Fathers of Heavy Metal

I bet there are still more self-identifying extreme metal bands that are directly influenced by Sabbath than Venom. I doubt that extreme metal bands are influenced by Blue Cheer, but I'm sure most of them still jam Sabbath. Venom was closer to extreme metal than anyone prior, but then we had even more extreme bands that have influenced the modern scene more. If any modern day metalhead is so dense that he hasn't checked the milestone of Sabbath he probably hasn't heard Venom either.

Unless we're just gonna outright say non-extreme metal isn't metal, the standards haven't really changed. If it's metal, it's metal and doesn't lose its metalness.

Friday13th wrote:If any modern day metalhead is so dense that he hasn't checked the milestone of Sabbath he probably hasn't heard Venom either.

Watch it. He may have "missed the milestone" for other reasons than stupidity...

You're right, Thomas, what I said a bit harsh. I'm speaking out of general frustration of most people's lack of historical interest in whatever genre it is. I talk to guys who supposedly love jazz fusion say they don't know Miles Davis or Mahavishnu Orchestra. Guys who like electronic never heard of Kraftwerk. Only in classical circles do I feel like everyone gives historicity its importance (maybe even too much! lotta great 20th century stuff gets overlooked)

Its ok.  I was ruined chronologically - not my fault though.  

See, I was born in 1980, listened to CCM until 1993, found MXPX in 1994, kLaNk in 1995, and its been death metal (Metanoia, Ethereal Scourge, Crimson Thorn, Mortification) ever since.

By the time I left my Christian bubble and actually heard Sabbath/Venom, it wasn't "heavy enough". ...especially since I fell into the secular black metal abyss. I'm never coming back from that.

yeah that's cool, it's the lack of curiosity that bothers me. Back in the 80s and 90s it was harder to get information like that, so I don't blame you at all. But now the simplest google search can lay it all out. You'd think fans these days would be more knowledgeable now then ever.

Anyways, back to the topic, I think the best way to go about it is to not go by who influenced who (which is a never ending trail) or what the band labeled themselves. I was hinting that there are probably some minimum objective features of metal that must be met to differentiate it from hard rock or punk or whatever else. So like I don't care if Blue Cheer and Jimi Hendrix influenced every metal band on the planet, I don't think they meet the criteria. I think Black Sabbath does (feel free to point out anywhere you think they don't) so they will always be metal, and any heavier metal doesn't change the original definition. It just adds more criteria that the new sub-genre must meet.

Of course, some questions are hard to answer. Like are glam metal bands actually metal? Well I'm sure most here would hate me for saying otherwise  but I would argue that from a strict criteria perspective, I'd say MOST glam metal is really hard rock. Otherwise it does make it hard to exclude Led Zeppelin and the like. Of course there will always be bands that straddle the lines of genres so its never a perfect system.

Friday13th wrote:yeah that's cool, it's the lack of curiosity that bothers me. Back in the 80s and 90s it was harder to get information like that, so I don't blame you at all. But now the simplest google search can lay it all out. You'd think fans these days would be more knowledgeable now then ever.

Anyways, back to the topic, I think the best way to go about it is to not go by who influenced who (which is a never ending trail) or what the band labeled themselves. I was hinting that there are probably some minimum objective features of metal that must be met to differentiate it from hard rock or punk or whatever else. So like I don't care if Blue Cheer and Jimi Hendrix influenced every metal band on the planet, I don't think they meet the criteria. I think Black Sabbath does (feel free to point out anywhere you think they don't) so they will always be metal, and any heavier metal doesn't change the original definition. It just adds more criteria that the new sub-genre must meet.

Of course, some questions are hard to answer. Like are glam metal bands actually metal? Well I'm sure most here would hate me for saying otherwise  but I would argue that from a strict criteria perspective, I'd say MOST glam metal is really hard rock. Otherwise it does make it hard to exclude Led Zeppelin and the like. Of course there will always be bands that straddle the lines of genres so its never a perfect system.

To a large degree I do agree with you on this.  I just see Blue Cheer as being just as heavy of Sabbath.  No they did not influence as many people as Sabbath and no they didn't sing a lot about satan like Sabbath does.  But I don't think it makes them any less important or any less of a Forefather of metal.  And this subject is in a large part up to individual perspectives and opinions as well.  I do see your point of minimum objectives as well but I still think you have to weigh in large part how heavy the music itself is and not just the lyrical content.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with Friday ... with what he said.

Black Sabbath is just that much heavier than Blue Cheer or anyone else ... it wasn't by much ... but it was just enough ... to create a new genre (Metal).

I'd also have to agree with you Friday - about Glam Metal. I love Glam Metal - but in reality it is a subgenre of Hard Rock, not Metal.

ThomasEversole wrote:

alldatndensum wrote:I don't think we should grade the metal of yesteryear by what the definition seems to be today.  Today's metal is mostly sub genres of what pure metal was.  That's absurd.  To define any movement, you start with the fathers.

Lets say that someone got their drivers license back in 1950 and for whatever reason, they're being tested/graded again on how they drive.  

Do you give them the driving test that was available in 1950?
...or do you grade them on the rules of the road today?
___________________

Its absurd to grade yesteryear's metal on a 40 year curve, because we all live in the present.  Its absurd to pretend 40 years of metal didn't happen because other bands happened first.

Nice irrelevant meme type answer.

To not study the beginnings of the whole heavy metal movement is to lose the true definition of what metal is.  To just say that this is the way things are today and discredit all that went before is nothing more than revisionist history.  If the scene at the time said it was metal, then it was metal.  Everything else is a sub genre.  If a modern day fan is so unwilling to look at the whole scene, then they really do not know what they are talking about when they claim that only certain bands of today are metal and everything before was hard rock.  You've rewritten the history of the past and proved how little one really knows about the scene as a whole.

Besides, I never said that you ignore what has happened since.  You just can't grade the scene ONLY by what currently is out there.  You still have to start at the beginning.  Otherwise, you don't see the big picture.

If the bands/labels/magazines/fans called a band "metal" in those early formative years, then that is what it was and still is.  I maintain that everything that has happened since is merely a subgenre of heavy metal.  PERIOD.

Yeah, I do agree with what Alldat said. All that came before should be relevant to the modern Metal fan. It's a matter of respect and dignity ... as well as historical accuracy.

Kinda like saying ... great great Grampa doesn't matter in my family. Only my Grampa and dad and I ... see what I mean? Takes away the family history ... revises history. Revisionist history.

alldatndensum wrote:
Nice irrelevant meme type answer.

What is it with you and memes? The last time we talked, you were saying I talked in memes.
Last time I checked, my driving analogy wasn't in a Philosoraptor image. I don't know how to help you with this one.

alldatndensum wrote:
To not study the beginnings of the whole heavy metal movement is to lose the true definition of what metal is.

I disagree. While I agree metal history is important, I obviously place it at a different tier of importance.
I do not think the ultimate definition of metal NOW is what happened 40 years ago.

If trve and kvlt heavy metal is only what was 40 years ago, then... I've got better things to listen to.
Since what I said will be a meme, it might as well be a meme.

alldatndensum wrote:If the bands/labels/magazines/fans called a band "metal" in those early formative years, then that is what it was and still is.

Unless its Black Sabbath...

Even when VH1 calls them rock, Black Sabbath calls themselves rock, Ozzy says Black Sabbath is not heavy metal.
...you guys still call them heavy metal.


http://www.blacksabbath.com/history.html
http://loudwire.com/ozzy-osbourne-not-attached-to-term-heavy-metal/

Ok............ can we please move on from this?

ThomasEversole wrote:

alldatndensum wrote:
Nice irrelevant meme type answer.

What is it with you and memes?  The last time we talked, you were saying I talked in memes.
Last time I checked, my driving analogy wasn't in a Philosoraptor image.  I don't know how to help you with this one.

alldatndensum wrote:
To not study the beginnings of the whole heavy metal movement is to lose the true definition of what metal is.

I disagree.  While I agree metal history is important, I obviously place it at a different tier of importance.
I do not think the ultimate definition of metal NOW is what happened 40 years ago.  

If trve and kvlt heavy metal is only what was 40 years ago, then...  I've got better things to listen to.
Since what I said will be a meme, it might as well be a meme.

alldatndensum wrote:If the bands/labels/magazines/fans called a band "metal" in those early formative years, then that is what it was and still is.

Unless its Black Sabbath...  

Even when VH1 calls them rock, Black Sabbath calls themselves rock, Ozzy says Black Sabbath is not heavy metal.
...you guys still call them heavy metal.


http://www.blacksabbath.com/history.html
http://loudwire.com/ozzy-osbourne-not-attached-to-term-heavy-metal/

HAHA nice meme. It's a very good point that it's a double standard to use what was said by either the fans or critics back in the day and then not what the band themselves say. Lemmy says Motorhead is "rock n' roll" but really, would you make a Chuck Berry, The Rolling Stones, and Motorhead mixtape? That's why I say we can probably do better than "who influenced who" or "who coined the phrase" or "what critics called a band." All that is so subjective.

oldschooldoom gets it!!!

For the record, Jimmy Page is adamant that the mighty Zep was never considered Heavy Metal.

I don't know what you label them, but Led Zeppelin move me in ways no other band can.

In 1977 (for example) you could not compare a band to Slayer in regards of musical and/or lyrical content.
Slayer wasn't around, or anything similar to make any kind of debate over.

In 1977 standards...the application of definition regarding the term, "heavy metal" applies to a lot of bands and was truly merited to that time.

In today's standards... you have many, many bands to compare with as far as musical, "heaviness", "aggression", "tempo" or lyrical "imagery" or "mood".

Some here are putting the cart before the horse. While other's entire point is those bands were "metal" in the 70's but opposed to what transpired in the 40 something years since...well the size of the brush has not only broadened but diversified 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 2015, 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 what it is and/or was.

oldschooldoom wrote:

OH HEAVEN AND HELL YES BUDDY!!!!

You NAILED IT!!!

James B. wrote:In 1977 (for example) you could not compare a band to Slayer in regards of musical and/or lyrical content.
Slayer wasn't around, or anything similar to make any kind of debate over.

In 1977 standards...the application of definition regarding the term, "heavy metal" applies to a lot of bands and was truly merited to that time.

In today's standards... you have many, many bands to compare with as far as musical, "heaviness", "aggression", "tempo" or lyrical "imagery" or "mood".

Some here are putting the cart before the horse. While other's entire point is those bands were "metal" in the 70's but opposed to what transpired in the 40 something years since...well the size of the brush has not only broadened but diversified 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 2015, 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 what it is and/or was.

Good points. I agree.
Needs moar memes though.

Just saying. :B

ThomasEversole wrote:
Good points.  I agree.
Needs moar memes though.

Just saying. :B

Interesting...being that my position is contrary to the one you take in other posts in this thread.
Just saying.

My horse pushes my cart, thank you very much.

I agreed with you specifically the what's metal today and what was metal in 1981.  
I think both sides will forever be different on how they see metal now because of what happened in their childhood.

Most people, especially here, grew up on Sabbath.  When you're 8 years old and you hear Sabbath, its like, mind blowingly awesome so heavy and dark and nothing will change that.  30 years later, they're still impacted by what happened as a kid, forever immortalizing Black Sabbath as being these pioneers that almost reach deified status.

Of course they're you're metal gods.

Then you have the vast minority, like me, who went from CCM to Tooth and Nail to Solid State to death metal and black metal in a span of 4 years in my youth, and has been stuck on black metal for the past 17 years - never looking back since I heard it.  

Did you skip any grades in school?  I completely skipped heavy metal and thrash and "reviewed" it for fun decades later.

I first heard Sabbath subconsciously in media I'm sure.  Tuned it out obviously. ...but never put forth an effort to actually LISTEN to a song or two until 2008-2009?

I don't have the overwhelming awe of Black Sabbath being these supernatural creators of all things metal - even though its obviously true.

Any of the founding metal bands don't have much appeal to me because I'd already heard "much better" by age 28 opposed to everyone else who had their minds blown and this band deified when they were a kid.  

To me, its like the old guy at the gym.  When you grow up lifting with the guy, he's the strongest dude ever...  no wait, he IS THE strong dude at the gym.  When you just meet him for the first time, yeah he's strong, but he can't push anywhere near what 3/4ths of the 20-30 year olds can.

When I finally gave Sabbath a serious listen, the damage was done.  
It wasn't harsh enough, didn't have enough distortion, the song structure was too simple, it was too slow, way too many effects on Ozzy's voice, but I venture that was partially to cover up how Ozzy didn't sing on key...

Likewise, I'm sure you guys have the same criticism of black metal.  Sounds like it was recorded with a tape desk, just sounds like a racket, cats fighting, too much noise.  They look like goofy black and white clowns.  Yada yada yada.

Oh, and in retrospect to having your mind blown when you're 8 years old, I'd still contest that Michael Card is one of the best contemporary musicians out there.  

See what I did there?

Thomas, what you said makes sense. I 'get you' now. Heheh. It's all in point of view. Heheh.

I'd argue that most all black metal isn't even really metal at all, much less "skipping grades".  In intensity perhaps, but certainly not quality.  Punk music is intense and heavy too, but it's not metal.

Simply being "heavy" doesn't make music heavy metal.  It has to be dark and riff-based.

A lot of stuff called metal is not, and this is why Black Sabbath were really the first consistently metal band, although one could argue that some of their contemporaries may have had a metal song or two released around the same time.

RavenWolf wrote:Thomas, what you said makes sense. I 'get you' now. Heheh. It's all in point of view. Heheh.

Sure bro!  And your opinion, and my opinion and everyone's opinion, differing or not, are all valid.  Right or wrong isn't even the right question...

...in my opinion.  :B

Temple of Blood wrote:I'd argue that most all black metal isn't even really metal at all, much less "skipping grades".  In intensity perhaps, but certainly not quality.  Punk music is intense and heavy too, but it's not metal.

Simply being "heavy" doesn't make music heavy metal.  It has to be dark and riff-based.

A lot of stuff called metal is not, and this is why Black Sabbath were really the first consistently metal band, although one could argue that some of their contemporaries may have had a metal song or two released around the same time.

If you're saying most of all black metal isn't really metal,
have you heard most of all black metal?

I'm confused as to how the quality of the recording plays a part in defining the genre...  

...there are oodles of black metal bands that are very poorly produced, moreso than most genres, but there are some bands that play using the exact same raw formula that are VERY well produced.  Certainly dark and riff based.

I can post examples if you need a few.

I would disagree that "a lot of stuff" called metal is not metal.  It most certainly is because it has the main ingredients to the metal formula - which is certainly more than just being dark and riff driven.  
Its just not "pure" "heavy metal", as the traditional style coined in the 80's.  

Again, we're staring down the barrel of time and upbringing.

Today, metal purists wouldn't cross the street to spit in the hair of Black Veil Brides because its "just emo rock".
...but if that band came out in the 80's, playing the exact same style they do, the majority of people would consider it to be extremely innovative and brutal "heavy metal".

Yeah, Metal certainly has MANY MANY subgenres. That's for sure! I like most all of them! In fact ... I don't think there is a subgenre of Metal that I don't like.

I love everything from Glam Metal (really more Hard Rock than Metal), to Heavy Metal to Black Metal to Alternative Metal to Funk Metal.

Power Metal, traditional Heavy Metal and Thrash Metal would be tippy topsy for me though.