Where does "Hard Rock" leave off to become "Heavy Metal"...etc.

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Where does "Hard Rock" leave off to become "Heavy Metal" and where does "Heavy Metal" leave off to become "Thrash"?
Eh?
Also, I noticed that metalheads (that I've met in person) seem to love playing this game where they dismiss those acts they don't like by declaring them to be "not metal" and relegating them to some "less important" category. The end result is a freakish gerrymandering. Some propositions I've heard bandied about (with a completely straight face) include
-- Thin Lizzy is metal but Aerosmith is "Hard Rock".
-- Black Sabbath is metal but Led Zeppelin is not.
-- Poison is metal but Guns 'n Roses is not.

(I'd go into my "Hard Rock does Not Exist" rant, but I'm sure you've all heard it before.)

Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 18:57 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Hard rockers have chin-length hair, heavy metallers have shoulder-length.

Huk-L, Tuesday, 21 December 2004 19:11 (twelve years ago) Permalink

distance from tha blooze, mate

LSTD (answer) (sexyDancer), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 19:22 (twelve years ago) Permalink

-- Thin Lizzy is metal but Aerosmith is "Hard Rock".
-- Black Sabbath is metal but Led Zeppelin is not.

No, Thin Lizzy is hard rock. Aerosmith are awful.
I agree with the Blash Sabbath/Led Zep. Makes sense.
Poison is really tough. I'd they're a kind of metal, just not the kind I like. Guns 'n Roses are/were an update of hard rock that was metal informed.

The difference between Heavy Metal and Thrash seems to be most importantly speed. It also seems to be simultaniously more and less theatrical. Less flair, more anger.

Diff. between heavy metal and hard rock is hard. Depends on the band, but it's usually easy to tell. Heavy metal is darker and the guitars chug with a different sort of distortion.

David Allen (David Allen), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 19:27 (twelve years ago) Permalink

begin countdown to arrival of chuck eddy/implosion of thread/ref to Stairway to Hell ....

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 December 2004 19:30 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I think the difference for me, is like LSTD says, metal seems more based on "Europeany" (to use a techical composition term) minor scales whereas Hard Rock seems more bluesy and derived from the Rolling Stones tradition...Sabbath has always seemed the jumping off point for true metal....

Aerosmith made at least a couple of fucking classic albums btw.....great band in their early days.

M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 19:32 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I seriously doubt anyone is classifying Poison as metal and Gn'R as not because they don't like Gn'R.

Jordan (Jordan), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 19:32 (twelve years ago) Permalink

b-b-but Matt Sabbath is totally blues-based...

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 December 2004 19:33 (twelve years ago) Permalink

b-b-but Matt Sabbath is totally blues-based..

yeah yr prolly right, but it feels different to me....more lockstep and martial....no R&B swing.....the notes seems more dark and ominous*

*perhaps someone that knows anything about music theory could enlighten me....

M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 19:35 (twelve years ago) Permalink

this reminds me of those threads where people are trying to explain to me the difference between deep house and techstep or something like that...

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 December 2004 19:39 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Two words: false harmonics.

righteousmaelstrom, Tuesday, 21 December 2004 20:24 (twelve years ago) Permalink

'I'm not getting on the bus until he says we're metal'

the music mole (colin s barrow), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 20:33 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I can't describe the difference, but I know it when I hear it.

M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 20:43 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Motley Crue is a weird example because I consider Shout at the Devil a metal album, but all the rest are hard rock.

M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 20:44 (twelve years ago) Permalink

The answer is somewhere in David Lee Roth's soiled pleated white tighty things.

donut christ (donut), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 20:54 (twelve years ago) Permalink

i think this is the main difference:

latebloomer (latebloomer), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 21:02 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Poison is metal but Guns 'n Roses is not.

Wrong and wrong.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:04 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Okay, this thread needs some controvercy (and since neither Siegbran nor c.eddy have jumped in yet...), I will now exorcise a pet demon of mine.
The phrase "Hard Rock" annoys the living crap out of me. The name "Hard Rock" was invented by people who wanted to distance themselves from "Soft Rock"* ; and both names are meaningless. "Soft Rock" isn't "Rock" at all, and "Hard Rock" should just be called "Rock". This also means that you can't be "Metal" without automatically being "(Hard) Rock"...
Anyhow. Back to the thread...

* Note = The urban legend I've heard is that Billy frigging Joel got annoyed at being called "Easy Listening" and demanded a new nomenclature. Apparently, in Joel's mind, he is Bruce Springsteen...but to every (sane) persons ears, he sounds like Barry Manilow doing a bad impersonation of John Cougar Mellencamp.
Can anyone out there in ILMland confirm or deny the veracity of this anecdote? It sounds too good to be true.

Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:06 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Poison is metal but Guns 'n Roses is not

they are both hard rock...or at least GnR is.

Poison is more accurately glam or pop probably.

M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:07 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I can't imagine anyone wanting to be called "soft rock". I bet even Ambrosia and Air Supply bristle at that term.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:08 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Good point, Lord Custos. I remember when I was coming up in the 60s and 70s various older people saying "I like Soft Rock. I don't like that Hard Rock, but I like Soft Rock."

Of this Billy Joel thing I know nothing.

this reminds me of those threads where people are trying to explain to me the difference between deep house and techstep or something like that...
I remember a guy telling me a story about wearing a Led Zeppelin T-shirt to chemistry lab and his lab partner saying "Oh, I see, you're into acid rock!"

Ken L (Ken L), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:10 (twelve years ago) Permalink

are you sure that wasn't just a set-up for a really horrible chemistry nerd pun?

now you guys got me wondering about "soft rock" as a genre, I wonder if we have any threads on it...

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:12 (twelve years ago) Permalink

The difference between Heavy Metal and Thrash seems to be most importantly speed. It also seems to be simultaniously more and less thetrical. Less flair, more anger.
Hmmm. No. I don't think speed is the thing that makes thrash different. I suspect its something more fundamental.
If you take a 1 second snippet of a slow bit from a Thrash/Speed Metal song, and a 1 second snippet of a fast bit from a hair metal song, there is still a noticable difference.
Probably tunings or brand of strings or whatnot.

Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:13 (twelve years ago) Permalink

are you sure that wasn't just a set-up for a really horrible chemistry nerd pun?
No but this is...
"I'm more of an Alkali Rock kinda guy."

Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:15 (twelve years ago) Permalink

"or brand of strings or whatnot. "

this sounds like something the guy at Guitar Center would tell me.

x-post

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:15 (twelve years ago) Permalink

All heavy metal is hard rock (well, it *used* to be. Maybe acoustic Tesla albums and new age Isis albums have changed that, but still.)But not all hard rock is heavy metal. Plenty to read about it here:

Heavy Metal: What Is The Definitive Description?

chuck, Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:16 (twelve years ago) Permalink

All thrash is heavy metal, too, I think (unless some people call straight-up hardcore punk thrash these days, though I don't think they do anymore. Some people used to.) Not all metal is thrash (and lots of thrash bands, or at least bands who once upon a time got classified as thrash, play slow these days, and lots of pre-thrash metal bands played fast. So speed is hardly the only deciding factor.)

chuck, Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:20 (twelve years ago) Permalink

"or brand of strings or whatnot. "
this sounds like something the guy at Guitar Center would tell me.
Me, I'm betting it's the whatnot.

Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:21 (twelve years ago) Permalink

xxpost
begin countdown to arrival of chuck eddy
Damn! I wanted to post a picture of the Biz Markie alarm clock here but that thread is no longer part of All Our Yesterdays.

Ken L (Ken L), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:21 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Okay, chucks here.
Where's Siegbran?

Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:21 (twelve years ago) Permalink

this really is Siegbran territory... I, like chuck, always sensed that the line between thrash/hardcore punk was kinda blurry and arbitrary. I generally took thrash to mean just faster and sloppier and more crappily recorded than yr standard metal, less emphasis on chops/pretentious grandstanding. Allowing me to differentiate between, say, Mercyful Fate, and some anonymous hardcore band with long hair and songs about dismemberment.

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:28 (twelve years ago) Permalink

This thread got some action during the 17-days, due to linkage with the Gilbert O'Sullivan thread.

Soft Rock Hits of the 70s - search

Here are more:
intelligent soft rock? (ISR)
60s/70s Soft Rock Weird/Cool Vocal Arrangements
Who's Recording Seventies Soft Rock Now?
The New Soft Rock
Bid for Blab: Adult Contemporary/Soft Rock

And here is the intriguingly titled:
do not read if you hate soft rock

Ken L (Ken L), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:28 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Heart is "soft rock"??

Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:47 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Heart is rockist.

Curt1s St3ph3ns, Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:52 (twelve years ago) Permalink

xpost:
You weren't supposed to read that!

Ken L (Ken L), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:56 (twelve years ago) Permalink

But the Heart of Rock'n'Roll is still beating....in Cleveland!

chuck, Wednesday, 22 December 2004 00:57 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Have I posted my misheard lyric to that anywhere around here?

*Now the oboe may be better tweetin'*
But the heart of rock and roll, the heart of rock and roll is still beating.

Ken L (Ken L), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 01:04 (twelve years ago) Permalink

As mentioned, an aversion to overt blues-isms, most particulary verboten is an upward bend from a third of fifth. On the other hand, downward bends are always okay, due to their intrinsic doominess.

Full chord riffs as defining thematic elements also distinguish the genre.

Distortion: trasnistor amps prevail--when valve amps are used, it's usally with a pre-amp or pedal that eliminates needless 'warmth.' (Sabbath is proto-metal in this and other senses.)

You won't find many single coil pickups--humbuckers, dude.

Vocally/lyrically--a stylized representation of psychological derangement seems essential--and not of the sexual kind, in most cases, I think.

ian g, Wednesday, 22 December 2004 03:05 (twelve years ago) Permalink

What I want to know is where does VOIVOD fit into all of this?

Anusface, Wednesday, 22 December 2004 03:09 (twelve years ago) Permalink

metal is all a matter of ambition and perception, isn't it? if you have loud guitars and if either

(a) anyone who has ever worn the names "black sabbath," "iron maiden" or "metallica" on a piece of clothing

and/or

(b) any currently working rock critic named chuck

says you are metal, then you are metal.

fact checking cuz (fcc), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 06:54 (twelve years ago) Permalink

i also like ian's humbucker rule, though only in the negative. if you use humbuckers, you aren't automatically metal. but if you don't use 'em, we might be able to automatically disqualify you. (how well would this hold up in actual practice?)

fact checking cuz (fcc), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 06:56 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Well I realize I may be out of my element here, but it seems to me the real difference between "hard rock" and "heavy metal" has a lot to do with simple chronology. We all started out with "rock" as in "rock and roll" - as it was known in the 50's/60's and that was all there was. But I think when people started hearing rock mutate into something slightly different, they needed a new name for it and called it "hard rock". They couldn't call it heavy metal because the term was not in existence yet. By the time heavy metal became a widely known musical term, of course, the music itself had also changed and evolved. I can see how hard rock and heavy metal could be thought of as the same thing today, but I can also see how they're different because the terms belong essentially to different decades, different time periods. "Soft rock" on the other hand seems like a term that came about much later than "hard rock" did, though and without reference the entire hard rock/metal progression, perhaps to refer to adult contemporary radio.



Bimble..., Wednesday, 22 December 2004 07:29 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I was thinking about technology and metal too.

In particular, the technology behind recording drums. You could argue that the form was informed and even to a degree defined by drum recording technology.

70s hard rock recordings usually have pretty boxy-sounding drums. Or worse, in a genre defined by artful hypertrophy, small sounding drums.

Engineers started figuring out ways to emphasize both the attack of low instruments--bass, toms--while cutting out frequencies that would collide unhelpfully with bass guitar/low end of main mnster guitars,

And so the double bass drum thing could *really* go batshit. And when you could convincingly pull that off, you could pull off a whole mess of subgenres based on rapid repeat propulsion.

As for big: gated reverb, sampling, automated mixing based on instantaneous volume adjustments between featured instruments.

The point is, a Rammstein CD (to me they're, like, Procol Harum metal) wouldn't have been technically possible even 15 years ago.

ian g, Wednesday, 22 December 2004 07:44 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Voivod is metal, of course.

But are there contemporary artists working a vein that might be termed "hard rock" but not metal? I heard a band like this the other night -- old local dorks who looked & sounded like beered-up bikers. Chugging along with an attitude too greasy for punk and too heavy for boogie. "Fuck me," I thought, "these guys are hard rock!"

briania (briania), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 07:47 (twelve years ago) Permalink

are there contemporary artists working a vein that might be termed "hard rock" but not metal

almost all emo bands? (discounting only those, like thursday, that actually are probably metal.)

fact checking cuz (fcc), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 08:07 (twelve years ago) Permalink

http://www.daddydesign.com/Barney.html

latebloomer (latebloomer), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 08:45 (twelve years ago) Permalink

rap + dinosaur = metal

latebloomer (latebloomer), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 08:46 (twelve years ago) Permalink

>are there contemporary artists working a vein that might be termed "hard rock" but not metal?<

yes! for instance:

http://villagevoice.com/issues/0447/eddy.php

I would say the last fairly sucessful hard rock not metal band (unless they *were* metal, you decide) was Buck Cherry (unless Montgomery Gentry count, which they should). The last HUGELY sucessful one, unless there's one that I'm not thinking of, was possibly Black Crowes. The one the major labels are hyping most nowadays is Silvertide, maybe.


chuck, Wednesday, 22 December 2004 17:43 (twelve years ago) Permalink

(By the way, Briana, have you ever written record reviews? Judging from lots of your posts on ILM, you should give it a try sometime. If you ever have any ideas, definitely feel free to contact me -- I've actually tried to email a couple times, but it didn't work...)

chuck, Wednesday, 22 December 2004 17:45 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Distortion: trasnistor amps prevail--when valve amps are used, it's usally with a pre-amp or pedal that eliminates needless 'warmth.' (Sabbath is proto-metal in this and other senses.)

Moronic. 98 percent of the metal albums I listen to were recorded using "valve amplifiers" and the "pedals" used, particularly in the case of Black Sabbath all the way up to Zakk Wylde's latest trademarked merch, actually add warmth in the upper mids of the guitar frequency spectrum.

You won't find many single coil pickups--humbuckers, dude.

Hendrix, Ritchie Blackmore, Iggy Malmsteen and his followers, etc.

George Smith, Wednesday, 22 December 2004 19:21 (twelve years ago) Permalink

[Black Sabbath] feels different to me....more lockstep and martial....no R&B swing.....

You have to work on developing your funk gland. "Fairies Wear Boots" is entirely built on a riff one would come up with from listening to R&B or swinging jazz records. Go back and listen to the first five or six Sabbath records again. The rhythm section flexes quite a bit.

George Smith, Wednesday, 22 December 2004 19:25 (twelve years ago) Permalink

big xpost here but George is OTM. And he forget that Eddie used a stock strat in a bunch of places on the early Van Halen albums before the creation of the single-humbucker "Frankenstrat."

Malmsteen's and Wylde's famous preamp pedals are both OVERDRIVES and not distortion boxes. In spite of the fact that I hate the way the word is thrown around in guitar gear circles, they are definitely designed to add warmth.

Hendrix' sound is light fuzz in front of massive tube power amp distortion. Again... not hard-clipping distortion.

Here's where my original post starts before the xpost:

Heavy metal is darker and the guitars chug with a different sort of distortion.

I know what was meant by this comment, and I'm not arguing with it, but the technology of rock needs a nod here too...

I'll save ILM from one of my long-winded explanations of the difference between "overdrive" and "distortion" (which usually include me drawing waveforms and even circuit diagrams on whatever's available at the time), but there's a big difference.

The short version:

Soft-clipping (overdrive) is for the most part compatible with chords and is what happens when you simply turn up a tube amp all the way. It's descended from blues players (who were the folks who figured out that a Fender amp sounds best when dimed) and it's all over hard rock (and metal for that matter).

Hard-clipping (distortion) creates all kinds of "extra" notes (whether the player actually picks to create false harmonics a la Eddie in the first place). As such most chords (i.e. three or more notes) just sound like dissonant ass... Distortion is much better suited to solos or other single note playing.

Then here comes the power chord which, because it's just a fifth, sounds great with distortion because the false note created by hard-clipping is mathematically right between them. Which is to say it's the missing third in the major chord.

Once the more aggressive sounding clipping started to be used for rhythm tracks it opened the door to a lot of very different sounds just like newer techniques in EQ opened the door to shit like the insane double kick drum attack.

Add to that some developments in amplifier design (especially shit like double rectifiers) and guitars (active electronics and pick-up design), and you can easily chart a timeline showing guitar sound going from a 6V6 Fender-style saturated tube sound up through the "British tube" Marshall and Vox sounds all the way to the insanely thick shit that is Nu-Metal.

Trust me. That really was the short version.

I don't make any assertions about which types of clipping are more indicative of metal vs hard rock, but more recent technique and technology certainly made a lot possible in what most people would call metal, and most of it wasn't adopted much at all in what you'd call hard rock.

As a side note, there's a good argument that rhythmic structure has a lot (if not the most) to do with the difference. Which is to say that metal by definition does not "groove" in the way that rock (especially rock that shows it's blues roots obviously) is allowed to. Metal bands can actually execute what would be considered a dirge or a march with different instrumentation. (Seriously, "Iron Man" is a tremendous example.) I don't think it's possible to do that and be simply "hard rock."

martin m. (mushrush), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 19:30 (twelve years ago) Permalink

In particular, the technology behind recording drums. You could argue that the form was informed and even to a degree defined by drum recording technology.

You're right, a simpleton could.

70s hard rock recordings usually have pretty boxy-sounding drums. Or worse, in a genre defined by artful hypertrophy, small sounding drums.

And what would those be? All Black Sabbath records? Deep Purple? UFO? Van Halen? The Ramones? The Who's "Live at Leeds?" Ted Nugent? Montrose? [Add a couple hundred more here.]

Engineers started figuring out ways to emphasize both the attack of low instruments--bass, toms--while cutting out frequencies that would collide unhelpfully with bass guitar/low end of main mnster guitars,

And Abe Kesh didn't do this on Blue Cheer and Harvey Mandel records in the 60's? Or Neal Slaven with British white boy bloozmen? Or Eddie Kramer's work on all the Hendrix and Cactus albums? Or Bob Ezrin? Or, or, or [add a couple hundred more different examples here]?

And so the double bass drum thing could *really* go batshit. And when you could convincingly pull that off, you could pull off a whole mess of subgenres based on rapid repeat propulsion.

Irrelevant.

George Smith, Wednesday, 22 December 2004 19:34 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Add to that some developments in amplifier design (especially shit like double rectifiers) and guitars (active electronics and pick-up design), and you can easily chart a timeline showing guitar sound going from a 6V6 Fender-style saturated tube sound up through the "British tube" Marshall and Vox sounds all the way to the insanely thick shit that is Nu-Metal.

Definitely a contributor to the modern style, but the story is complex. I'm going to lay it at the feet of Mesa-Boogie who started making small-sized amplifiers with incredible power and a stacked pre-amp stage for people like Country Joe and the Fish.

Boogie started out making amps that sustained forever due to the gain structure at the -front- of the amp, it's pre-amp tubes, rather than the -back end- of the amp, it's power output tubes. Black Sabbath's distortion, for example, is almost entirely based on the latter, output tubes distorting. The knock on this is that most people couldn't play their amps at arena volume, which is what you have to do to get the output tube distortion.

Eddie van Halen essentially stood on his head, technically, to get this sound out of his Marshalls in the clubs in Pasadena. He used dummy loads to soak up the power going to the speaker cabinet and a Variac, a voltage regulator, to change the power the amplifier saw and make it's output tubes roar more.

Mesa-Boogie developed lines of amplifiers that generated intense and very tight distortion through cascaded pre-amp stages, the exact opposite of the first approach. It really caught on with metal players, particularly, Metallica. The amp lines evolved even more to give one, essentially, insta-raging metal distortion simply by plugging into the amplifier and a huge number of the bands in heavy rock use this in clubs, records and on the big stages now.

It produced a very noticeable change in style although it's probably not particularly important to the average slob. Output tube distortion requires more work from your hands and attack. Undoctored, it's more dynamic, but not necessarily better, depending on your taste. "Modern" distortion is stiffer in dynamic, which lends itself to many types of metal music the kids like now. However, the two types are not mutually exclusive. A good guitar player can get to either using old or new.

George Smith, Wednesday, 22 December 2004 19:49 (twelve years ago) Permalink

spandex pants

m0stly clean (m0stly clean), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 19:52 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Definitely a contributor to the modern style, but the story is complex. I'm going to lay it at the feet of Mesa-Boogie who started making small-sized amplifiers with incredible power and a stacked pre-amp stage for people like Country Joe and the Fish.

Heheh. I had actually written about 3 paragraphs about Fender, Marshall and Mesa but then decided my post was already too fucken long.

Though I agree about Mesa "inventing" or at least ushering in the hugely compressed multiple gainstage distortion, you could even make it a little simpler and say that the addition of the master volume to many amps around that time (and the rise of preamp distortion in general) was the beginning of the "modern" thing.

Dammit now I'm pissed I'm at work and not at home playing guitar.

martin m. (mushrush), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 20:21 (twelve years ago) Permalink

you could even make it a little simpler and say that the addition of the master volume to many amps around that time (and the rise of preamp distortion in general) was the beginning of the "modern" thing.

Yeah, agreed. My old amps surely weren't built to deliver the exciting metal sound on demand. The British had the Dallas Rangemaster. I had an Electro-Harmonix LPB-1.

George Smith, Wednesday, 22 December 2004 20:46 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Hey, I primarily play those old non-master volume [Fender] amps. And the front end of my standard rig is an LPB clone I built a while back and a vintage Muff Fuzz (not related sonically to it's "Big" brother at all).

martin m. (mushrush), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 20:52 (twelve years ago) Permalink

spiky wristbands

m0stly clean (m0stly clean), Thursday, 23 December 2004 04:28 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I posted a list of "rules" on that previous thread that Chuck linked to - an E-Z Guide to explaining who's metal & who's not. Mostly I was full of shit (and knew it, and admitted it.) But I still think that one of those rules is a pretty darn accurate litmus test: For the most part, as I see it, WOMEN DO NOT BUY METAL RECORDS, nor listen to 'em except with their boyfriends. George wrote something very similar awhile back, and added some impressive-sounding physiological phenomena to partially explain why. (You know, boys play with cars/girls play with dolls, men are from Mars/women are from Venus, that sort of thing.) Incidentally, I appreciate George and Martin's tech-talk!

Myonga Von Banshee (Myonga Von Bontee), Thursday, 23 December 2004 14:06 (twelve years ago) Permalink

"I'm not getting on the bus until he says we're metal"

We're heavy metal, OK? Heavy Metal, Heavy Metal, Heavy bloody Metal.

Just like your fuckin' head.

Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Thursday, 23 December 2004 14:24 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Incidentally, I appreciate George and Martin's tech-talk!

Same here, good stuff!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 23 December 2004 14:29 (twelve years ago) Permalink

But are there contemporary artists working a vein that might be termed "hard rock" but not metal?

Yeah, the Lizards. "Cold Hearted Kings." Last album, "Rule," featured John Garner, dug up from Sir Lord Baltimore, to sing. New album sacked him and it didn't hurt, as far as I can tell.

The Navajo Code Talkers, who I've mentioned briefly elsewhere. Quebecois biker rock led by girls. The guitarists have a Link Wray thing going on, which is greaser right from the original source. This year's/last year's "Vanilla Fudge" records. The Zolar-X archival release.

Most metros in the US have at least half a dozen such bands, most of whom have done or do their own releases in this vein. Poobah comes to mind, too.

George Smith, Thursday, 23 December 2004 23:41 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Oh yeah, Pat Travers has been cranking this stuff out. I passed on the new one but last year he did a power trio thing with Aynsley Dunbar, covering mostly vintage Texan hard rock. By dint of choice in material, it's a major biker blow out for the first twenty or so minutes and the only place you're gonna hear Point Blank and Stray Dog covered in close proximity. Those selections are crushing in
density.

George Smith, Thursday, 23 December 2004 23:52 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Last album, "Rule," featured John Garner, dug up from Sir Lord Baltimore, to sing

!!!!!

Why was I not informed?! Greatest drummer-who-sings EVAH!

Myonga Von Bontee (Myonga Von Bontee), Friday, 24 December 2004 09:37 (twelve years ago) Permalink

They did a remake of "Kingdom Come," too. New singer sounds like Lou Gramm. A radical change but it works, anyway.

George Smith, Friday, 24 December 2004 17:41 (twelve years ago) Permalink

my wife buys heavy metal records (Iron Maiden, Mercyful Fate, lots of Sabbath/Ozzy).

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 24 December 2004 17:45 (twelve years ago) Permalink

twelve years pass...

From the description for this Iron Magazine record. Applies as well to the frankly superb Aktor - Paranoia album also from Jussi Lehtisalo and Tomi Leppänen (with Chris Black of Dawnbringer in this case.)

https://ironmagazine.bandcamp.com/album/queen-of-hell

Can you cite examples of this nexus / original stuff that sounds like this, well known or obscure?

Noel Emits, Monday, 20 March 2017 15:31 (one week ago) Permalink

^^^

"...lazer-buzzing, intergalactic HARD ROCKIN' at that nexus of 1980 where greasy 'n' galloping heavy metal, Sunset-strippin' hard rock, and space-cased AOR all crossed DNA for one brief moment."

Noel Emits, Monday, 20 March 2017 15:34 (one week ago) Permalink

Tried to start a thread but it wasn't having it. The AOR element is also important.

Noel Emits, Monday, 20 March 2017 15:36 (one week ago) Permalink

the frankly superb Aktor - Paranoia album

sidestepping your question, but i LOVE that aktor album.

can't search for anything atm, but i started a thread some years back about aor dino rockers making "new wave" styled pop albums c. 1981 (e.g., blue oyster cult's cultosaurus erectus). iirc, some of the suggestions made would fit in pretty well here.

The sandwiches looked quite dank. (contenderizer), Monday, 20 March 2017 16:11 (one week ago) Permalink

So you did, it was even bumped recently. I'll have a look through that, thanks.

1981 = year of 70s dino rockers w modren/wavo comeback LPs

Noel Emits, Monday, 20 March 2017 16:21 (one week ago) Permalink

the quote from the queen of hell bandcamp page makes me think of stuff like nazareth's no mean city and priest's british steel

The sandwiches looked quite dank. (contenderizer), Monday, 20 March 2017 16:25 (one week ago) Permalink

I'll use this to post about High Spirits again, love this band and fits this:

https://highspiritsmetal.bandcamp.com/album/motivator

blonde redheads have more fun (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Monday, 20 March 2017 16:35 (one week ago) Permalink

otm (for contemporary echoes of these psychic wars, anyway). was gonna say i think of aktor's paranoia as a chris black joint more than a circle peeps poject.

The sandwiches looked quite dank. (contenderizer), Monday, 20 March 2017 16:39 (one week ago) Permalink

hawkwind - levitation

The sandwiches looked quite dank. (contenderizer), Monday, 20 March 2017 16:39 (one week ago) Permalink

are we sure this Iron Magazine isn't a Ween side project? talk about self-aware

blonde redheads have more fun (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Monday, 20 March 2017 16:49 (one week ago) Permalink

i guess if it were ween the tunes would be better tho

blonde redheads have more fun (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Monday, 20 March 2017 16:49 (one week ago) Permalink

Mastodon have been retreating backward from heavy metal to hard rock in recent years. There's a song on the new album that's basically .38 Special.

Don Van Gorp, midwest regional VP, marketing (誤訳侮辱), Monday, 20 March 2017 16:51 (one week ago) Permalink

xp danko jones always bring that vibe. have some friends who like them. i don't.

The sandwiches looked quite dank. (contenderizer), Monday, 20 March 2017 16:53 (one week ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.