Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Heavy Metal Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by LynchMobster View Post
    No, ignorance of the history of the genre shows ignorance. I meant it as no insult. Some people are just unaware of the facts and some wish to remain so -that's the definition of ignorance. If the shoe fits...

    And I agree with him in part, Black Sabbath is a founding father of metal.

    http://www.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle...0318-2011.aspx


    Defining metal music is never easy, but for this all-time list, Gibson.com opted to leave bands like Led Zeppelin and Queen in the hard rock camp and concentrate on the heavier metal sounds – Iron Maiden, Sabbath, Metallica and the like.



    Quit acting like the argument has no merit.... As I just stated, opinions vary...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ELWAY421 View Post
      Opinions vary. If you look at the entire catalog from Zepp it's all real clear that they are a rock and roll band. Do they have some heavy songs? Sure, but having some heavy songs doesn't make a band metal.


      I feel as if you still think I'm 20 and only prefer Slayer when the fact is I don't even like Slayer.
      I don't think you're 20 but I do think you are judging from a more modern metal frame of reference which is unfair.

      I grew up on similar music as yourself, I only look at things differently. Zeppelin had just as many D'yer Mak'er(soft) songs as they did Dazed & Confused(heavy) songs.


      And.... I'm sorry, D'yer Mak'er, All of My Love, Dancing Days & many, many others are just not metal. Even back then those songs wouldn't have been considered metal.
      They were considered metal though (and still are as a progenitor), and their harder tracks aren't a rarity like youre trying to suggest. Back then, there werent that many heavy metal bands to compare against and the ones emerging weren't putting out very hard stuff yet either. That's the point. People are using what came later as some kind of gold standard. What came later was heavily influenced by Sabbath, Zeppelin and Purple. The Lars interview I just posted -did you open that link? Tribute to Purple from him. When I read interviews about metal groups most cited Zeppelin as an influence. They hear early metal and they make more of same, that's how history goes, that's what builds those family trees I posted.

      I can find just as many blogspots saying they weren't metal as you can that says they were metal. I actually looked at one on "ultimate guitar"(forum) that not one person considered Zepp metal. There is a website called "top tens" and if you search top 10 metal bands of all time Zepp isn't on the list & it isn't because they weren't great, it's because they weren't meal lol. It's a stalemate lol....
      Theyre a bunch of younger people evaluating things from the same modern frame of reference, and not official sources. As I said before it's not like I pulled this notion out of my hindquarters, I read it in Rolling Stone, Hit Parader, Circus and I've seen it said in numerous documentaries. I would have no problem if the world regarded Zeppelin as a generic rock & roll band and not metal, but that just isn't the truth.
      Last edited by L.M.; 05-15-2016, 10:27 AM.

      Superbowl 50 MVP Von Miller on February 7th, 2016

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Assassin27 View Post
        Music part is great!!! Vocals are terrible!!! Cant anyone sing anymore? Ronnie James Dio you are greatly missed!!!!
        haha yeah it's a death metal/grindcore band.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by LynchMobster View Post
          I don't think you're 20 but I do think you are judging from a more modern metal frame of reference which is unfair.
          Not true.

          Originally posted by LynchMobster View Post
          They were considered metal though (and still are as a progenitor), and their harder tracks aren't a rarity like youre trying to suggest. Back then, there werent that many heavy metal bands to compare against and the ones emerging weren't putting out very hard stuff yet either. That's the point. People are using what came later as some kind of gold standard. What came later was heavily influenced by Sabbath, Zeppelin and Purple. The Lars interview I just posted -did you open that link? Tribute to Purple from him. When I read interviews about metal groups most cited Zeppelin as an influence. They hear early metal and they make more of same, that's how history goes, that's what builds those family trees I posted.
          There isn't anything metal about songs like D'yer Ma'ker lol. I don't see how you don't see it or hear it.


          Originally posted by LynchMobster View Post
          Theyre a bunch of younger people evaluating things from the same modern frame of reference, and not official sources. As I said before it's not like I pulled this notion out of my hindquarters, I read it in Rolling Stone, Hit Parader, Circus and I've seen it said in numerous documentaries. I would have no problem if the world regarded Zeppelin as a generic rock & roll band and not metal, but that just isn't the truth.
          You're pigeon holing again. That Gibson article wasn't anything to do with a bunch of younger metal heads.
          I can find many more like it. I feel like Zepp is your favorite band, and you feel I'm saying they weren't a good band & I'm trying to kick them out of the fraternity of history

          If anything Zeppelin was a bigger better band than Sabbath, they just aren't a metal band, they are a hard rock band.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ELWAY421 View Post
            Not true.



            There isn't anything metal about songs like D'yer Ma'ker lol. I don't see how you don't see it or hear it.




            You're pigeon holing again. That Gibson article wasn't anything to do with a bunch of younger metal heads.
            I can find many more like it. I feel like Zepp is your favorite band, and you feel I'm saying they weren't a good band & I'm trying to kick them out of the fraternity of history

            If anything Zeppelin was a bigger better band than Sabbath, they just aren't a metal band, they are a hard rock band.
            i'm not into the heated (yet interesting) debate like you guys are but let me just add one thing......

            http://www.metal-archives.com/search...type=band_name

            http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Black_Sabbath/99

            metal-archives has spoken! (i still only consider some of Sabbath's stuff metal but i'm probably in the minority there)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by baphamet View Post
              i'm not into the heated (yet interesting) debate like you guys are but let me just add one thing......

              http://www.metal-archives.com/search...type=band_name

              http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Black_Sabbath/99

              metal-archives has spoken! (i still only consider some of Sabbath's stuff metal but i'm probably in the minority there)

              It's all a matter of opinion. There's no denying the impact Sabbath had on the influence of so many metal bands.


              http://www.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle...0803-2011.aspx

              I don't agree with this list but page isn't on not because he wasn't great but because he wasn't metal.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by LynchMobster View Post



                Theyre a bunch of younger people evaluating things from the same modern frame of reference, and not official sources. As I said before it's not like I pulled this notion out of my hindquarters, I read it in Rolling Stone, Hit Parader, Circus and I've seen it said in numerous documentaries. I would have no problem if the world regarded Zeppelin as a generic rock & roll band and not metal, but that just isn't the truth.
                I can't speak for the other two, but Rolling Stone is extremely biased towards artists from the sixties and seventies in my experience. Maybe they've added some fresh blood since the last time I picked one up, but I gave up on that magazine a while ago.

                I will say that I listened to a lot more Jimi Hendrix when I was a teenager than Sabbath or Zeppelin. I gained a strong appreciation for Sabbath over the years, though. I would consider War Pigs one of my favorite songs, and proof that Ozzy could write good lyrics. I think he's very underrated in that regard.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ELWAY421 View Post
                  Not true.



                  There isn't anything metal about songs like D'yer Ma'ker lol. I don't see how you don't see it or hear it.




                  You're pigeon holing again. That Gibson article wasn't anything to do with a bunch of younger metal heads.
                  I can find many more like it. I feel like Zepp is your favorite band, and you feel I'm saying they weren't a good band & I'm trying to kick them out of the fraternity of history

                  If anything Zeppelin was a bigger better band than Sabbath, they just aren't a metal band, they are a hard rock band.
                  :brick:



                  You are not getting my point. Either you are not understanding what I've been trying to say or I'm not explaining it well enough or both. So I'm going to keep trying.'

                  The argument isn't about favorite bands, its about what Heavy Metal actually is, how it started, when it started, and who started it.

                  The ear test is worthless because most ears are biased from modern metal bands. It takes effort to be objective and put yourself in older shoes.

                  Ask yourself - WHAT are you comparing Zeppelin against to determine whether its metal or not? Which band(s)? What's your gold standard?

                  That's what I mean by modern frame of reference. That's why I suggest that if one is going to use the ear test at all, then you have to go back to 1975 or earlier, and consider Zeppelin's music only in the context of all the other music being produced then and upt to that point in time. When the band formed in 1968, there was the Beatles, the Doors, the Mamas and the Papas etc. Harder bands were Steppenwolf, Blue Cheer, Iron Butterfly etc. Zeppelins first two albums were as hard or harder than anything else coming out then. That's why I wrote that heavy is relative to the time period in which it appears.

                  Then there's the documentation of what writers of RS or Creem, newspapers, etc had to say in addition to how the crowds reacted to the band too. That's history and cant be unwritten and certainly shouldn't be discounted and its silly for some people to think it can be revised just because Zeppelin doesn't stack up to the likes of its succeedents like Iron Maiden later.

                  Remember we're talking about history and where it all started. Zeppelin is not going to sound as hard as the bands who followed them -many of whom listened to them first then decided to make harder stuff in an evolution of the sound, but that evolution has to start somewhere and that was with Zeppelin and few others at about the same time. They earned that. Their guitars and drums and often the vocals were more aggressive compared to the others bands and that's all it took to get the heavy metal label.

                  Superbowl 50 MVP Von Miller on February 7th, 2016

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Spice 1 View Post
                    I can't speak for the other two, but Rolling Stone is extremely biased towards artists from the sixties and seventies in my experience. Maybe they've added some fresh blood since the last time I picked one up, but I gave up on that magazine a while ago.

                    I will say that I listened to a lot more Jimi Hendrix when I was a teenager than Sabbath or Zeppelin. I gained a strong appreciation for Sabbath over the years, though. I would consider War Pigs one of my favorite songs, and proof that Ozzy could write good lyrics. I think he's very underrated in that regard.
                    Sometimes he did, and that's a great song. I saw him sing War Pigs live as a countdown to New Year's at Mile High Stadium which then bridged into Crazy Train at the stroke of midnight to launch the New Year -great concert! Korn opened.

                    Rolling Stone hasn't had the same writers throughout its existence, but they do respect history and that's important -especially since they are recording it! Anything documented and published is what goes into the history books. Ever seen the Cameron Crowe film "Almost Famous"? That's really Cameron's personal story, he was that kid following the bands around -- in the backstage, the parties, at the concerts and doing the exclusive interviews for Creem and then Rolling Stone, and that material survives to this day as a testimony to what happened.
                    Last edited by L.M.; 05-15-2016, 11:41 AM.

                    Superbowl 50 MVP Von Miller on February 7th, 2016

                    Comment


                    • i'm in the mood for covers.......





                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by LynchMobster View Post
                        :brick:



                        You are not getting my point. Either you are not understanding what I've been trying to say or I'm not explaining it well enough or both. So I'm going to keep trying.'

                        The argument isn't about favorite bands, its about what Heavy Metal actually is, how it started, when it started, and who started it.

                        The ear test is worthless because most ears are biased from modern metal bands. It takes effort to be objective and put yourself in older shoes.

                        Ask yourself - WHAT are you comparing Zeppelin against to determine whether its metal or not? Which band(s)? What's your gold standard?

                        That's what I mean by modern frame of reference. That's why I suggest that if one is going to use the ear test at all, then you have to go back to 1975 or earlier, and consider Zeppelin's music only in the context of all the other music being produced then and upt to that point in time. When the band formed in 1968, there was the Beatles, the Doors, the Mamas and the Papas etc. Harder bands were Steppenwolf, Blue Cheer, Iron Butterfly etc. Zeppelins first two albums were as hard or harder than anything else coming out then. That's why I wrote that heavy is relative to the time period in which it appears.

                        Then there's the documentation of what writers of RS or Creem, newspapers, etc had to say in addition to how the crowds reacted to the band too. That's history and cant be unwritten and certainly shouldn't be discounted and its silly for some people to think it can be revised just because Zeppelin doesn't stack up to the likes of its succeedents like Iron Maiden later.

                        Remember we're talking about history and where it all started. Zeppelin is not going to sound as hard as the bands who followed them -many of whom listened to them first then decided to make harder stuff in an evolution of the sound, but that evolution has to start somewhere and that was with Zeppelin and few others at about the same time. They earned that. Their guitars and drums and often the vocals were more aggressive compared to the others bands and that's all it took to get the heavy metal label.

                        For the last time I am not comparing Zepp to modern metal . I can simply compare Zepp to Sabbath and tell you it's apples to oranges.

                        Compare the two bands entire catalogs and imo you can see who was a hard rock band who experimented a lot more with more mellow sounds and who stayed true to the heavier sounds.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ELWAY421 View Post
                          For the last time I am not comparing Zepp to modern metal . I can simply compare Zepp to Sabbath and tell you it's apples to oranges.

                          Compare the two bands entire catalogs and imo you can see who was a hard rock band who experimented a lot more with more mellow sounds and who stayed true to the heavier sounds.
                          You are comparing both to later stuff. Sabbath made the very hardest tracks of all of the progenitors of the genre (I'll concede that , and easily) and you have a bias for the harder stuff and Sabbath seems more aligned to it. But look how large and diverse the metal genre is with all its subcategories, its not just all about power metal, thrash metal, etc. and that's because more than just Black Sabbath started it. It takes more than one band to build a category -do you realize that? If only Black Sabbath existed in a void (pun intended ) for ten years no one would have ever coined the term heavy metal and applied it to bands to begin with!

                          Ozzy's Sabbath did experiment quite alot too and they have lots of mellow tracks and weird sounding stuff. Technical Ecstasy and Never Say Die are full of the latter especially. So lets not pretend their entire catalog is just grinding riffs!

                          Zeppelin had enough hard stuff -especially at the beginning- to get some credit for starting the movement. Compare them to other material at the time, that's what the people who lived then did to arrive at the distinction in the first place! That's as clear as crystal! Therefore they cant be discredited for starting it all just because harder stuff followed them later (and because of them).

                          Superbowl 50 MVP Von Miller on February 7th, 2016

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by LynchMobster View Post
                            Sometimes he did, and that's a great song. I saw him sing War Pigs live as a countdown to New Year's at Mile High Stadium which then bridged into Crazy Train at the stroke of midnight to launch the New Year -great concert! Korn opened.

                            Rolling Stone hasn't had the same writers throughout its existence, but they do respect history and that's important -especially since they are recording it! Anything documented and published is what goes into the history books. Ever seen the Cameron Crowe film "Almost Famous"? That's really Cameron's personal story, he was that kid following the bands around -- in the backstage, the parties, at the concerts and doing the exclusive interviews for Creem and then Rolling Stone, and that material survives to this day as a testimony to what happened.
                            Well to clarify, the writers they had back in the early 21st century sucked. It was Eric Clapton this and Jimi Hendrix that. If they talked about anything that came out after '80, they usually found ways to trash it. I think the reality was that ingenuity left them behind. They couldn't come to terms with it, so they just did retread stories on the same bands they'd been talking about for the previous thirty years.

                            The reviews were even worse. Some of those guys didn't even listen to the type of music they were writing reviews for.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by LynchMobster View Post
                              You are comparing both to later stuff. Sabbath made the very hardest tracks of all of the progenitors of the genre (I'll concede that , and easily) and you have a bias for the harder stuff and Sabbath seems more aligned to it. But look how large and diverse the metal genre is with all its subcategories, its not just all about power metal, thrash metal, etc. and that's because more than just Black Sabbath started it. It takes more than one band to build a category -do you realize that? If only Black Sabbath existed in a void (pun intended ) for ten years no one would have ever coined the term heavy metal and applied it to bands to begin with!

                              Ozzy's Sabbath did experiment quite alot too and they have lots of mellow tracks and weird sounding stuff. Technical Ecstasy and Never Say Die are full of the latter especially. So lets not pretend their entire catalog is just grinding riffs!

                              Zeppelin had enough hard stuff -especially at the beginning- to get some credit for starting the movement. Compare them to other material at the time, that's what the people who lived then did to arrive at the distinction in the first place! That's as clear as crystal! Therefore they cant be discredited for starting it all just because harder stuff followed them later (and because of them).
                              Hell, Sabotage had some weird tracks on it, I attribute a lot of that to the drugs they were all doing. Ozzy has stated he doesn't remember recordings in the laters days. But look what Sabbath continued to do with Ronnies James Dio, heavy, heavy man.

                              I almost feel like labeling Zeppelin a metal band is pigeon holing them, and could be why they resent, almost as metal is a talentless genre which is the exact opposite of the truth. On the other hand you have bands like Sabbath, Maiden and Motorhead who proudly wear the metal patch on their sleeves. Embrace it man.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by baphamet View Post
                                i'm in the mood for covers.......

                                I think that's the first time I've heard that. Never would have guessed that would be a Miaden song they would cover.



                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X