The giveaway for Toad ^not being Metal-proper IMO is they played heavy electric blues-rock all over this lp. That alone is a big no-no in Metal. Still, in places within these tracks their sound & energy - even structural song arrangements - virge on NWOBHM, but are grounded by the slower sections and the Blues. This album is however diverse enough to warrant an entire listen, which quickly reveals that it is not so easy to necessarily 'tag' this album as any one-single subgenre or its genesis.
It's also available on TIDAL and probably the other streamers. The label is listed as Akarma Records.
All the old bands are HM to me. Except Jethro Tull. What's that about? Is it a US thing. The more modern stuff that is harder then is still under the HM banner but you could call it thrash metal or extreme metal.
So you don't consider the song Black Sabbath and the song Battery an evolution of the same genre? If not, what do you consider it? Seems to me that that's exactly what it is. One band takes what the other did, then changes it etc. In this case, metal bands. And that was my point. That Sabbath was more certainly a metal band, but that metal evolved.
Deep purple, Led Zepplin, Saxon, AC/DC, Queensryche, etc ---> Hard Rock Whitesnake, Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, , etc ---> Hard Rock/Heavy Metal 50%/50% Iron Maiden --> Hard rock/progressive metal/heavy metal 33.33%/33.33%/33.33% Pantera, Testament, etc ---> Heavy Metal Opeth ---> Heavy metal/Progressive metal Pantera sorta rings to me as the quintessential heavy metal band without crossing over into anything else... ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ------------------- Strappin Young Lad, etc ---> Extreme Metal and so on....
Queenrÿche hard rock?! What have you been smokin'? Queensrÿche has always been heavy metal with exception of maybe one or two albums in the late 90s/early 2000s. There's no way anyone can seriously claim that Whitesnake is heavier than Queensrÿche.
You wouldn't walk into a jazz thread and start talking about Gorguts or walk into a blues thread and start talking about Darkthrone but around here people love to walk into a metal thread and start talking about Blue Oyster Cult, Van Halen, Uriah Heep, AC/DC, et al. Someone always sneaks in a Helter Skelter reference because the Beatles invented everything.
No, they're distinct genres there are obvious to people who actually listen to metal, but I can understand why non-metal fans would confuse them. What I don't really get on this forum is the staunchness and refusal to actually listen to people who know what they're talking about. I don't know the difference between hard bop and bebop jazz, and the last thing I would do I try to go into a jazz thread and tell jazz fans what's what. But guys around here who don't own album heavier than Back in Black love to tell everyone what metal is.
Here's an incomplete list of a few obvious choices: Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Pentagram/Bedemon, Flower Travellin Band, Iron Claw, Rainbow, Sir Lord Baltimore Considering the popularity of Sabbath and Priest, it's kind of astonishing that they really didn't have many imitators that could match them in heaviness for a long time. By the late 70s you have the first demos from Iron Maiden, Angel Witch and Cirith Ungol making the rounds and bands like Heavy Load and Legend are popping up, but I don't think I'd consider any of them "70s bands". You could could make an argument for a few others to be included, I suppose. I wouldn't argue too hard against Scorpions and a decent case could be made for maybe UFO and Deep Purple, or even some more obscure stuff like Night Sun. But once people start naming plainly obvious hard rock bands like Blue Oyster Cult, Led Zeppelin, Uriah Heep, AC/DC and the like it gets silly.
Perhaps obvious choices retrospectively but who the heck had heard of Pentagram/Bedomon, Flower Travelling Band and Iron Claw in the actual 70's? I doubt that Sir Lord Baltimore were even that well known.
Just because they weren't popular doesn't mean they weren't metal. Anyway, happy to answer any other questions you might have about the genre.
Sure, but there was a big counterculture community based around heavy music and the patches worn on denim and leather jackets were Blue Oyster Cult, Led Zeppelin, Uriah Heep, AC/DC and the other more well known bands you mention. People didn't really make the distinctions back then that you are making. It wasn't all analysed to the nth degree.
This is what I have been saying for years. But this states it perfectly, even showing the Creem magazine cover. The younger generations don't get it! I'm 54, but there are guys only 10 years younger than I am who think anything before 1980 isn't heavy metal.
Things change over time, yes. I remember Harmony House in Lincoln Park, Michigan had Led Zeppelin and Rush in the heavy metal section as late as 1984.
The point @Fischman makes each time this comes up is that the Grammy was for hard rock/metal but everyone usually drops the hard rock point when mentioning this. They always just say Tull won the metal award.
I don't think people where so hung up back in the day with genres, or even older people who live in that time. I personally think it's a byproduct of digital downloads, streaming, algorithms and people looking online for music. It's like everything has to be put in nice neat little boxes and it's teaching newer generations of music listeners fallacies. It's like the blind leading the blind, I'm sure in this day and age if you typed in Heavy Metal on your streamer you would not get 70s heavy metal. Like I said there was never the term "Classic Rock" back in the day, nore was there Dad Rock, Yacht Rock or the hundreds of other searches you do with streaming.
