Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - the 70s prog scene's attitude to early metal
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closedthe 70s prog scene's attitude to early metal

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
Message
Svetonio View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2014 at 13:14
Originally posted by LSDisease LSDisease wrote:

When I want something sophisticated I listen to prog rock. When I want something really heavy I listen to the 80's metal cos early metal isn't that heavy and aggressive yet not really complicated as thrash metal. I like Budgie though.
Well, that "battle" between proggers and metalers (the hardcore fans of heavy stuff) started in second half of seventies when some bands (e.g. AC/DC) get an enormous success with their, for that time, extremly heavy music but created for entertainment only,  and that was pretty opposed to "progosophy". 


Edited by Svetonio - July 25 2014 at 13:26
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20245
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2014 at 14:30
Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:


Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:



Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:



Originally posted by silverpot silverpot wrote:

Strange, I don't recall anyone refering to "metal" during the 70s. Hard rock, but not Metal.


Nick Logan and Bob Woffinden were mentioned "heavy-metal" the term several times in The illustrated New Musical Express Encyclopedia of Rock ( 1976 and 1977 Salamander Books Ltd. London, UK). You can read that in the chapters of Led Zeppelin, Uriah Heep, Black Sabbath ( they wrote: "the band get an affirmation as one of the most successful British heavy-metal export acts"), Kiss, also in that separate entry for Ritchie Blackmore (they wrote: "founder of British heavy-metal band Deep Purple").

Did the article go on to say how Led Zeppelin and Ritchie Blackmore from Purple loathed the term 'heavy metal' as they felt it put them in a musical box that they were not willing to be shoved into at the time? I doubt it, but that's how even contemporary history is writtin at times, if Hitler is anything to go by.
Who really cares how a musician wants his work to be labeled?
The musician cares. It is he, she or they that have created the music not the audience or the music press and have every right, if not more, to say how they feel their music should be labeled, especially in regards to a new genre.   

Edited by SteveG - July 25 2014 at 14:34
Back to Top
Svetonio View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2014 at 14:48
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:


Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:



Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:



Originally posted by silverpot silverpot wrote:

Strange, I don't recall anyone refering to "metal" during the 70s. Hard rock, but not Metal.


Nick Logan and Bob Woffinden were mentioned "heavy-metal" the term several times in The illustrated New Musical Express Encyclopedia of Rock ( 1976 and 1977 Salamander Books Ltd. London, UK). You can read that in the chapters of Led Zeppelin, Uriah Heep, Black Sabbath ( they wrote: "the band get an affirmation as one of the most successful British heavy-metal export acts"), Kiss, also in that separate entry for Ritchie Blackmore (they wrote: "founder of British heavy-metal band Deep Purple").

Did the article go on to say how Led Zeppelin and Ritchie Blackmore from Purple loathed the term 'heavy metal' as they felt it put them in a musical box that they were not willing to be shoved into at the time? I doubt it, but that's how even contemporary history is writtin at times, if Hitler is anything to go by.
Who really cares how a musician wants his work to be labeled?
The musician cares. It is he, she or they that have created the music not the audience or the music press and have every right, if not more, to say how they feel their music should be labeled, especially in regards to a new genre.   
Of course that a musician cares, and yet often the musicans strongly disagree in press with how they are labeled by audience, but their "protests" never was / never will change the audience's thoughts.

Edited by Svetonio - July 25 2014 at 14:52
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20245
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2014 at 15:01
Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:





Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:


Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:



Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:



Originally posted by silverpot silverpot wrote:

Strange, I don't recall anyone refering to "metal" during the 70s. Hard rock, but not Metal.


Nick Logan and Bob Woffinden were mentioned "heavy-metal" the term several times in The illustrated New Musical Express Encyclopedia of Rock ( 1976 and 1977 Salamander Books Ltd. London, UK). You can read that in the chapters of Led Zeppelin, Uriah Heep, Black Sabbath ( they wrote: "the band get an affirmation as one of the most successful British heavy-metal export acts"), Kiss, also in that separate entry for Ritchie Blackmore (they wrote: "founder of British heavy-metal band Deep Purple").

Did the article go on to say how Led Zeppelin and Ritchie Blackmore from Purple loathed the term 'heavy metal' as they felt it put them in a musical box that they were not willing to be shoved into at the time? I doubt it, but that's how even contemporary history is writtin at times, if Hitler is anything to go by.
Who really cares how a musician wants his work to be labeled?
The musician cares. It is he, she or they that have created the music not the audience or the music press and have every right, if not more, to say how they feel their music should be labeled, especially in regards to a new genre.   
Of course that a musician cares, and yet often the musicans strongly disagree in press with how they are labeled by audience, but their "protests" never was / never will change the audience's thoughts.


The metal tag attached to Zeppelin is still after the fact because as I stated, the group abhorred the metal tag as constricting and vulgar and the British music press went along with them for quite a while. So the claim that they are the God fathers of metal is a retro claim in their case and one that they still abhor up this day.

Edited by SteveG - July 25 2014 at 15:02
Back to Top
Raccoon View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 17 2012
Location: 444 Grove St RZ
Status: Offline
Points: 763
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2014 at 15:12
What a strange idea, calling Led Zep 'heavy-metal'. They seem so far from it... Hard-blues...? Blues with a rock edge does NOT make it 'heavy-metal'. Though, I'm sure EVERY band would have their own genre if they got to choose what they classified as. Yes is 'Ambient-symphonic-rock', Genesis is 'theatrical-folk-rock'. Who knows. And who cares! A genre only attracts people who're familiar/likes that specific genre. If they didn't have labels, perhaps more people would experiment and listen to them. 

Though, it's the publicity that attempts to give a label, not the bands most of the time... So, hey, disregard all of that.
      Check out my FREE album: A one-man project   The Distant Dynasty

https://distantdynasty.bandcamp.com/
Back to Top
Svetonio View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2014 at 15:17
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:





Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:


Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:



Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:



Originally posted by silverpot silverpot wrote:

Strange, I don't recall anyone refering to "metal" during the 70s. Hard rock, but not Metal.


Nick Logan and Bob Woffinden were mentioned "heavy-metal" the term several times in The illustrated New Musical Express Encyclopedia of Rock ( 1976 and 1977 Salamander Books Ltd. London, UK). You can read that in the chapters of Led Zeppelin, Uriah Heep, Black Sabbath ( they wrote: "the band get an affirmation as one of the most successful British heavy-metal export acts"), Kiss, also in that separate entry for Ritchie Blackmore (they wrote: "founder of British heavy-metal band Deep Purple").

Did the article go on to say how Led Zeppelin and Ritchie Blackmore from Purple loathed the term 'heavy metal' as they felt it put them in a musical box that they were not willing to be shoved into at the time? I doubt it, but that's how even contemporary history is writtin at times, if Hitler is anything to go by.
Who really cares how a musician wants his work to be labeled?
The musician cares. It is he, she or they that have created the music not the audience or the music press and have every right, if not more, to say how they feel their music should be labeled, especially in regards to a new genre.   
Of course that a musician cares, and yet often the musicans strongly disagree in press with how they are labeled by audience, but their "protests" never was / never will change the audience's thoughts.


The metal tag attached to Zeppelin is still after the fact because as I stated, the group abhorred the metal tag as constricting and vulgar and the British music press went along with them for quite a while. So the claim that they are the God fathers of metal is a retro claim in their case and one that they still abhor up this day.
Led Zeppelin took a lot of space in the aforementioned book, the authors wrote that about them in superlatives, so I do not believe that the heavy metal tag much harm the band heritage as they themselves are harmed (imo).

Edited by Svetonio - July 25 2014 at 15:18
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20245
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2014 at 15:22
^I agree with Zeppelin wanting to distance themselves from the metal tag as they saw themselves as an experimental blues based band but you are correct in stating that at this stage, it certainly did them no harm regardless if they still hold a grudge against the term. And the grudge has been going on for 40 years!

Edited by SteveG - July 25 2014 at 15:23
Back to Top
Svetonio View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2014 at 15:29
Originally posted by Raccoon Raccoon wrote:

What a strange idea, calling Led Zep 'heavy-metal'. They seem so far from it... Hard-blues...? Blues with a rock edge does NOT make it 'heavy-metal'. (...)
Of course, I agree that it is strange by our today's perception, but for Nick Logan and Bob Woffinden (who actually wrote the superlatives about the band) back then in 1976/1977 - that *heavy metal* tag for Led Zep was nothing strange and that's it.

Edited by Svetonio - July 25 2014 at 15:31
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20245
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2014 at 15:48
Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:




...who actually wrote the superlatives about the band back then in 1976/1977  that *heavy metal* tag for Led Zep was nothing strange and that's it.

The fact that these two writers called them metal probably means little as many others classified them under hard rock or heavy rock at the time and that's it. Get it? You cannot go by one book, especially when dealing with this subject.

Edited by SteveG - July 25 2014 at 16:01
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2014 at 16:21
Especially when that book was revised and rewritten in 1983 Wink
What?
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20245
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2014 at 16:23
^The plot thickens. Time to call in Sherlock Holmes.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2014 at 16:27
No worries, claiming it's a first edition is easy enough LOL
What?
Back to Top
Svetonio View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 25 2014 at 23:43
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by Svetonio Svetonio wrote:




...who actually wrote the superlatives about the band back then in 1976/1977  that *heavy metal* tag for Led Zep was nothing strange and that's it.

The fact that these two writers called them metal probably means little as many others classified them under hard rock or heavy rock at the time and that's it. Get it? You cannot go by one book, especially when dealing with this subject.

For what I wanted to say this book is quite sufficient and actually I proved that *heavy metal* the term has been used in seventies; the fact is that *heavy metal* the term has been used a years before that new wave of British heavy metal bands (i.e. Iron Maiden and Saxon).
Of course, it has been used in this book all along with *heavy rock* & *hard rock* the terms, but *heavy metal* was already there and consenquently it found its place in an ambitious publishing venture of British rock journalism - The illustrated New Musical Express Encyclopedia of Rock, issued in 1977.
















Edited by Svetonio - July 26 2014 at 04:08
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20245
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 26 2014 at 09:07








^You are still missing the point so I'll say it again. The term 'metal' was used more in American pop culture in the early to mid seventies than it ever was in the UK for the reasons I listed numerous times. It was not until after punk rock exploded in the UK that the 'metal" tag started to be used with some regularity, and even then it was used with confusion. That's why I sugested to the member from Sweden that may have been the reason why he did not recall the term 'metal' being used in the seventies but only 'hard rock'. I worked in the UK at various times in the seventies and that's how I recall it. Because a different term for a genre of music was available on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean or stated in a book does not mean that it was commonly used. Hopefully you understood my point. now  Back to topic








Edited by SteveG - July 26 2014 at 11:38
Back to Top
LSDisease View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 29 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 494
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 26 2014 at 10:22
Brits always prefered simple music so it's truly amazing that prog rock was invented in Britain. Brits like it simple, they loved punk rock from the start and that love never vanished.  British music in the 60's was the core, the 70's British prog rock the best stuff on earth, the 80's new wave of British heavy metal saved British music in the decade dominated by the US hard rock. The 90's and so on for the British music was a disaster. British music doesn't exist anymore. IQ release album from time to time but nobody cares and that's it.
"Du gehst zu Frauen? Vergiss die Peitsche nicht!"
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20245
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 26 2014 at 11:33
Originally posted by LSDisease LSDisease wrote:

Brits always prefered simple music so it's truly amazing that prog rock
was invented in Britain. Brits like it simple, they loved punk rock from
the start and that love never vanished.  British music in the 60's was
the core, the 70's British prog rock the best stuff on earth, the 80's
new wave of British heavy metal saved British music in the decade
dominated by the US hard rock. The 90's and so on for the British music
was a disaster. British music doesn't exist anymore. IQ release album
from time to time but nobody cares and that's it.

But where was punk rock invented? If anything, the Brits took American forms and made them more complex like Chicago blues into electric blues rock and then electric blues rock into long  form Sabbath and Zeppelin progressive blues rock. See what I mean?

Edited by SteveG - July 26 2014 at 15:30
Back to Top
LSDisease View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 29 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 494
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 26 2014 at 11:59
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Originally posted by LSDisease LSDisease wrote:

Brits always prefered simple music so it's truly amazing that prog rock
was invented in Britain. Brits like it simple, they loved punk rock from
the start and that love never vanished.  British music in the 60's was
the core, the 70's British prog rock the best stuff on earth, the 80's
new wave of British heavy metal saved British music in the decade
dominated by the US hard rock. The 90's and so on for the British music
was a disaster. British music doesn't exist anymore. IQ release album
from time to time but nobody cares and that's it.

But where was punk rock invented? If anything, the Brits took American forms and made them more complex like Chicago blues into electric blues and then electric blues into long form Sabbath and Zeppelin blues rock. See what I mean?
hard to say, some British rock and roll bands in the 60's got that attitude, The Who for example. But punk rock as a genere was invented in the US I guess. The Ramones and all the CBGB's bands. I think British prog musicians were all classically trained or they were into jazz and blues. Don't think they were into rock and roll, maybe with the exception of Keith Emerson cos he was in everything from boogie woogie to electronic music.
"Du gehst zu Frauen? Vergiss die Peitsche nicht!"
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20245
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 26 2014 at 15:27
^I'm no expert on punk by a long shot but I think it started with the American band Television in 1973. Accounts probably differ so we might need to pick Dean's brain on this one. And then get back to the topic.

Edited by SteveG - July 26 2014 at 15:27
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 26 2014 at 16:57
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

^I'm no expert on punk by a long shot but I think it started with the American band Television in 1973. Accounts probably differ so we might need to pick Dean's brain on this one. And then get back to the topic.

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Nascent music genres are not usually started by established bands, they either grow steadily from the grass-roots over a period of time "off-radar" and the suddenly becomes popular in a fully-formed state or they are triggered by a single notable event or newly emergent band with a drastically different take on the existing music scene and other bands run to keep up with them. The difficulty there is the paucity of recorded evidence of any of that underground activity, unlike today where anyone can record themselves and throw it out into the internet for all to hear or ignore, back then if you were not signed you didn't make records (Priest's début album was released five years after their formation and so we have no physical evidence of their blues-rock origins - similarly Maiden[Television]'s début was also released fourfive years after their formation)
Back to topic
What?
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16045
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 27 2014 at 10:20
Originally posted by presdoug presdoug wrote:

I remember in the 70s, the proggers and the metalers would point fingers at each other, with a kind of "Why you moron?" attitude. No kidding. I am generalising, of course, but I remember the mental warfare.
 
I never saw this.
 
But the majority of commentary was heard in radio in the early days, a lot more than anything else.
 
It was a media creation, and we, as part of the meat grinder, fell for it. Otherwise you gonna tell me that you did not have the "know" to go listen and like something (supposedly) better! FOR THE RECORD, there was just as much crap in the metal, as there was in the proggers, and what I used to call "quasi-proggers".
 
You really need to listen to the NY scene. It was metal before the word existed! Though some call it closer to punk than metal!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.131 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.