interesting view of metal

Scion · **Posted:** Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:06 pm

hellraiser_xes wrote:

In my opinion, bands such as Black Sabbath, Priest, Rainbow etc have always been heavy metal. Do understand their guitar playing styles were way different than any rock band. Somebody mentioned 70's Heavy Metal, I guess that's the best way to call them.

It all depends on your own definition of metal. Sure there is general definition, a way experts define it, but it still means different things to all people, i.e the definition comprises different things. To me Rainbow, AC/DC and Priest - the way Priest was at that time - aren't metal. Late 60's prog rock like King Crimson's In the Court of the Crimson King are far far more metal to me than those bands was, but thats just how i feel.

Radagast · **Posted:** Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:24 pm

70s Priest wasn't Metal? Exciter isn't fucking Speed Metal ftw? :wacko:

The_Voice · **Posted:** Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:08 pm

Radagast wrote:

70s Priest wasn't Metal? Exciter isn't fucking Speed Metal ftw? :wacko:

Exactly, sure metal has evolved over the time, but that doesnt mean that 70s priest or Rainbow wasnt metal.

North From Here · **Posted:** Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:25 pm

Scion wrote:

hellraiser_xes wrote:

In my opinion, bands such as Black Sabbath, Priest, Rainbow etc have always been heavy metal. Do understand their guitar playing styles were way different than any rock band. Somebody mentioned 70's Heavy Metal, I guess that's the best way to call them.

It all depends on your own definition of metal. Sure there is general definition, a way experts define it, but it still means different things to all people, i.e the definition comprises different things. To me Rainbow, AC/DC and Priest - the way Priest was at that time - aren't metal. Late 60's prog rock like King Crimson's In the Court of the Crimson King are far far more metal to me than those bands was, but thats just how i feel.

Agreed 100%. Most of my favorite bands listened(or show more influnence from) to a lot more King Crimson than AC/DC.

noodles · **Posted:** Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:06 am

emperorblackdoom wrote:

Scion wrote:

hellraiser_xes wrote:

In my opinion, bands such as Black Sabbath, Priest, Rainbow etc have always been heavy metal. Do understand their guitar playing styles were way different than any rock band. Somebody mentioned 70's Heavy Metal, I guess that's the best way to call them.

It all depends on your own definition of metal. Sure there is general definition, a way experts define it, but it still means different things to all people, i.e the definition comprises different things. To me Rainbow, AC/DC and Priest - the way Priest was at that time - aren't metal. Late 60's prog rock like King Crimson's In the Court of the Crimson King are far far more metal to me than those bands was, but thats just how i feel.

Agreed 100%. Most of my favorite bands listened(or show more influnence from) to a lot more King Crimson than AC/DC.

+2

I don't really care about calling certain bands metal and certain bands not metal.

OldSchool · **Posted:** Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:38 am

Nobody's saying AC/DC were metal, but Priest... let's be serious! Sure, there was a big rocking feel to them, production was flawed, not as heavy as it is now, but the essence of their music (aside from Rocka Rolla) was always metal. Starting with Sad Wings Of Destiny, which I consider the first altogether metal album in history.

How can some of you guys not see this, is beyond me. However, you're in minority.

JÃ¼rgen · **Posted:** Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:06 pm

Metalhead_Bastard wrote:

Jürgen wrote:

Yeah, Rainbow, Scorpions and Iron Maiden have a rock edge in their sound, but they're still metal as fuck. Metal didn't just come out of nowhere in the beginning of the eighties.

*pulls back eyelids revealing small protions of a red, fleshy fruit-do you:
A.reach out and eat the fleshy fruit
B.rub your groin in time to Micheal Jackson's Thriller
C.Pull back you eyelids and reveal what you you have hidden under there*

I'll rub my groin in time to Michael Jackon's thriller, even though i don't have a clue what you're talking about.

thedirtyporthole · **Posted:** Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:24 pm

I think Priest is def metal, and while early Maiden had a punk feel to it, they are certainly metal as well. Rainbow toes the line, their earlier work was more metal than their later work. Songs like Gates of Babylon and Stargazer can only be metal. I have no problem calling a band like Rainbow protometal, which I have heard people say.

Seinfeld26 · **Posted:** Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:15 pm

Angel Black wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

I've always viewed those bands as being more rock than metal. I've always thought even Maiden had a good amount of rock there as well.

It's stupid to argue it, but that's what I think.

I see. But you know, those band were called Heavy Metal in the 70s and their songs have Heavy Metal structures and so on, only the heaviness isn't as big as it has been later. I use the the term "70s Heavy Metal" very carefully, and perhaps not so often as Thrash or Power, but I just want to mention some ideas, processes and genres that were present in the 70s and weren't far from what was done in the 80s as there were something like proto-heavy

Ufff...

I don't think what we think of as "Heavy Metal" really came about until Metallica released Kill'em All in 1983. Up until then, most heavy metal was more along the lines of what we now call "classic rock."

Exhibit A: Blizzard Of Ozz - That album really doesn't sound much different from a traditional seventies rock album. Yet, it's still considered heavy metal.

Exhibit B: Motorhead - In 1980 (when Ace Of Spades was released), they were considered both the loudest and fastest band on the planet. Yet, listen to AOS today and you'll notice the surprisingly raw and "un-metal" sound of the guitars. As well as how slow it really is compared to later metal albums (these aren't knocks against Ace Of Spades, by the way, it's an excellent album).

Exhibit C: Aerosmith - They were actually considered a metal band back in the 70s.

Anyway, as for the article, it was interesting. Though I must say, I'm surprised with what the author said about metal being "easy to learn." I always figured metal was actually one of the most difficult forms of music to really master, because of all the riff playing, technical drum work, etc.

Cú Chulainn · **Posted:** Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:35 pm

my guitar teacher always considered Randy Rhoads one sonofagun har rockin' rock guitarist. And to him crazy train is a rock riff.

OldSchool · **Posted:** Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:25 pm

Seinfeld26 wrote:

Angel Black wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

I've always viewed those bands as being more rock than metal. I've always thought even Maiden had a good amount of rock there as well.

It's stupid to argue it, but that's what I think.

I see. But you know, those band were called Heavy Metal in the 70s and their songs have Heavy Metal structures and so on, only the heaviness isn't as big as it has been later. I use the the term "70s Heavy Metal" very carefully, and perhaps not so often as Thrash or Power, but I just want to mention some ideas, processes and genres that were present in the 70s and weren't far from what was done in the 80s as there were something like proto-heavy

Ufff...

I don't think what we think of as "Heavy Metal" really came about until Metallica released Kill'em All in 1983. Up until then, most heavy metal was more along the lines of what we now call "classic rock."

Exhibit A: Blizzard Of Ozz - That album really doesn't sound much different from a traditional seventies rock album. Yet, it's still considered heavy metal.

Exhibit B: Motorhead - In 1980 (when Ace Of Spades was released), they were considered both the loudest and fastest band on the planet. Yet, listen to AOS today and you'll notice the surprisingly raw and "un-metal" sound of the guitars. As well as how slow it really is compared to later metal albums (these aren't knocks against Ace Of Spades, by the way, it's an excellent album).

Exhibit C: Aerosmith - They were actually considered a metal band back in the 70s.

Anyway, as for the article, it was interesting. Though I must say, I'm surprised with what the author said about metal being "easy to learn." I always figured metal was actually one of the most difficult forms of music to really master, because of all the riff playing, technical drum work, etc.

Your "arguments" are a fucking joke. Who cares what Aerosmith were labeled back in 70s? If you're making a case of non-heavy metal until Kill'em All based on Ozzy and Aerosmith, this only shows your ignorance about that period, nothing more. Go home and listen to Satan, Diamond Head, Cloven Hoof and countless other NWOBHM bands, try some Manilla Road, Virgin Steele and Manowar, and let's not forget Venom and the mighty Mercyful Fate. Not to mention the Priest, Maiden and Saxon albums. There are tons others, rest assured. None of these are "classic rock", they are metal giants.

Also, for your information, Metallica never released a heavy metal album, and can be considered heavy metal only if you're using the expression as a generic term for metal music.

derncare · **Joined:** Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:40 am **Posts:** 731

I think there's just a fine line between certain kinds of hard rock and heavy metal. Ozzy once said it best when he said that they (Black Sabbath) were a rock band that used to play louder than other people, and now they call it heavy metal.

The_Voice · **Posted:** Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:18 pm

OldSchool wrote:

Seinfeld26 wrote:

Angel Black wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

I've always viewed those bands as being more rock than metal. I've always thought even Maiden had a good amount of rock there as well.

It's stupid to argue it, but that's what I think.

I see. But you know, those band were called Heavy Metal in the 70s and their songs have Heavy Metal structures and so on, only the heaviness isn't as big as it has been later. I use the the term "70s Heavy Metal" very carefully, and perhaps not so often as Thrash or Power, but I just want to mention some ideas, processes and genres that were present in the 70s and weren't far from what was done in the 80s as there were something like proto-heavy

Ufff...

I don't think what we think of as "Heavy Metal" really came about until Metallica released Kill'em All in 1983. Up until then, most heavy metal was more along the lines of what we now call "classic rock."

Exhibit A: Blizzard Of Ozz - That album really doesn't sound much different from a traditional seventies rock album. Yet, it's still considered heavy metal.

Exhibit B: Motorhead - In 1980 (when Ace Of Spades was released), they were considered both the loudest and fastest band on the planet. Yet, listen to AOS today and you'll notice the surprisingly raw and "un-metal" sound of the guitars. As well as how slow it really is compared to later metal albums (these aren't knocks against Ace Of Spades, by the way, it's an excellent album).

Exhibit C: Aerosmith - They were actually considered a metal band back in the 70s.

Anyway, as for the article, it was interesting. Though I must say, I'm surprised with what the author said about metal being "easy to learn." I always figured metal was actually one of the most difficult forms of music to really master, because of all the riff playing, technical drum work, etc.

Your "arguments" are a fucking joke. Who cares what Aerosmith were labeled back in 70s? If you're making a case of non-heavy metal until Kill'em All based on Ozzy and Aerosmith, this only shows your ignorance about that period, nothing more. Go home and listen to Satan, Diamond Head, Cloven Hoof and countless other NWOBHM bands, try some Manilla Road, Virgin Steele and Manowar, and let's not forget Venom and the mighty Mercyful Fate. Not to mention the Priest, Maiden and Saxon albums. There are tons others, rest assured. None of these are "classic rock", they are metal giants.

Also, for your information, Metallica never released a heavy metal album, and can be considered heavy metal only if you're using the expression as a generic term for metal music.

+1

Seinfeld26 · **Posted:** Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:29 pm

The_Voice wrote:

OldSchool wrote:

Seinfeld26 wrote:

Angel Black wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

I've always viewed those bands as being more rock than metal. I've always thought even Maiden had a good amount of rock there as well.

It's stupid to argue it, but that's what I think.

I see. But you know, those band were called Heavy Metal in the 70s and their songs have Heavy Metal structures and so on, only the heaviness isn't as big as it has been later. I use the the term "70s Heavy Metal" very carefully, and perhaps not so often as Thrash or Power, but I just want to mention some ideas, processes and genres that were present in the 70s and weren't far from what was done in the 80s as there were something like proto-heavy

Ufff...

I don't think what we think of as "Heavy Metal" really came about until Metallica released Kill'em All in 1983. Up until then, most heavy metal was more along the lines of what we now call "classic rock."

Exhibit A: Blizzard Of Ozz - That album really doesn't sound much different from a traditional seventies rock album. Yet, it's still considered heavy metal.

Exhibit B: Motorhead - In 1980 (when Ace Of Spades was released), they were considered both the loudest and fastest band on the planet. Yet, listen to AOS today and you'll notice the surprisingly raw and "un-metal" sound of the guitars. As well as how slow it really is compared to later metal albums (these aren't knocks against Ace Of Spades, by the way, it's an excellent album).

Exhibit C: Aerosmith - They were actually considered a metal band back in the 70s.

Anyway, as for the article, it was interesting. Though I must say, I'm surprised with what the author said about metal being "easy to learn." I always figured metal was actually one of the most difficult forms of music to really master, because of all the riff playing, technical drum work, etc.

Your "arguments" are a fucking joke. Who cares what Aerosmith were labeled back in 70s? If you're making a case of non-heavy metal until Kill'em All based on Ozzy and Aerosmith, this only shows your ignorance about that period, nothing more. Go home and listen to Satan, Diamond Head, Cloven Hoof and countless other NWOBHM bands, try some Manilla Road, Virgin Steele and Manowar, and let's not forget Venom and the mighty Mercyful Fate. Not to mention the Priest, Maiden and Saxon albums. There are tons others, rest assured. None of these are "classic rock", they are metal giants.

Also, for your information, Metallica never released a heavy metal album, and can be considered heavy metal only if you're using the expression as a generic term for metal music.

+1

I never said there was no metal up until Kill'em All. Of course Maiden, Priest, Mercyful Fate, etc. were metal bands. So was Motorhead for that matter. And perhaps even Ozzy. I'm just saying that the line between hard rock and metal was probably more blurred until the release of KEA. Much like how the line between thrash metal and death metal used to be considerably more blurred than it is today. At least that's how it was in the metal mainstream (in all honesty, I've never really listened to Diamond Head).

And yes, I WAS using the term "heavy metal" generically.

derncare · **Joined:** Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:40 am **Posts:** 731

Hell, even Steppenwolf proclaimed:

"Heavy Metal THUNDER!!!" :lol:

leee · **Posted:** Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:12 am

If you have never heard the NWOBHM, go buy NWOBHM 79 revisted and get your rocks on and learn some. Seriously, I think you would enjoy it.

derncare · **Joined:** Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:40 am **Posts:** 731

And Diamond Head originals are WAY better than the Metallica covers! :dio:

Eyesore · **Posted:** Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:30 am

derncare wrote:

And Diamond Head originals are WAY better than the Metallica covers! :dio:

Pffft! Not all of them. =)

derncare · **Joined:** Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:40 am **Posts:** 731

Well, I'll give Metallica's "Am I Evil" an extra point simply because James sounds more believable growling "Am I Eviiiilllll? Yes, I am!" (back in his prepubescent "hit the LIGHTS" days)

Eyesore · **Posted:** Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:13 am

derncare wrote:

Well, I'll give Metallica's "Am I Evil" an extra point simply because James sounds more believable growling "Am I Eviiiilllll? Yes, I am!" (back in his prepubescent "hit the LIGHTS" days)

"The Small Hours." Was that Diamond Head? Can't remember. If so, Metallica's version is better! =)

Metal Reviews

interesting view of metal

Who is online