycle

Then comparing it to this in 2016

Then saying the first photo is just a bicycle with a motor/gas tank on it while looking back in hindsight/retrospect.

I would call the one in the first picture a moped, which is a lightweight motorized bicycle. Certainly a form of motorcycle, but lower powered. Just like hard rock is to heavy metal. They may have called it a chariot of fire back in 1903, but I call it a moped today.

mc666 wrote:

James B. wrote:

It's like saying.....

In 1903 this was a motorcycle

Then comparing it to this in 2016

Then saying the first photo is just a bicycle with a motor/gas tank on it while looking back in hindsight/retrospect.

I would call the one in the first picture a moped, which is a lightweight motorized bicycle. Certainly a form of motorcycle, but lower powered. Just like hard rock is to heavy metal. They may have called it a chariot of fire back in 1903, but I call it a moped today.

The guys who rode these in 1903 insist that the 1903 bike is the ONLY bike that can be called a motorcycle and the newer one should be called a Corporate Modern Bullshit Mobile and deride those who ride the newer bike because they "weren't even there in 1903 man so what the F*ck do you know?"

"You had to be there..."

ultmetal wrote:

How is Sad Wings of Destiny above In Rock. A good list of Heavy Metal.

mc666 wrote:

James B. wrote:

It's like saying.....

In 1903 this was a motorcycle

Then comparing it to this in 2016

Then saying the first photo is just a bicycle with a motor/gas tank on it while looking back in hindsight/retrospect.

I would call the one in the first picture a moped, which is a lightweight motorized bicycle. Certainly a form of motorcycle, but lower powered. Just like hard rock is to heavy metal. They may have called it a chariot of fire back in 1903, but I call it a moped today.

That so called "moped" was built for racing.

Painkiller wrote:

"You had to be there..."

This is more your speed....
CLOTH

DISPOSABLE

James B. wrote:

This is more your speed....
CLOTH

DISPOSABLE

You're going to need 'em when you check in at retirement...

mc666 wrote:

I would call the one in the first picture a moped, which is a lightweight motorized bicycle. Certainly a form of motorcycle, but lower powered. Just like hard rock is to heavy metal. They may have called it a chariot of fire back in 1903, but I call it a moped today.

You kind of proved my point Monte.  It is easy to look back and compare it to whatever came afterwards, but you cannot dismiss what it is and was  in a historical aspect.  

That is textbook revisionist history.  

I had a Peugeot Moped in the mid 70's and have rode a 1900's Harley.  There is quite a difference in top speed.  So let's not get some facts in the way of a good  conversation.

Just cause something looks like "whatever", doesn't mean it actually is...















That is a man by the way.....

I have always considered them Heavy Metal at times but mostly Hard Rock with some of the melodic qualities of Pop thrown in.

Painkiller wrote:

You're going to need 'em when you check in at retirement...

Guess I walked into that one

Oh by the way, thanks for the Christmas Card you sent me.

James B. wrote:

Painkiller wrote:

You're going to need 'em when you check in at retirement...

Guess I walked into that one

Oh by the way, thanks for the Christmas Card you sent me.

A block of cheese in a Van Halen thread. What are the odds...

ABSOLUTELY!!!! Their early albums are pure metal and when they came out they were some of the heaviest albums with the most radical guitar playing and DLR was the wildest singer around..way more wild and crazy than Ozzy or anyone else at the time...And their albums were just as heavier if not more heavy than most all the NWOBHM albums that were coming out....How could you not call this metal...