‹‹ Back to the General metal forum Pages: 1 [2]
Posts: 59  
Users visited: 200  
Search this topic:  


The original post

Posted by Yossarian on 26.05.2009 at 11:39
Well. Enough is enough.
I am weary of seeing people suggesting Progressive Rock bands from the seventies such as Yes, Pink Floyd and the like, because other bands such as Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Ac-Dc or Guns and Roses are already here.
Alright. I don't think that this is just my opinion, but a fact. Hard Rock is Metal. The term "heavy metal" was born to refer to some addictive drugs by some book author. I found this in wikipedia about its introduction inside a musical context: "The first documented uses of the phrase to describe a type of rock music are from reviews by critic Mike Saunders. In the November 12, 1970, issue of Rolling Stone, he commented on an album put out the previous year by the British band Humble Pie: "Safe As Yesterday Is, their first American release, proved that Humble Pie could be boring in lots of different ways. Here they were a noisy, unmelodic, heavy metal-leaden shit-rock band with the loud and noisy parts beyond doubt. There were a couple of nice songs...and one monumental pile of refuse." He described the band's latest, self-titled release as "more of the same 27th-rate heavy metal crap." In a review of Sir Lord Baltimore's Kingdom Come in the May 1971 Creem, Saunders wrote, "Sir Lord Baltimore seems to have down pat most all the best heavy metal tricks in the book." Creem critic Lester Bangs is credited with popularizing the term via his early 1970s essays on bands such as Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath. Through the decade, heavy metal was used by certain critics as a virtually automatic putdown. In 1979, lead New York Times popular music critic John Rockwell described what he called "heavy-metal rock" as "brutally aggressive music played mostly for minds clouded by drugs," and, in a different article, as "a crude exaggeration of rock basics that appeals to white teenagers."

The terms "heavy metal" and "hard rock" have often been used interchangeably, particularly in discussing bands of the 1970s, a period when the terms were largely synonymous""

Hard Rock was born when some members of a band that used to play Rhythm and Blues named Yardbirds started playing something else. They realised that that music was not just Rock or Blues, but a brand new thing and that band became "Led Zeppelin" releasing their debut in January 1969. That was the origin of Hard Rock and the metal scene.
Metalheads are a tribe and whether you like Ac-Dc, Children of Bodom, Judas Priest, Exodus, Candlemass or Nile we are a people with quite similar dressing and hair style, with many similarities as regards religion, social issues, favourite kind of movies and books... because we all love a kind of music that produce dislike to other people. So my theory is that we got more neurons than the rest of the people. JOKE. LOL, but, anyways, we got something different, we are different.
My point is that this thing that makes us different is what triggers these thoughts and this like for this marvellous music...THAT IS THE METAL WAY, the metal scene, that makes us Metallers, Metalheads, Metaleiros, Gebis or whatever the name and genres as Hard Rock, Glam, Groove...belong to it, because their supporters are people like us with the same thoughts, styles and...-LOL- huge amounts of neurons. Somebody even pointed out that a Psychodelic band should be here, because Black Sabbath is here and they are not metal...that was the last straw for me. If Black Sabbath do not belong to the metal scene, which fucking band does?. Is "Children of the grave" Hard Rock, Blues, Psychodelic?...However, I can understand that genres as Black and Death Metal have become quite aggressive, so their fans consider Zeppelin, Purple and these bands as we consider Bob Dylan, The Doors or Slade, because the gap between Hard Rock and, for instance, Extreme Death Metal is enormous, as any other music style will ever has...that makes this music even more awesomely magic.

Do not forget that Metal is also Hard Rock, Glam, Power...not just Heavy, Thrash, Black, Death



Page 2 of 2

Marcel Hubregtse
Grumpy Fuck

Posts: 36102

Age: 46
From: The Netherlands

  13.06.2009 at 13:06
Written by Deadpool on 13.06.2009 at 07:25

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 11.06.2009 at 01:07

Written by Deadpool on 10.06.2009 at 01:01


Im sorry, but I have to disagree. Slipknot is not metal. and you are right it's not my type of music, but please don't call it metal, It's not metal.


Care to try and explain as to why it isn't metal? Cause it sure as hell has all the cahracteristics, musically, of metal. And NO I don't like the band at all. I hate them just as much as I hate Euro Glower Power metal and most female fronted symphonic metal bands.


first of all it has mainly a rap influence, granted it has more metal then most malcore bands. secondly it panders to the mainstream, which metal isn't about. Metal is more than music, it's a feeling, a state of being, and expressing yourself as an individual, not doing something because other people like it, but because you like it.


Slipknot has way m,ore metal in it than rap. As for your mainstream arguement... that would mean that Iron Maiden isn't metal either.
And as for metallers being individuals
They possess the biggest herd mentality around.
----
Member of the true crusade against European Flower Metal

Yesterday is dead and gone, tomorrow is out of sight
Dawn Crosby (r.i.p.)
05.04.1963 - 15.12.1996

BitterCOld
OldBitterGringo

Posts: 12350

Age: 41
From: Paraguay

  13.06.2009 at 20:00
Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 13.06.2009 at 13:06

Slipknot has way m,ore metal in it than rap. As for your mainstream arguement... that would mean that Iron Maiden isn't metal either.
And as for metallers being individuals
They possess the biggest herd mentality around.


...just need to get all the folks in the clip to wear black.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T1LIrzsgqA
----
get the fuck off my lawn.
ForeverDarkWoods

Posts: 1001

Age: 23
From: Sweden

  13.06.2009 at 22:32
What I believe is that you shlould examine wether specific bands are metal or not, and give a fuck about characterizing genres.

Sure, there are rock/hard rock/metalcore/nu metal/atmospheric sludge/ambient/whatever bands which I can understand that they are being called metal, but these genres also have bands in them that plainly aren't metal. These are borderline genres. While one band in the genre might be metal, another might not be.

I can see why you would call Slipknot or even Korn metal, but Linkin Park, POD and Limp Bizkit are IMO miles away from being metal. Yet these bands are all generally considered nu metal.

It's the same with hard rock really. While I can understand that some bands might be called metal, there are other bands that lack the characteristics of metal and simpy play harder rock 'n roll music.

Grindcore is yet another example of a borderline genre. Bands like Napalm Death and Repulsion are clearly metal, but then we have bands like Anal Cunt which is miles away.

It doesn't stop with the debated metal genres either. Some stuff that gets thrown in the black metal genre is mostly electronic ambient/noise and thus pretty far removed from metal. Also, some subgenres connected with doom such as drone metal and atmospheric sludge contain bands that are pretty far from actually being metal, since these genres have evolved into something else entirely.

I also think it is very important to distinguish between a band actually being metal and the same band having been very important for the development of the metal scene. For example, Led Zeppelin IMO doesn't have any metal characteristics whatsoever except maybe in a very embryonic stage, but they have been important enough for the development of metal to warrant them a place on any site dedicated to metal history. There is a difference between actually having played metal, and having been important to metal's development. So, while Led Zeppelin may deserve a place on a metal site because of their historical importance, a modern more unknown band with a similar sound might not deserve such a place.
----
Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction!
- George W. Bush, ex-president of the United States of America
Yossarian

Posts: 323

Age: 41
From: Spain

  15.06.2009 at 13:36
Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 13.06.2009 at 22:32

I also think it is very important to distinguish between a band actually being metal and the same band having been very important for the development of the metal scene. For example, Led Zeppelin IMO doesn't have any metal characteristics whatsoever except maybe in a very embryonic stage, but they have been important enough for the development of metal to warrant them a place on any site dedicated to metal history. There is a difference between actually having played metal, and having been important to metal's development. So, while Led Zeppelin may deserve a place on a metal site because of their historical importance, a modern more unknown band with a similar sound might not deserve such a place.


A modern band with that sound would still be Hard Rock and Hard Rock is a part of the Metal scene. Although they had songs more bluesy, more rocky and the like, what about "Communication Breakdown", "Dazed and Confused" and "How Many More Times"?

I don't clearly understand why metalheads nowadays are telling that Hard Rock is not Metal. Why? Because it does not contain the word "metal" in the name?. If the term Heavy Metal would not have been extended to name the whole style, this discussion would have no point. And Hard rock would be clearly the same as Heavy Metal and Thrash and Black and blah blah blah in opposition to other music, attitude, identity signs even dressing styles such as Punk, Pop, Rap...

When I was fifteen, it was globally considered that the beginning of "Metal", as a disattachment from other musical styles, as a way of dressing, performing and the whole bit started in 1969 with Led Zeppelin debut and still agree. They were not considered a liasion, a link or a influence but beautiful mighty metal itself. I think that the problem nowadays is that Black and Death Metal is quite different from Hard Rock, but in the 80's we did not have those styles. The hardest bands were not so hard and not so different from Hard Rock, so there was no doubt about the fact that Hard Rock and Heavy Metal were the same. I am speaking of a time before the coming of Possessed, Slayer, Kreator, Sepultura and the like.
ForeverDarkWoods

Posts: 1001

Age: 23
From: Sweden

  23.06.2009 at 13:30
Written by Yossarian on 15.06.2009 at 13:36

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 13.06.2009 at 22:32

I also think it is very important to distinguish between a band actually being metal and the same band having been very important for the development of the metal scene. For example, Led Zeppelin IMO doesn't have any metal characteristics whatsoever except maybe in a very embryonic stage, but they have been important enough for the development of metal to warrant them a place on any site dedicated to metal history. There is a difference between actually having played metal, and having been important to metal's development. So, while Led Zeppelin may deserve a place on a metal site because of their historical importance, a modern more unknown band with a similar sound might not deserve such a place.


A modern band with that sound would still be Hard Rock and Hard Rock is a part of the Metal scene. Although they had songs more bluesy, more rocky and the like, what about "Communication Breakdown", "Dazed and Confused" and "How Many More Times"?

I don't clearly understand why metalheads nowadays are telling that Hard Rock is not Metal. Why? Because it does not contain the word "metal" in the name?. If the term Heavy Metal would not have been extended to name the whole style, this discussion would have no point. And Hard rock would be clearly the same as Heavy Metal and Thrash and Black and blah blah blah in opposition to other music, attitude, identity signs even dressing styles such as Punk, Pop, Rap...

When I was fifteen, it was globally considered that the beginning of "Metal", as a disattachment from other musical styles, as a way of dressing, performing and the whole bit started in 1969 with Led Zeppelin debut and still agree. They were not considered a liasion, a link or a influence but beautiful mighty metal itself. I think that the problem nowadays is that Black and Death Metal is quite different from Hard Rock, but in the 80's we did not have those styles. The hardest bands were not so hard and not so different from Hard Rock, so there was no doubt about the fact that Hard Rock and Heavy Metal were the same. I am speaking of a time before the coming of Possessed, Slayer, Kreator, Sepultura and the like.

The problem with this is that the definition of metal has changed since the useage of the term begun. The time which you are referring to is a time when there was no clear definition as to what metal even was. As a result of this, the terms metal and hard rock could be used interchangeably since there was no real definition of what was what. It is similar to the time when black and death metal could be used interchangeably because of a lack of a real definition. Today, there are in both cases a more solid definition, which is why you can separate the two.

I will grant that some hard rock is metal, just not that all of it is, or even most of it, since a lot of it lacks the defining characteristics that are prevalent in the other metal genres. Quite often, it moves too much towards classic jumpy rock'n'roll and too little towards the heavy riff-based approach that defines metal. As a completely metal genre, hard rock would simply look out of place and odd, just as nu metal and grindcore would. That's why I choose to call it borderline. The genre hard rock can't really be judged whether it's metal or not according to the definition of today, but each band has to be judged individually.

As to the point about attitude, dressing styles and so on, I fail to see how this matters even in the slightest. I can make a satanic country band dressed up like Immortal and they still wouldn't have anything to do with metal, it would still be a country band. What matters in this case must be the music alone and nothing else. And on a musical basis, there's a lot of hard rock that would be very out of place in the metal genrec (if you compare it to what metal is today), even if some of it would fit in just perfectly. This is why the metalness of hard rock is a little difficult to define. There simply is no simple answer.
----
Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction!
- George W. Bush, ex-president of the United States of America
Yossarian

Posts: 323

Age: 41
From: Spain

  24.06.2009 at 10:17
Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 23.06.2009 at 13:30

I can make a satanic country band dressed up like Immortal


Wow. Now I am imagining Dolly Parton in leather,iron and satanic make-up with a fewer years less... It hards me on.

As regards the topic. I am afraid that people here at MS and everywhere have our own theories and we will never agree. Anyways, it is a pleasure to discuss about it and get to know different opinions.
ForeverDarkWoods

Posts: 1001

Age: 23
From: Sweden

  25.06.2009 at 00:23
Written by Yossarian on 24.06.2009 at 10:17

As regards the topic. I am afraid that people here at MS and everywhere have our own theories and we will never agree. Anyways, it is a pleasure to discuss about it and get to know different opinions.

This is the very reason I joined the discussion, or the reason that I usually join discussions. I'm not going around trying to convince everyone else that I'm right all the time. It's just as interesting to hear what other people think and reflecting on those ideas than simply getting everyone to agree with you. It's much more rewarding to have a discussion when you have an open mind.
----
Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction!
- George W. Bush, ex-president of the United States of America
Thunderdrake

Posts: 54

Age: 26
From: USA

  08.07.2009 at 13:57
Just a quick two cents on the original post:
I am of the opinion that, though I do enjoy old hard rocks bands and especially the ones that are accredited with "starting metal" such as Led Zeppelin, I do not consider them "Metal" because of this: simply because it had a major role in the creation of Metal does not mean that it is a part of the genre, even if it is part of the history of metal, in the same way that Blues cannot be considered Rock even though it was a major influence in the creation of that genre.
----
For Metal!!!
ToMegaTherion

Posts: 701

Age: 27
From: Australia

  07.10.2009 at 04:03
I consider Hard Rock a genre in its self, meaning no disrespect to the bands that play it, as I do have some favorite within the Hard Rock genre.
I don't consider them metal for two reasons:
1 - Generally the riffing is not that heavily distorted (Although the last Scorpions album left me wondering where they fit now).
2 - Generally they play "Rock" music, maybe slightly heavier or fast but still rock nevertheless. As will many other genres they do sometime record song that may fall into metal and other that may fall into pop, but their generic songs will generally be "Rock".

I guess this is to say I consider Hard Rock to be more-or-less a member of the "Rock" genre overall. I am not trying to say its not worthy or anything like that, I love Hard-Rock, but simply I don't consider bands like Scorpions, Guns N Roses, Led Zepplin ect, "Metal" in a broad sence of genre.
----
- Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large proportion of man, even
when nature has long emancipated them from devine guidance (naturaliter
maiorennes), nevertheless gladly remain enslaved for life.-
Immanuel Kant
BoxCar Willy
John Doe

Posts: 6982

Age: 17
From: Canada

  28.04.2010 at 15:56
Written by Deadpool on 10.06.2009 at 01:01

Written by Doc Godin on 09.06.2009 at 02:35

Written by Deadpool on 09.06.2009 at 02:01

Written by ColdasagravE on 29.05.2009 at 19:55






1. Malcore is not a fucking genre. Its just a slander word against untr00 bands.
2. Slipknot is metal. Not very good I'll admit, but they're just not your type of metal. As much as you'd like, this site is run 100% on subjectivity.


Im sorry, but I have to disagree. Slipknot is not metal. and you are right it's not my type of music, but please don't call it metal, It's not metal.

slipknot IS metal
----
Pop punk crusader
Kimiwind
Speed Metal God

Posts: 117

Age: 26
From: Japan

  28.04.2010 at 16:22
Hard rock is not metal, there is wide different btw those 2 genres. Same goes with progressive rock and progressive metal!! Many confuse btw those different forms of music.
----
Wintermoon Calls you, Follow It And You Will Be Proud Forever.
Kimiwind
Speed Metal God

Posts: 117

Age: 26
From: Japan

  28.04.2010 at 17:15
Quote:
Quote:

slipknot IS metal

You say slipknot is metal???? seriously??? ...Im gonna shoot myself right now!!
I dont understand you people saying about urself that you are metalheads...
Joke of the day!! "spliknot is metal"
----
Wintermoon Calls you, Follow It And You Will Be Proud Forever.
Kennoth

Posts: 2304

Age: 22
From: Croatia

  28.04.2010 at 23:59
Quote:
Quote:
Written by Kimiwind on 28.04.2010 at 17:15


slipknot IS metal

You say slipknot is metal???? seriously??? ...Im gonna shoot myself right now!!
I dont understand you people saying about urself that you are metalheads...
Joke of the day!! "spliknot is metal"


Yes, we call ourselves metalheads. You know, I bet you never even heard a single Slipknot song, and even though I don't fancy most of their stuff, they are still metal, and just because you don't like that style, that doesn't change that fact. Try Wait and Bleed, Duality and Psychosocial. A lot of metalheads like you, who prefer more extreme metal subgenres (trash, death, black) don't consider alternative metal as metal at all, but guess what, it is.
And if you really feel the urge to shoot yourself...well....I can't help you about that. Only thing I can do to you is to tell you to open your mind
----
I like my coffee the way I like my metal: melodic and catchy.
Kennoth

Posts: 2304

Age: 22
From: Croatia

  29.04.2010 at 00:01
And to stay on topic: no, hard rock isn't metal, but nowadays, the boundaries between hard rock, and certain types of metal are very, very slim. Not unlikely that you would find a hard rock song that is very fast paced, with screamed or hard vocals that could very well fit into alternative, heavy or nu metal genre. A lot of songs even incorporate both elements.
----
I like my coffee the way I like my metal: melodic and catchy.
Kennoth

Posts: 2304

Age: 22
From: Croatia

  29.04.2010 at 00:08
Written by Norm on 28.04.2010 at 17:29

Hard Rock is not Metal.
Nu-Metal is not Metal, and only got that name from media morons who had no idea what Metal was.

Slipknot is not Metal, they are a form of Rock. Rock is Not Metal.


Somehow, my original post to you got lost while editing my post....anyway...nu metal is indeed metal, at least most of it. Not to be confused with rapcore and bands such as Limp Bizkit and Linkin Park which aren't metal.

About Slipknot, well....read above
----
I like my coffee the way I like my metal: melodic and catchy.
Kap'N Korrupt
Account deleted
  29.04.2010 at 01:27
Written by Norm on 28.04.2010 at 17:29

Hard Rock is not Metal.
Nu-Metal is not Metal, and only got that name from media morons who had no idea what Metal was.

Slipknot is not Metal, they are a form of Rock. Rock is Not Metal.

Hard Rock was what is now known as Metal.
Nu-Metal is a sub-genre of Metal, and only got that name because it contains traces of Metal.

Slipknot is metal, they are from a sub-genre of Metal. Rock was what is now known as Metal.

Nu-Metal has traces of Metal, but I still agree with you 100% that it has more pop elements than Metal...Nu-Metal used to have less pop elements back upon its first inception...BUT...it got way too popular and way too more commercial...

Nu-Metal is Metal because it is a general term to describe all those Metal bands out there that decided to take traces of Metal and combine it with just about whatever they wanted...
BitterCOld
OldBitterGringo

Posts: 12350

Age: 41
From: Paraguay

  29.04.2010 at 01:40
Agree with the Kap'n... Slipknot is metal. i realize people don't like them, but that doesn't alter what they are. too bad, so sad.
----
get the fuck off my lawn.
Kennoth

Posts: 2304

Age: 22
From: Croatia

  29.04.2010 at 20:00
@ Kap'N Korrupt

I understand what you're saying, but you still confused the living shit out of me.


Nu-Metal is Metal because it is a general term to describe all those Metal bands out there that decided to take traces of Metal and combine it with just about whatever they wanted...

Not quite everything. They're combining the riffs, distorted guitar, and heavy vocals from metal with the beat from rap. And it's definitely metal, not just 'rock with the traces of metal'.
----
I like my coffee the way I like my metal: melodic and catchy.
Kap'N Korrupt
Account deleted
  20.05.2010 at 01:04
Sorry dude, I totally forgot about this thread...I should try searching my user name more often...

You misunderstood my post though...that's cool...what I was trying to say with just about whatever they wanted, I didn't mean metal itself...I meant things that have nothing to do with metal...other genres...
Edmund Fogg

Posts: 1752

Age: 27
From: Canada

  20.05.2010 at 15:56
If bands have already been classified as Metal in the past,even thought it was at the birth of the genre,I think it still should be considered as such.An apple is always an apple.If subgenres like Hair and Glam are still considered Metal,if we accept that insult shoudn't we aknowledge the very bands that founded Metal as being Metal?
----
You cannot sedate all the things you hate - MM
The Observer is the source of reality - Bloom
God damn it!! What did Diddy didn't do? - Satan
Marcel Hubregtse
Grumpy Fuck

Posts: 36102

Age: 46
From: The Netherlands

  20.05.2010 at 15:57
Written by Edmund Fogg on 20.05.2010 at 15:56

If bands have already been classified as Metal in the past,even thought it was at the birth of the genre,I think it still should be considered as such.An apple is always an apple.


Thank you, finally someone that understands.
----
Member of the true crusade against European Flower Metal

Yesterday is dead and gone, tomorrow is out of sight
Dawn Crosby (r.i.p.)
05.04.1963 - 15.12.1996

Mikyz

Posts: 710

Age: 22
From: Lebanon

  20.05.2010 at 17:06
I'd like to quote Thomas Aquinas a medieval philosopher who said: "For the highest of lower natures touches the lowest of of those higher". And by that I mean that Hard Rock which is the most powerful form of Rock is closely related to the most primitive form of Metal i.e Heavy Metal. So considering that Hard Rock and Heavy Metal are very similar, Hard Rock and Heavy Metal can be considered as links between Rock and Metal, or insofar as Rock is older than Metal we should ultimately consider Metal as a type of rock music. So in my opinion Hard Rock and Heavy Metal no matter how many common factors they share should still be different genres, Black Sabbath being the first band to successfully merge the two genres and eventually lead to the formation of the other well known genres. Hoping this made sense.
----
Laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone.
Edmund Fogg

Posts: 1752

Age: 27
From: Canada

  20.05.2010 at 17:26
Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 20.05.2010 at 15:57

Written by Edmund Fogg on 20.05.2010 at 15:56

.


Thank you, finally someone that understands.

We still have lots of Padawan to convince.A hard task but an honorable one.;D
----
You cannot sedate all the things you hate - MM
The Observer is the source of reality - Bloom
God damn it!! What did Diddy didn't do? - Satan
Judas
Resident Quack

Posts: 2043

Age: 25
From: Australia

  20.05.2010 at 19:36
For all those arguing that Nu-Metal bands like Slipknot and Korn are not Metal, perhaps you should read the genre name again. It's not Nu-Rap, or Nu-Hardcore, or Nu-Pop, it's Nu-Metal. Whether you like it or not, their music is still an offshoot (and in my own opinion a rather pathetic one) and progression (if you could call it that) of the original Hard Rock-Heavy Metal sound (as has been said, in the early days the terms were used somewhat interchangeably, at least when referring to certain bands that most Metalheads would agree as being some of the founding fathers of Metal as we know it today).

EDIT: I just realised that I've said essentially the same thing as Kap'N Korrupt, but in different words. Thread reading fail on my part, sorry guys.
----
"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn both go back into the same box."
busta5000
Account deleted
  10.06.2010 at 13:43
It influences not metal itself

for example people who listen to rock can listen to hard rock but after listening to hard rock they influence them to find new bands that sound similar & then turn to a new genre metal thats it.

so its merely an influence but a big one.
Ghostdancer

Posts: 196

Age: 42
From: USA

  06.05.2011 at 20:32
This was the first music labeled as "Heavy Metal." You can't just take a big eraser to it and deny it. That was what it was called...how can the name just be taken away?
----
"Bullshit! You didn't convince me!"
RavenKing

Posts: 1941
From: Canada

  15.05.2011 at 01:37
My opinion on this matter can be summarized shortly: I never considered Hard Rock as Metal and never will.
----
They shake your hand and they smile and they buy you a drink
They say we'll be your friends we'll stick with you till the end
But everybody's only looking out for themselves
And you say who can you trust I'll tell you nobody
LWR88

Posts: 8
From: USA
  13.08.2011 at 20:53
This is ridiculous. Whoever the first bands were that were classified as heavy metal are still heavy metal. The bands that play the type of music that those bands played are heavy metal. All the other genres should get their own name instead of stealing the term from the originators of the genre and then claiming that those bands were never heavy metal to start with. It's the stupidest argument I have heard recently. Personally, I listen to most types of this music, and don't really care what it's called.
Void Eater
Crunkcore Fan

Posts: 2234

Age: 19
From: USA

  13.08.2011 at 23:02
It's ridiculous that anybody would call Zeppelin metal. The thing about Zeppelin is that they played numerous styles of rock music, with a very early form of metal being a small part of it. Sure, Communication Breakdown and Whole Lotta Love could arguabley be considered metal, but they had plenty of acoustic folky songs, some songs that were hard rock and not metal, and some flat out blues. Their metal songs were a very small part of their discorgraphy.
----

Advertise on Metal Storm
Pages: 1 [2]


Login or register to post here.



Similar topics

Forum Topic Similarity Started
General metal forum True Heavy Metal vs Punk Rock Poseurs 7.5 29.06.2014 by Ganondox
General metal forum The Band that Invented Metal 6 01.06.2006 by Lupas
General metal forum Avant Garde vs. Post Metal or Experimental Metal ? 6 03.08.2013 by
General metal forum Doom is/isnt an extreme metal genre 6 17.10.2009 by
Melodic metal forum Neoclassical metal? 5 02.03.2007 by