Roadrunner and the beginnings of metal...

[BenMech]

Pharaoh. Note vowel movement.

Oh, duh

 

[DBB]

The NWOBHM is not a 'surgical cut off point' and neither is Black Sabbath. In fact, there is no 'surgical cut off point'.

There is a clear cut between what is heavy metal and what is not heavy metal, or we would not even be talking about heavy metal. Something even you cannot escape. Why so reticent now? I think you are being coy for some reason. One thing that the Diamond Head division does get at are points that I made in both articles, so I see no need to repeat myself to try to convince you of something that you believe is an illusion. You are coming at it from a more mainstream approach where Robert Johnson selling his soul at the crossroads is on par with the imagery of the devil and Satanism in metal--which is silly on so many levels.

 

[Some Bastard]

Who's being coy? You're the one who's deliberately mixing things up now. And I never said anything about Robert Johnson being on a par with the devil and Satanism in metal.

Yes, there is a pretty clear cut between what is heavy metal and what is not heavy metal now. But there is no clear cut or 'surgical cut off point' as to where it actually began. If that was the case this topic wouldn't be five pages long.

 

[DBB]

And I never said anything about Robert Johnson being on a par with the devil and Satanism in metal.

Don't be such a stick in the mud. A little poetic license here and there shrouded in some muslin from the muse's spindle to get at a core point never hurt anyone, and you need to think more about how this relates to the arguments you have presented from the beginning.

 

[Occam's Razor]

You are coming at it from a more mainstream approach where Robert Johnson selling his soul at the crossroads is on par with the imagery of the devil and Satanism in metal--which is silly on so many levels.

I'm just reading Lords Of Chaos. The author does that as well, but it is not the worst thing about the book. Has actually anybody realized how poor that thing is - the way it is written, the deficient facts and generalisations. Not to mention its dubious stance as a piece of journalism and the fact that interviewing morons does not make for a sophisticated publication.

 

[Farseer of the Benighted Land]

Yes, there is a pretty clear cut between what is heavy metal and what is not heavy metal now. But there is no clear cut or 'surgical cut off point' as to where it actually began.

Yes, there was. Even if it couldn't be explained in so many words, most metalheads knew what was and wasn't the genuine article. The phrase 'NWOBHM' was, at its core, a media creation designed to sell more magazines, not promote true heavy metal. It was a marketing hook. It is now accepted that many of the bands included under the New Wave banner at first are definitely not metal. But, they sold magazines.

No matter how revisionist the media is, there is simply no way you can overstate Sabbath's influence and impact on metal, regardless of how psychodelic or bluesy they were on their first album or so. Yes, Alice Cooper probably had a bigger influence on the 'look' of metal, especially in regards to showmanship. Yes, metal is a complex genre with many influences stemming from a largely European folk setting (and upbringing). But to say that Sabbath is not considered the most significant band in terms of solidifying the style of metal is just being contrary for no good reason (or end, that I can see).

If that was the case this topic wouldn't be five pages long.

Yes it would, because it's still a subjective matter that people respond to with a lot of passion.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Can't we agree that it was not one distinctive band that coined what we consider metal today (we even have problems whether to put one or another contemporary band into that folder or not)? Surely, Sabbath were more of a blues and proto-hardrock thing, and they started to toy with the metal image once they got it attached to them. Without a doubt, Iommi's goal throughout his career has primarily been to sound heavy, but heavy metal...? - Anyway, the same goes for Judas Priest, who pushed the metal image (and do stil,l while admitting in a shallow way to be commercially motivated) they had attained from outside, as well as Venom, who's satanic image was mere entertainment. Nevertheless, both bands had a large impact on how metal developed and is perceived nowadays. Talk about the interdepenance of a self-created image and how fans and media see a band (or want them to be)...these things have their own dynamics and are interdependent.

In general, I agree with the opinion that denying Sabbath's significance happens just for the sake of it, Mr. Black.

Diamond Head suffered not only from bad business politics, but also from the unprofessional behavior of certain members (Tatler believed in the media craze and deemed the band another Led Zepellin, wanting to go more commercial - outside influence once again...), so Black Sabbath just had the longer breath and were able to say more musically than Diamond Head, who released good albums that were just neglected more or less. History, or at least its book, is shaped by those who blare the loudest; in metal's case, it was Sabbath, or others who blared for them.

 

[wildfyr]

Did I miss the part about Steppenwolf's "heavy metal thunder" in Born to Be Wild? Perhaps I'll have to re-read this thread again.

 

[Professor Black]

In general, I agree with the opinion that denying Sabbath's significance happens just for the sake of it, Mr. Black.

Black Sabbath just had the longer breath and were able to say more musically than Diamond Head, who released good albums that were just neglected more or less.

No, it doesn't happen "for the sake of it" in my case, and that's not precisely what I'm denying. I should again clarify the premises and conditions for my answer.

Leaving aside that I love Black Sabbath (particularly the era when Iommi was in the band) and am not arguing against their greatness, significance, or lasting influence, I am simply confining my opinion to a territory, where all albums come in white sleeves or on unmarked cassettes. (Only in this case they've got the dates written on them so that I'm able to answer the question that was posed.)

Given these controls, I do not agree that the first entirely heavy metal album was anything other than the Diamond Head debut. I'm not saying they invented anything. It was bound to happen around that time anyway, considering the abundance of almost-entirely heavy metal albums being released.

And again, I'm referring only to albums here, and, importantly with regards to my answer, I'm treating them as singular entities, not components in a band's catalog or members of a "big three" or "little six" or NWOetc.

 

[Some Bastard]

Occie and The Professor are the only ones making sense here.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Leaving aside that I love Black Sabbath (particularly the era when Iommi was in the band)

I agree that Diamond Head are, as compared to the sound of Sabbath, closer to a more "modern" understanding of heavy metal, given the faster pace and more flamboyant guitar work, so they have not so much of that "classic rock" tack.

 

[Cheiron]

Yes, but back in the 70's it was also used for bands and artists such as Blue Oyster Cult, Montrose, Ted Nugent and The Dictators. One of the first albums I owned was a compilation called Metalmania (1980). It featured songs by Iron Maiden and Riot but also Sammy Hagar, Deep Purple, Scorpions, Atomic Rooster and Whitesnake. A lot of the music that was called Heavy Metal back then has nothing to do with was is called Heavy Metal now.

The NWOBHM is not a 'surgical cut off point' and neither is Black Sabbath. In fact, there is no 'surgical cut off point'.

And it was used with Alice Cooper.

But just because the term 'Heavy Metal' was used at times, to refer to bands, does not mean that those bands were Heavy Metal. Heavy Metal became a marketing term at some point, thus lots of bands were called Heavy Metal that were not. Hmm sounds like modern days too eh? The real problem here though is that we are using a term that was developed to refer to bands that contained qualities different from what qualities we are evaluating those bands based on today. Heavy Metal began as more of a sonic quality. But now we assign attributes such as integrity and lyrical content When it comes to escapism, individuality, individual exceptionalism, we could just say that Jazz was heavy metal. We could even drift back farther to some classical composers, particularly those who emphasized improvised solos.

But as long as we call music Heavy Metal, in a different term than journalists, and media originally used it, we will have the impossible task of defining a begging, and a boundary for what is, and what is not heavy metal.

 

[DBB]

I agree that Diamond Head are, as compared to the sound of Sabbath, closer to a more "modern" understanding of heavy metal, given the faster pace and more flamboyant guitar work.

You’d be hard-pressed to convince me that Diamond Head has more flamboyancy as a collective entity than Rob Halford has in his pinky.

Granted, even I forget this fact sometimes, but then he will say something along the lines of "I’m going to make more costume changes than Cher on this tour," and I am reminded of it very quickly.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Well, I got that Diamond Head live cd and DVD, and even though there is only a core of the original lineup, it works pretty well and not as staged as Priest. Halford may have been a scorching perfomer once, but Mr teleprompter should go into retirement now.

 

[DBB]

I was joking, in part, to interject some levity into the debate (flamboyant....gay....Cher....ahhhh well), but it does enable me to get at another point

I want to be very careful, so I am going to provide an example of what I am not doing (plus it lets me meander around to make other points as I‘m prone to do ):

Amazingly Scotlands Holocaust have been going for more than 25 years. And in that time they've gained peoples attention principally through having 'the Small Hours" covered by Metallica which probably earned them a penny or two as well.
Apart from that, plus covers by the likes of Gamma Ray and Six Feet Under, Holocaust really achieved much. And new Primal wont change that state of affairs.
"Primal" is heavy- one of the heaviest the band have ever done- but that's where everything stops. The quality of songs is at best moderate, with little really making a mark. Perhaps only "Colossus" is worthy of comment as standing apart for the right reasons. Holocaust's time came and went with the New Wave Of British Heavy Metal, and maybe they should have gained more respect back then. Hanging around now isn't buying them any favours. They're solid and workman like (which all bands should be), but unless they can conjure up more vibrant production and better songs they'll always be one of these bands kept alive by the patronage of Metallica.

Malcolm Dome “Holocaust Primal” Classic Rock 2003

Malcolm Dome is a total ass. More importantly, he is, was, and always will be a stone-cold idiot. That is a story for another day, though. However, in this specific case Hypnosis of Birds, Covenant and The Courage to Be are all erased by this review (how convenient for him and his word count and stack of promos to get through) and Primal turned into a joke (the one-two punch of “Hell on Earth” and “Transcendence” is some of the most sublime and stirring metal ever produced) due to Metallica covering “The Small Hours.” Utterly unacceptable review no matter what way you look at it and lazy, trite journalism. This brand of half-baked and half-assed analysis is a constant in his career, and he is a “talking head” that is hollow. But as I said...another day and another place.

So I am not reducing Diamond Head’s importance or work to the songs that Metallica covered as soon as they set up in a garage--but it has a lot to due with their prominence and significance and you can not help but mention it every time you mention Diamond Head like it has been in this thread already.

It is unavoidable, inevitable and should not be used to make the music they produced anything less than it is--solid, great and original heavy metal.

It certainly does not need to be argued that Judas Priest was metal (plenty of people out there doing just that), but the significance of the band that stands in the same relationship to Judas Priest as Metallica does to Diamond Head and occupied a very similar position at one time is constantly elided and can be addressed in the context of this discussion.

Exciter’s foundational role in establishing the power, speed, thrash arm of heavy metal, or whatever you choose to call it at this point, in time does not receive nearly as much attention as Metallica, for obvious reasons, but back 1983-1984 (until Ride the Lightning came out at least) the two bands were both considered pioneers and mentioned in the same breath--repeatedly. Over the years, their paths diverged and Exciter has settled into a cult status and most often grouped with Razor and Sacrifice as part of a standard geographical triumvirate that people are fond of cobbling together here, there and everywhere.

That the influence of Judas Priest on Exciter was profound is apparent, and the album that the song came from which the Canadian band used to name itself is metal through and through, I think.

Stained Class is a stand alone metal album (we can throw out “Better By You, Better Than Me” if the need arises), I think, and metal enough to inspire a band who called their debut album Heavy Metal Maniac in the same way that Lightning to the Nations was metal enough to inspire an album that was to originally be titled Metal Up Your Ass.

 

[Occam's Razor]

You're right - that's all I can say.

 

[Cheiron]

Thanks for the mention of Exciter. One of the things that happens when you enter into metal so late, is that you often don't know of many of the older bands that aren't thrown into your face by MTV. Heavy Metal Manic is a great album, and really enjoying the listen. Nice to know that Exciter is still making music (next album supposed to come out next year).


One thing that would be interesting to do concerning the origination of metal, is to try to take some of the early metal bands and map their influences. Particularly, for each considering what about them is in common with Black Sabbath. Is it the riffs, the darkness/heaviness, the style of guitar?

 

[Occam's Razor]

Is Belanger actually in or out of Esciter at the moment?

Anyhow, about the guitar influences: that would be the question for a six stringer on the board, but as for overt Sabbath references, I think they are mostly to be found in doom metal in their brashest form. Other than that, you may reference any particularly heavy riff to Iommi. In general, I see way more remnants of Sabbath in the whole stoner and alternative movement (listen to AIC or Soundgarden as well, for example) as in contemporary metal. Maybe that's because a lot of new stuff sucks. The Scandinavian/Euro metal way of guitar playing is dominant. On the other hand, you have the modern sounding drop tunings that come especially from the US. Some may refer them to Sabbath as well, but I dare to disagree. They overlook that Sabbath has a lot of blues in it, let alone the soloing.

 

[DBB]

You're right - that's all I can say.

I think that there are a lot of right people around these parts.

I'd also be surprised and seriously doubt if this conversation could ever really reach a resolution that would satisfy all parties, but that is metal for you.

 

[Occam's Razor]

opinions and tastes are like assholes.