Conference mr1pst::music

    There's quite alot of good metal music about, but I think that much of
    the metal music and many of the metal bands are somewhat cliche.
    Why do all metal singers have long, permed hair, and why do they all
    seem to love themselves. Also , when I think of metal bands I think of
    fast, but non-melodic guitar playing, which seems to sound the same no
    matter which guitarist it is coming from.
         Now having aired of my negative comments on metal I would like to
    say that there are some superb metal bands around and that the more
    original metal bands such as Kiss & Def Leppard  still seem to have
    quite alot to offer.
    
    
    ps. I take it these are metal bands...

    
    	A few years back I did like AC/DC, and a few others, don't really
    	listen to much of it now. Of the current 'Metal' bands I have heard
    	recently I really don't like Metallica, and a lot of the other 
    	'Thrash ?' metal bands, IMHO the Black Crowes are about the best
    	around at the moment.
    
    	Then again I'm not a big fan of this type of music, but it only
    	my opinion anyway.
    
    	Gary.

    RE's
    
    And there is that continued glorification of satanical believes
    and images in their music and on most of their record sleeves.
    Moronic! Not for me thanx.
    
    Jan. 

     I still get a charge out of the tried and true 3 chord heavy metal ,
     but I think most people tend to move on to appreciating other forms
     of music eventually. Heavy Metal thrives on the nonconformist image
    when in reality , they are all very much standard bands. The singer
     usually is a Don Dokken clone with long permed hair and in love with
     themselves, The "Ace" Guitar player ( That leaves the band 'round
    about the 5th album ) and the need to play at least 1 power ballad.
     ( You know...start with a lone acoustic guitar and add power crunch
     chords...whoops...thats the "Anthem song" Ballad= G C D chords.)
     Watch the movie "Spinal Tap". I think alot of us still like Heavy
    Metal , but probably won't buy the next Metallica CD.
    
     JMHO
    
              JT

    re -.3  I don't think you'd blame Vincent Price for playing an evil
     character, Why blame Ozzy for the same thing. It's all with a grain
     of salt. The true evil in music are bands like Nelson and NKOTB

    Re: .0
    
    I like some metal, original metal.  It seems that quite a bit of metal
    bands these days sound the same.  Most seem to use the same
    instumentation while following the same songwriting "flowchart".
    
    Acoustic into---->||:verse-chorus:||--->solo or acoustic middle--->
    ||:Verse-Chrous:|| ---> chorus---> end.
    
    I have heard some very well written metal, but it's few and
    far-between.
    
    
    chUck

    I guess I'm OK on some metal.  I don't consider the Black Crowes
    "metal", but I'm a little vague on the subject anyway.
    
    Warrant, Great White and Ozzy are OK by me, but Metallica is overrated
    (IMO).
    
    K.C.

 Re: Mystic Powers

  I heard the band at DECjam and although I don't like metal I thought they
 were good. They were well rehearsed and put someting into it. I could
 appreciate the work they had put into it. Way to go Pete. I meant to send
 you a personal note but saying it in public is better, no? :-)
 

  Don't Likes about Metal:


     Not singing usually sounds like screaming to me. 
     Can't hear the words.
     All the tunes sound alike.

   
   I appreciate ALL different styles of music that is done well. My preferences 
 lie elsewhere.
  
 - Bob

    
    	I think most of the comments so far relate to pop metal bands, i.e.
    	those that are very popular and in some cases fit what has been said.
    
    	There are many bands like Pete's that don't get heard by many people
    	just because they have this negative pre-formed judgment about all/
    	most "metal" bands.
    
    	I find it very ironic that many of the usual readers of the H_M
    	conference say things about other styles of music that sound as
    	ridiculous as the things the people who think that all people
    	who listen to these bands and the bands themselves are worshiping
    	the devil or some foolish crap like that.  
    
    	Just as bands like Pete's deserve a listen first before someone 
    	reads about them in an interview or forms a judgment before ever
    	hearing them through pre conceived notions they should consider
    	not listening to music in a quantum leap sort of way by placing
    	everything into groups and such.  I'm not saying that general names
    	of types of music are bad it's just they should not be the end-all
    	in describing a band in the promotional sense.  It's most helpful
    	at times to describe a band in terms of someone another person is
    	most likely familiar with but even that often leads to confusion.
    
    	On another note I find it interesting to note Aerosmith and those
    	before them who blended many styles of music together to form
    	their own style of music.  It's certainly nothing new today with all
    	the fusion and what not but some people have the wrong idea about
    	it and I think they are simply trying to appeal to many different
    	listens in a way that isn't rooted in their music.  It's certainly 
    	better to have bands inspired from varying influences who then come 
    	up with something fresh than it it is to have 2001 bands that have 
    	nearly the exact same style and sound.
    
    	Also, I do get tired of may people who are looking for next big
    	thing in music and who at times put down some of these derivative
    	type bands who in my opinion are shedding new light on things.
    
    	The comment about AC/DC reminds me of what Angus Young once said
    	in an interview, something like we didn't have any desire to sound
    	like another top 40 band in the U.S. charts, etc.  what would that
    	have made us, we'd be just another band.
    	
    	- Jim
    	

    re. PRC :*)
    
    
    go back* where you belong !! ;*)
    
    metal (bleck ) 
    
    
    
    			wendy o'
    
    

Interesting discussion, especially for a musical form which on the whole doesn't
excite me...Thanks, Pete.

There are various twists on "judging" music, most of which have been covered in
the replies up until this one. Some apply to *all* music, IMHO, some to
specific forms.

What is *always* bad, to me, is purely derivative music. I leave out straight
covers, or any and all deliberate attempts to "copy" a sound and/or song. Seems
to me that this is exactly what some audiences *want* from some bands, and that
it's also often a good way of "learning from the masters;" sorta like copying
Matisse, Picasso, Wyeth et al before making your own great artistic statement.
When huge bunches of allegedly different bands begin to have the same sound,
however, it's just plain boring.

Why I don't particularly like HM as a *form* is different. (If I'm wrong about
the form, enlighten me.)

- It is by nature LOUD. While I like decent volume on rock and/or any other
  sh*t-kicking music, I don't need to hurt my ears to enjoy it. It seems like a
  fundamental principal of HM that "louder is better."

- It uses a lot of what I can only call "non-musical" elements: singing which,
  again, emphasizes raw energy over musicality (tone, pitch, control),
  instrumentals which do the same, and a definite tendency to overemphasize the
  "pulse" aspects (i.e., percussion and bass) of the mix.

I think that these aspects of HM make it easier for a not-very-good HM band to
still be successful. Like a lot of "pop" forms which depend heavily on
technology rather than sheer talent (can you say "disco," boys and girls?), it's
subject to abuse. In the equation

	sound = talent + equipment + postproduction

it's just a lot easier for "talent" to get lost in the shuffle. Not that it's
absent, it's just harder to find the pearls among the shi*t. (I could give other
examples of this happening, with folk music, for instance, in the '60's. It's
certainly not a unique problem to HM.)

Amazing how much one can type when a build is progressing slowly...

Bob

    Metal is so hard to define... Like all music, I prefer people who dip
    into it as opposed to people who wallow around in it. In other words, I
    prefer bands where metal is an influence, not a way of life.
    
    I'm almost unanimously bored by "metal ballads" and agree that most
    metal bands have a Spinal Tap personae. That's why when it comes to
    metal, I prefer older bands that defined metal but also had other
    influences. Examples would be Led Zeppelin, the (arguably) greatest
    metal band of all time who, from my perspective, also defined the
    concept of fusing R&R, blues and "world music" (don't give me this crap
    about LZ sounding like Jeff Beck, he'd never write *anything* like
    "Kashmir"). Another example is Deep Purple, who had a huge blues
    influence.
    
    Now, I like bands like Faith No More, Red Hot Chili Peppers,
    Queensryche, Farrenheit, Tribe (listen to Joyride and tell me there's
    no metal influence there) and others who are more than willing to
    summon up a little post-punk thrash when the mood hits them.
    
    Brian

    While I'm not the least bit offended by it (I'm a atheist), I simply
    find those bands that seem fixated with Satanistic/violence stuff to be
    "unserious" musically.
    
    Do they truly get their lyrical inspiration from some Satanic
    influence, or is it just that they are trying to write lyrics to
    fit the satanic metal role?  
    
    In any case, it's hard for me to imagine any way that the lyrics come from
    an inspirational source.
    
    And the music that seems to always accompany such lyrics seems to 
    forego nearly all of the vast forms of tools that one can draw on
    to project emotion (dyanmics for example).
    

    RE: .11
    
    Mike,
    
    I can think of at least four Christians I know, at least two of whom
    are readers of this notes file, who enjoy some heavy metal music (myself
    included)... I don't know whether your comment was serious or not, but I
    think:
    
    	a. you're wrong in many cases
    
    	b. you should perhaps rephrase your opinion with a view toward
    	   "valuing differences"
    
    Just a suggestion if you're not in the mood for a little backlash...
    
    Brian

    
    	RE: -1
    
    	A big "Huh???????????????????"

    Just another thought on the Satanic thing...
    
    I think most of the metal bands couldn't care less about true Satanism.
    I think Satanic posturing has become such an ingrained element of being
    a "heavy metal" band, that some bands use it as a way of marketing
    their personae. Which goes back to the question of how non-conformist
    is it to pretend you're something you're not *just* to fit in with
    everyone's definition of a metal band. Most of these cracker-heads
    don't have a clue...
    
    Brian

    RE. 16
    
    Huh what?? Was there something non-obvious in what I said?
    
    Brian

Re .11, .15:

I don't find the "Satanic" stuff offensive, but then I don't take it too
seriously either. I frankly consider its use to blatant marketing ploy to
appeal to the need of adolescents to be "dangerous" and rebel against just
about any societal restriction or taboo. (In other words, I recall my *own*
adolescence fairly well...) If any band and/or its audience are *truly* Satanic,
they have my Christian sympathy as being sadly misguided.

Now if one *does* take the "advocation of violence" charge seriously, I'd say
that there's a good reason to speak out against anything or anyone who takes
such a stand. The "valuing differences" policy, far from forbidding such
criticism, fairly *demands* it. Condone the praising/exaltation/advocation of
violence? You gotta be kidding! I think we're into self-contradiction if that's
considered a difference to be valued.

BTW- I confess that I have *not* heard enough HM to say one way or the other
whether the bulk of it connects strongly to either Satanism or the advocation
of violence. My remarks are more of the "If that is so, then..." variety.

Bob

    
    	I can't speak for Mike but I think he was kidding.  You obviosly
    	didn't read it that way.  
    
    	I think your wrong about implying that *many* bands are using the
    	santanic b.s. think, there's only a small % of bands without a 
    	clue so don't put everyone in the same boat.
    
    	Later,
    	- Jim

    re. last
    
    
    as far as satanistic (whatever) I think you are referring to Death
    Metal. I first mentioned in the H_M notes file and noone knew what 
    i was talkign about until a year later, when someone in H_M goes
    to all the shows regularly., but anyways, has nothing to do with Heavy
    metal discussion pete asked about :')  
    
    re. markey, i think MIKEY was kidding, I think he a Christian
    rocker as well as myself.. (so there :*) )
    
    		wendy o'
    
    
    
    			wendy o'
    
    

    SET MODERATOR
    
    Well, not to get too deep in the VD (valuing differences) rathole here...
    what I meant was, please "value" the fact that some people enjoy heavy
    metal music, and regardless of the message of the music, my primary
    responsibility as moderator is to make sure that no one does anything
    which will get them in trouble as an employee. I'm *not* saying Mike's
    note (.11) would do that, but such comments do have a way of escalating
    into verbal warfare. I was trying to avoid such a situation, that's
    all.
    
    SET NOMODERATOR
    
    Brian

    
    
    re. 11
    
    MIke, now see what you did ?? :*)
    
    
    I**** THINK** we SHOULD blame IT ON PRC for starting the note in the
    	FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    :*)
    
    
    			wendy o'
    
    

    
    heavy metal - uh, you mean like neil young, right?

    
    	No, it's not Pete's fault!
    
    	- Ratt Hole

    OK... I give! :-) Let's drop this. I remember the last time we had this
    discussion and we had a huge side debate about the "Christian" angle on
    HM. I guess I was just hoping to plug a rathole before it started, but
    I guess jumping into the hole isn't the best way to plug it!!!! :-)
    
    Anyway, ya' all can carry on...
    
    Brian
    Christian rocker, over-sensitized moderator, bon vivante...
    

    There are now videotapes that you can order, that give you the entire
    background of Satanism and rock music.  It is a 2 tape set.
    
    (the "entire background" is said somewhat jokingly...I only wish that
    they WERE.)
    
    I saw them available on TV (being endorsed by some preacher or other),
    and couldn't believe it.  Some of the SPECIFIC examples of Satanic
    artists were AC/DC, Ozzy, Stevie Nicks, Huey Lewis & the News and Iron
    Maiden.
    
    Like I said...I WISH I was joking.
    
    K.C.

    sorry, I forgot this was the "serious" musical conference.  
    
    Obviously, people from the HEAVY_METAL conference knew I was joking.  
    We have dedicated topics for various heavy metal bands in the CCM 
    conference (which I moderate).
    
    My band also does some heavy metal material.
    
    Mike

    K.C.
    
    I saw it too and had the same reaction (groan). Like Monty Python said,
    "Time to use the Holy Hand Grenade". :-)
    
    Brian

    Mike, I meant no offense! Like I said back in .15 or so, I had no idea
    whether you meant it or not... Sorry, really!
    
    Brian

    BTW - the greatest and original Christian Heavy Metal band is no more.
    Michael Sweet recently announced his resignation from Stryper.
    
    Mike

Re .27:

Those tapes are NOT what they seem! As innocent as they seem, they carry a
secret message.

Try playing them *backwards!*

Re .28:

Serious? SERIOUS?? S_E_R_I_O_U_S????

Yah, right...

Bob

    re:
    
    Ozzy is a mystery to me.  On the one hand, his lyrics have a clear
    tinge of satanism and he also writes on various other "dark" HM
    subjects (suicide, and generally how shitty life is).
    
    But you watch him in concert (as I do because I like the music) and
    every other word in between songs is "We love you" and "god bless you".
    
    	db

    Interesting discussion folks...
    
    I'm not a big metal fan, I pretty much don't like it. But like a lot of
    different styles of music, and anything in moderation is ok. I like some 
    Def Leppard, Zeppelin of course was an early "metal" band, and there are 
    others that have the occasional tune I can handle. 
    
    What I don't like is that these guys are probably very talented, but in
    my opinion, they channel their talent in the wrong direction. Look at
    Extreme II, Pornagrafitti, those guys rock out, I'd call it
    "funk-metal" if there is such a thing, or isn't for that matter, but
    then they use their talent to write Hole Hearted or More Than Words. 
    Now there's a band that rocks out, but displays some talent at the same
    time. I'm sure many other head-bangers are capable of writing "good" music,
    without it being the typical boring metal ballad. 
    
    Remember folks, this is entertainment, and that's what these bands are
    doing, entertaining a very large (confused??) audience. Someone else
    noted in here that most people grow out of it, I agree with that. I'm
    sure all of us had a favorite metal band during those wild high school
    daze. I wasn't big on metal even back then, but I've grown a bit more
    tolerant of these bands over the years.
    
    I am definitely not a major fan of this music though. 
    
    But, if some metal producer told me to grow my hair, wear spandex,
    treat ladies like a plaything, and play cranked up, bang your head
    music, and make BIG $$$$ doing it, would I ???
    
    Probably...oh well, I've sold-out my artistic soul...
                                                                         

    
    	Hey, Brian, if you sometimes plug ratholes you're certainly entitled
    	to start a few every now and then.  Okay a 'nough of that.
    
    	Yes, Ozzy's attitude is great, he surely come across to me as someone
    	who very much enjoys what he does, and while he does what he can do
    	to make sure the audience enjoys themselves, in return the audeince
    	reaction is his ultimate payback.
    	
    	He must/should be the father of something, you know something like
        the name attached to James Brown, etc. who are all Grand/Father's 
    	of...
    
    	- Jim

    Ozzie does seem pretty confused. I like his music too, including "No
    More Tears" (although I don't like the obligatory ballad they're
    playing now). I would say he's an example of the Satan-sells syndrome,
    except *he* started it (with Black Sabbath). Even they were enigmatic
    about it, with conflicting lyrical/visual messages (Ozzie and co
    wearing crosses). Supposedly, Ozzie had a pretty serious run-in with a
    group of Satanic bikers once and they put a "hex" on him and he wore
    the crosses for "protection". I get the feeling though, and I mean this
    in a nice way, that Ozzie probably couldn't spell Satan. In fact, he
    probably has difficulty with "Ozzie". I view him as a somewhat comic
    rogue who's not to be mistaken for the chairman of the rocket science
    dept, if 'ya know what I mean...
    
    Brian

    To paraphrase a very wise younger friend of mine .....
    
    	"when it comes to "valuing differences", I'll meet you half way - 
    	 I'll attempt to honestly understand the difference, but whether or
         not I'll value them, is my choice - not my obligation."
    
    	 
    Music, like anything else in life is what you make it.
    
    d. 

    re: Ozzy
    
    I've always liked pretty much everything Ozzy's ever done, but I also
    happen to believe that he could have been the largest single
    inspiration for Spinal Tap.  An interview with Nigel Tufnel, David St.
    Hubbins, Derek Smalls, etc. could easily be swapped with one of Ozzy's
    (very unnoticeably, I would guess).
    
    IMHO
    
    -Jesse

    Re: .36
    
    >I get the feeling though, and I mean this
    >in a nice way, that Ozzie probably couldn't spell Satan. In fact, he
    >probably has difficulty with "Ozzie". 
    
    For the record...its spelled "Ozzy".  ;^)
    
    K.C.

    Uh oh...:-)
    
    Brian
    (who's crawling under his desk as you read this...)

>                        -< The ultimate schizophrenic >-
    
    I've also seen quotes of his in magazines saying how he sometimes
    blacks out on stage for long periods of time.  This note would really
    go down a rathole if I listed some things that cause that.
    
    Some of the songs I've heard from his new release (i.e., "Momma I'm 
    coming home") seem to be a real departure for him.
    
    Mike

    
    come on brian, i bet he can spell $atan.

    RE: .42
    
    Good one Bob... as they say over in the Celtic's notes file...
    
    	rooooooooolling...
    
    (as in, on the floor, laughing...)
    
    Brian

    Re: .44
    
    Spell it with me...   $-A-T-A-N.
    			  ^
    			  ^
    			  ^
    
    NOW do you get it?  :^)
    
    K.C.

    RE: .44
    
    -< I don't get it Brian >-
    
    Sorry Mike, but I can't help you with that one! :-)
    
    Brian

    
    rathole ALERT:
    
    Since i'm notorious for getting the Subject (whenever possible!! :* ))
    I want to know more of these black outs of Ozzy's .. Also Markey
    why do you say Ozzy is confused?? 
    
    
    		wendy o'
    
    

I'm not a fan of most metal music.  But there's a lot of rock
music I don't like either.  With metal's more aggresive style,
perhaps the bands that would just bore you in a gentler genre
become more of an irritant.

One band I do like is MDC.  Very musical in their style, with
potent lyrics.  But even with this group, a little goes a long
way for me. 

    
    Heavy Metal.
    
    One of those categories of music I now have to "qualify" whenever I
    talk about it.  I love a lot of it, but I don't like a lot of what they
    call "heavy metal" nowadays.  Sometimes I feel like there used to be
    one definition and then all of a sudden all these new bands decided
    they were going to change it.
    
    Deep Purple, Blue �yster Cult, Grand Funk Railroad, Black Sabbath, that
    old stuff was classic.  Even in the early eighties when Judas Priest,
    the Cr�e, Quiet Riot, Twisted Sister, etc., were coming into the limelight,
    that was pretty fun.
    
    Then, I dunno, HM got like Top 40.  There's a million bands out there
    and too much fluff.  I can't seem to get too interested in the
    speed/thrash deal (it all sounds like one song redone a million times),
    and that "heavy metal ballad" is getting way overdone.  There's still
    a few bands doing cool stuff (B�g�ym�n, Ozzy, maybe Dio will bring BS
    back into shape next album, even Tesla can be ok), but still...  Most
    HM seems like its either a "hair and chicks" band or the "angry thrash
    angst-ridden chainsaw riffs" band.  Probably I'm being a little biased,
    and I try to give it all a chance, but I miss those all B3/Guitar 
    interchanges Blackmore and Lord used to come out with.
    
    - Sean

    I'm not sure where the lines blur between 'hard rock', 'heavy metal',
    and 'thrash', but assuming heavy metal is what I think it is, here's
    why I don't like it:
    
    Discordance
    	--Drums pounding incessantly (budda, budda, budda,budda), to no
    apparant beat other than what the drummer wants it to be
    
    	-- Lead guitar doing lots of notes in no apparant order
    
    	--  Singer screaming the words, or at the very best, semi-screaming
    them.  No melody.  If one actually wanted to listen to the lyrics, they
    are lost behind the buddabuddabuddabudda of the drums and the frantic
    wails the the guitar.
    
    	-- Lead Guitarist must always have very long hair and/or hat which
    covers his eyes.  He usually does not smile.  Must have one name,
    probably not his given one.  
    
    	-- Lead singer/sex symbol thin, scrawny, must wear open vest/shirt
    with tattoo/s someplace.  He also must have Hair.  (Hair is a
    prerequesite for being in the Band.)
    
    	--  Must hold interviews in manner which would suggest they partied
    too long the night before, whether they did or not.  Must have that
    'stoned' giggle.  Smoking seems In, too.   
    
    	--  Must either have Rocking concert Video or lots of Babes
    Video.  Concert Video should have Babes in the Audience, screaming and
    carrying on.  Or at least waiting backstage.  
    
    	--  Band name must sound artificial.  MUST have umlaut (sp?) over
    O, A, or U.  Logo should have Skull.  
    
    	-- Anyone who does not look like a part of this culture clique
    should be protrayed as a) managers  b) sheep of society  c) nerds.
    
    :)  Actually, only the first couple points are why I don't care for the
    music.  The rest just strikes me as stereotypes which seem to pervade
    the genre.  
    
     A recap why I don't like heavy metal and it's bedfellows:
    
    -- Loud for loud's sake.
    
    -- Drums/guitar/voice all trying to outdo each other, succeeding only
    in being noisy.  
    
    -- Lead guitarist has to wear a hat.  Seems like an oppressive rule. 
    :)
    
    It all reminds me of a bunch of boys gathering together with their
    musical instruments and playing at being a band. 
    
    kim

    
    re: .51
    
    Why is it I can see you saying, "all Irish are alcoholics and all 
    Americans are lazy".
    
    Give me a break!

    
    	I could not have said it better, Pete....
    

>    Give me a break!

OK, right after the bass solo...

    I tend to agree with .51. Metal is a big turnoff.
    
    Jim C.

    I point no fingers, believe me...
    
    It seems though, that those that routinely defend one type of music can
    also be counted on to vehemently slag another (I'm guilty too, that's
    why I point no fingers). For instance, suppose you like heavy metal.
    You might say that rap sucks becuase it's all the same, just look at
    the following items of proof... blah... blah... blah.
    
    Inevitatbly, the slaggers call up all the stereotypes of Mtv, not of
    the musical genre itself. That is why I have always been a major
    detractor of Mtv, because I believe that it shows the worst of all
    possible combinations. People that are predisposed to like a particular
    genre are capable of seeing through the stereotypes and those that are
    not predisposed to like that genre see *only* the stereotypes. While
    Mtv strives for ultimate we-are-the-world-political-correctness, it
    falls on its face because it only delivers the very things upon which
    prejudice is based.
    
    SO, I think if you can shut off your visual images (what have they got
    to do with music anyway?), I think people would be more capable of
    appreciating a wider variety of music. De-TV while you can...
    
    Brian

    
    I agree that MTV portrays a very narrow cross section
    of pop-metal (although Heavy Metal From Hell is entertaining). 
    I have genuine difficulty distinguishing between 
    Winger, Poison (the ones with the hair, right;-)),
    Warrant, Great White, etc. They're all so Spinal Tapian. 
    I guess they're laughing all the way to the bank, though.
    
    The height of MTV blandness is the formulaic "POWER BALLAD,"
    wherein our poofy-haired heroes show their sensitivity 
    and versatility by sitting on stools and playing acoustic 
    instruments(!) (usually disrupted after 8 bars by HUGE
    power chords and BIG drums).
    
    I say, if you're going to do it, why sugar coat it? Metal I
    have heard and liked at one time or another:
    
    Anthrax
    Motorhead
    Iron Maiden (Die With Your Boots On)
    
    	-Tom

    
    Bands like Warrant and Poison are NOT Heavy Metal.

    Interesting string of notes. Did Led Zeppelin start heavy metal?

    re.58
    
    >>Bands like Warrant and Poison are NOT Heavy Metal.

    I agree. If you read my reply I said pop-metal. But
    different people have different ideas of what is 
    heavy metal.
    
    Take AC/DC or Ozzy. I think they're hard rock bands, 
    but I've heard people call them metal...Depends on 
    your perspective. As a heavy metal fan, you probably 
    have a very different definition than a non-fan.
    
    -Tom

    
.59� Interesting string of notes. Did Led Zeppelin start heavy metal?
    
    	No, not at all.  Jimmy Page has said they were more of a folk
    	band than heavy metal or even blues.  A handful of their songs,
    	mostly from the earlier albums were of the more rooted blues 
    	variety especially the ones that were staples originally done by 
    	others before them.  They may have influenced some heavy metal
    	bands of the current day but they weren't H_M in my opinion.
    
    	- Jim

    .59
    
    >>Interesting string of notes. Did Led Zeppelin start heavy metal?
    
    No, I did. They stole it from me.  >>;-)<<
    
    Prediction: If we keep talking about genres, Tom Parmenter will
    enter this discussion.
    
    -Tom

    There is one song that I have grown to love.  It is by one of the
    "sheep Heavy Metal" bands (bands that seem to follow what every OTHER
    band is doing) - Queensryche.
    
    I don't remember the title, but during an instrumental part it has what
    sounds like radio background noise.
    
    Truly a "power ballad", as it strikes me as very powerful.
    
    WHAT IS THE TITLE?
    
    K.C.

    
    re: .60
    
    Yeah, I know, I was just pointing it out to someone else.
    
    IMHO Black Sabbath was the first REAL Heavy Metal band.

     Try Blue Cheer           Summertime Blues
    
    
             The Original Metal heads

>    There is one song that I have grown to love.  It is by one of the
>    "sheep Heavy Metal" bands (bands that seem to follow what every OTHER
>    band is doing) - Queensryche.
>    WHAT IS THE TITLE?

"Silent Lucidity".

BTW, that song (and Queensryche in general) seems a lot more influenced
by Pink Floyd than by other metal bands.

alan

progenitors of h_m

Link Wray (heavy, menacing guitar trio .ca 1958)

Kinks (also progenitors of new wave, flower power, nine other so-called genres)

Steppenwolf  (first use of term in song)

Blue Cheer (loud hair band)

Black Sabbath (first to raise Ole Nick)

Hey, since we're into history here-

What about Iron Butterfly? In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida is the earliest occurrence of
what _I_ (an admitted non-fan) would term HM. Of course, back then, I guess I
liked it... sort of, anyway.

Bob

    all right, if we're going to go into history etc., then someone with
    the know please define what heavy metal really is.  As opposed to hard
    rock, or thrash.  
    
    
    kim

    As with all genre's, H-M has between 5% and 10% that's worthy of your
    attention.  The other 90-95% is trash.  This statement is true of ALL
    music types.  There's some stuff on the classical music stations that
    is one step below Muzak(R).  
    
    Because H-M strives to be "in your face", the crappy stuff becomes more
    noticeable.
    
    Carl

    	RE: .69 and then some...
    
	I don't dare get into bringing up modern rock and all the many other
	forms of rock although in some other time slice between work and play 
	I'll probably come back to it.

	Heavy metal just like any other musical genres has many different 
	flavors that vary from one individual to an other but in general 
	they all have some agreed upon commonalties.  

	Every genre has it music that appeals to the masses, I'm not saying
	this negatively although my preference generally borders on the more
	extreme ends of each such group.

	For the sake of discussion, and I think this type of forum is the only 
	time labeling is of some use even if at times it in itself serves 
	partly to add more confusion because you're using it as if the terms 
	were universally accepted and they certainly are not.  I'll try to 
	answer Kim's question but I'm sure someone who is more articulate and 
	has more time on their hands can do it more justice.

	In the case of hard rock or thrash I consider the later to be a degree 
	of metal which surprisingly enough it doesn't appeal to many folks who 
	like heavy metal.  The now defunct EHM conference used to have some 
	discussion on bands in this category.

	I'd say hard rock borders on a degree of extremities from the more 
	generic rock which grew out of American Rock & Roll of the 50-60's.
	The early 60's British beat which some what preceded the British 
	Invasion which is general and initially was the British 
	interpretations of many American blues artists comes to mind in
	discussing this subject.

	The later sixties had more of a harder interpretation of the more
	standard rock & roll, sometimes hardly recognizable but it was a
	base for many bands of this era.  Likewise there is soft rock and
	clearly I'm not covering all the bases here.

	As the 70's moved in some of these bands were considered heavy metal 
	but I think most of them now are more appropriately considered either
	classic rock artists at least in radio formats or hard rock or even
	simply rock.  Some may say dinosaurs.  Although some of these bands 
	gave birth and influence to what many now consider heavy metal in 
	their period I'd say they were more of the generic rock to hard rock.
	Some notable expceptions being bands like Black Sabbath which clearly
	stood out in those days and were what I consdiered H_M as a kid.

	The late 70's to early 80's introduced puck and the more melancholic
	new wave which unlike any of its predecessors was mostly developed
	from within as its energy clearly showed.  The long drawn out guitar 
	soloing of days gone by were not something guitarists of this period 
	admired or even had the ability to deliver.  

	Now as we get to the early 90's clearly there's bands influenced
	by all the predecessors.  May forms of fusion ecist which certainly is
	anything new but there does seem to be more and more forms of this as 
	well as some bands that are simply described as being derivative.  I 
	have stated elsewhere that I prefer this over those who only serve 
	to mimic.

	Without trying to describe the varying degrees of heavy metal
	hopefully the point out of all this is that each musical 
	classification seems to highlight varying degrees and that is 
	really all it is, then you can add in attitudes and a lot of other 
	variables that help to make up stereotypes associated with each but 
	I don't dare try to get into that.

	I mustg note the early blues period '20-40's which clearly influenced 
	many bands especially in the 60-70's is worth mentioning before
	continuing.

	Some examples of degree and I'll try to point to other notes that
	complement this discussion. {again this list is far from complete
	and not meant to be.}

		Alternative - experimental & avant garde, again some form
		 of this has mass appeal, noise and or grunge, punk/60's/metal 
		 influenced and all combinations between, etc.

		Heavy metal - pop metal, poseurs, 70's band that were once 
		 called heavy metal now don't really fit my personal
		 definition any more so not only is it different from every 
		 body it can change within all of us as individuals too 
		 making it all that much harder to categorize.

	 	All the various cores from Pop to hard to lollipop.

	Hopefully I've answered the original question without getting too
	far off the deep end, thrash and hard rock are simply degrees of
	metal and rock, respectively.  Almost all forms have their heavy
	side and likewise their softer forms.  When it comes right down
	to it it's the individual listener that should determine why sh/e
	likes something and not concern yourself with all the excess cargo 
	often associated with it.

	If you'll notice I did not mention one single band as clearly
	that would make this all a wash out based on all the different
	groupings we have as individuals for bands.  The Rush note in MUSIC or
	H_M may be of interest if you don't know what I mean. "No,
	they're not heavy metal, but they are heavy.  Yea, they're progressive,
	and on and on and on...."  What pigeon hole does Rush belong
	in or Soundgarden, etc....that's one reason why I think the 
	binary system is good on the individual level; do you like their
	sound or not - on the personal side you don't have to place them 
	in a specific container but marketing types like to and when 
	discussing them does come up as we've seen.

	I also find the generational nature of the each groups interpretation
	of metal to be an intersting side note, from the so called 
	innovators/first generation rockers to the second generation and so 
	on.  Maybe someone else will get off on that.

	Some references are the book which title I don't recall, The Family
	tree of Performers which shows all the various bands a member was
	in.  I've always though some form of this trace would be interesting
	to show both influences which aren't always consciously thought
	about and for tracing genres.

	- Jim

    
    	RE: .70
    
    	But if you like H_M, then there'd be 90 or 95% that you like and 5
    	or 10% that you don't.
    
    	RE: KC
    
    	Ummm, I wouldn't call Queensryche a "sheep" band by any means.
    
    							GTI
    

    Personally, I find heavy metal to be an artistic dead end, much as jazz
    fusion now is.  I enjoyed many of the progenitors of heavy metal, Deep
    Purple, Zeppelin, etc. but it seems that as the form continued to
    evolve a lot of what I *liked* about the music got flushed in favor of
    what I *didn't* like.  It doesn't seem to me that any new ground has
    been broken other than making *everything* more extreme: louder,
    faster, etc.  It's a rather insular style as well (nothing wrong with
    that per se) which makes artistic progress more difficult, since
    progress can lead to the inevitable complaint "That's not (name genre
    here)!"
    
    For example, the blues base of the early bands has been excised, and
    the tendency for extremely high-pitched vocals has continued to the
    point where when I tune in college radio metal shows, the singers
    actually give me a headache if I listen to it very loud.  Also, the not
    uncommon fantasy based lyrics don't appeal to me as much as an adult as
    they would have when I was fourteen reading Conan novels.  In fact,
    sometimes I just think "Gee, why didn't they have records like this
    when I was a kid?".  
    
    This sort of thing is not unusual, how often do you hear from a fan of
    some band, "They were better back when...".  I.e. as the band
    progressed, it made some change in direction that alienated some of
    their existing fans but gained others (sometimes in much larger
    numbers).  It can happen with whole genres, too.  Witness how southern
    rock has becoem resurrected on country radio, while it is seldom heard
    on mainstream rock radio any more.
    
    So I can't say I hate heavy metal or that it is bad per se, I can only
    say that I haven't heard anything amongst the current crop of metal
    bands that I like very much.  
    
    							Brian

    I can't see how anyone could deny that most metal bands were trying to
    be Led Zeppelin.
    
    But when it comes to big-ten-inch progenitors, might I inject the MC5? 
    Of particular interest given their chronological proximity to Led Zep,
    their cover of Sun Ra rather than safely dead blue singers, their loud
    politics, their American know-how, their tie-in with Johnny Thunders,
    and most of all their position as the last rock band before garage-punk
    became split from metal, not to re-merge until Motorhead.
    
    However, I preferred the Stooges, since I hate the predictable cold wet
    eeliness of metal vocalists, distrust their preening, and don't care
    for guitar-solos-for-the-sake-of-guitar-solos.  Give me a good stupid
    heartfelt shout any day.
    
    Ray

    Canned Heats Fried Hockey Boogie sums up one of my earliest
    recollections of what may be construed as Metal. Blue Cheer
    is very close. Their version of Summer Time Blues is wild.
    
    Jim C.
    

> I can't see how anyone could deny that most metal bands were trying to
> be Led Zeppelin.
  
    	I can't see how anyone can even think this, much less say it.
    
    	/prc

>> I can't see how anyone could deny that most metal bands were trying to
>> be Led Zeppelin.
  
>    	I can't see how anyone can even think this, much less say it.

I can't see how anyone can't see that differing points of view exist on just
about *all* "eternal truths."

But then, *someone* out there probably can't see how I could think this...
Oh, 'eck.

Bob
 

    
    	Bob isn't listed in ELF, so he might not answer you.
    
    	If you had responded to that entry within a month, instead of
    	within 3.75 years, maybe he could have answered you.
    
    	8^)