What's the first modern metal album?

Roxy Music? (j/k)

This thread did just inspire me to pull out my copy of Force It, though (Phenomenon, too, though I'll wait a little longer on that one, probably.)

^Phenomenon has still has some traces of their earlier phsychedelic incarnation, like Gorge said.I think it's pretty good.

Riot - Rock City rules. I should have put that in there. I need to hear that first Yesterday & Today. I like pretty much every album UFO & Thin Lizzy ever released.

Did British punks like AC/DC, assuming they even heard them?

They'd certainly have heard them, "Let There Be Rock" was a Top 20 album in 1977. I don't think they'd have taken much notice of them and probably wouldn't have been caught dead listening to them if they did, pretty sure Heavy Metal was considered a rival to punk rock.

It was, but my mate and his big bro listened to both, I think the whole punks selling off the 70s heavy rock albums thing came later (my mate regrets doing it in the 80s)

silly old farts

Hard to imagine that oi! boys (or their Sham 69/Bishops/etc. fan predecessors) wouldn't love, say, "T.N.T." if they actually heard it. But music fans are weird.

Wikipedia:

High Voltage gained the band a following among the then-substantial British punk audience.

AC/DC came to be identified with the punk rock movement by the British press. Their reputation, however, managed to survive the punk upheavals of the late 1970s.

Quietus:

Having moved to London in 1977, AC/DC were somewhat bemused to find themselves lumped in with punk rock. Finding little in common with the barrage of the Pistols, The Clash et al, the Antipodeans reacted against the prevailing winds by delivering an album of blistering rock’n’roll in its purest sense.

They may have reacted against punk, but also Let There Be Rock benefits from the same liberating force that other punk bands did.

rose tattoo were popular with skinheads/punks too.

Judas Priest's Sad Wings Of Destiny is definitely a strong candidate.

first thing that sprang to mind when I saw this thread

sometimes I listen to sad wings and think to myself 1976! 1976! (was actually recorded in 75 tho)

AC/DC came to be identified with the punk rock movement by the British press.

No they didn't

High Voltage gained the band a following among the then-substantial British punk audience.

No it didn't

So anyway, maybe a clearer way to ask the question would be "What was the earliest heavy metal album that sounds like it should've come out in the '80s rather than '70s," right? (I don't know the answer.)

I expected there would be some disagreement in what is meant by "modern metal." Think of how modernism is used in the context of art, architecture, literature, and music in general: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism_%28disambiguation%29

In literature, there are certain factors that distinguished a postmodern movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-modern_literature. I believe metal had certain sub-genres splinter into its own postmodern era at least since the 90s. What constitutes postmodern metal is a can of worms for a separate discussion, of course. For the purposes of this poll, I consider power metal, NWOBHM, true, thrash, speed, black, death, grindcore and some others all as modern metal. Some of you view Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Uriah Heep, Budgie, early Scorpions, as just plain metal, pure and simple, rather than proto-metal. Understandable. Compared to European art music, this could constitute the Baroque, Classical and Romantic periods. The early period of Blue Cheer, Iron Butterfly, Led Zep, Mountain, Steppenwolf, Vanilla Fudge, Jeff Beck, etc. could be compared to the early periods of Medieval, Renaissance and Baroque. Modern metal would be like 20th century European art music.

Discuss!

Not sure it can break down exactly the same, since some of these periods/movements lasted longer than the entire history of Metal, and "Modernist" & "Post-Modernist" were umbrella terms for cultural shifts across nearly all of the arts in the early 20th century & post-WWII eras, rather than a specific genre period--like, say, Realism in literature. Metal (especially the prog-leaning stuff) was already kind of Modernist when it started, though it could also be said that the combo of high art classicism with horror movie kitsch was Post-Modernist. There are similarities between current metal and Atonal composers. The audience-alienating harshness.

I think of "modern metal" appearing when hard rock and early metal lost its swing, so went with Stained Class; "Exciter" rollocks and gallops but has no lateral movement. Though Simon Phillips could gallop with the best of them (see "Dissident Aggressor") he still gets the hips and shoulders moving. Les Binks gets the head nodding but nothing below the neck. The Scorpions didn't reach that stage till later, though Dierks production obviously had a huge influence on the sound and the instrumental balance of "modern metal."

I kind of like the idea of Modern & Non-Modern: like Vincebus Eruptum and Kick Out the Jams are the last of the non-modern metal albums, the first two Zep albums are the transition, and the first Sabbath album is the emergence of heavy metal, fully formed (hence the unity of vision implied by naming the album after the band, and the opening track after both)(though it prolley didn't happen in that order)

Zep II might actually be the first modern metal album; thinking of Heartbreaker & Whole Lotta Love especially, but also the emergence--in Thank You and Ramble On--of the medieval-pastoral side of metal which has proved just as integral to its identity as power chords & Satan. I can't really stand that album: tedious wankery is the glue that holds it together, and besides, there seems still to be too many blues/jazz pastiches to really count (hello What Is & What Will Never Be)(<-best song on Zep II btw)...

in short: Zep II = first song-long drum solo = it wins (but I voted Sabbath...)

Black Sabbath, when they started, were often lumped in with prog, and I still think "heavy prog" is perhaps a better label for them

I actually find this really interesting, partly because I definitely was too young to be paying attention when Black Sabbath started, and I'd never really heard anybody make this point before. Fastnbulbous, you should ask your friend Glenn to pinpoint where (British rock magazines maybe?) Sabbath were so lumped, or who was doing the lumping. It makes sense, in a way, since they definitely (as I said before) seemed to be moving away from blues structures toward more Yurropean, maybe classical ones (I think I've heard people compare them to Grieg and Dvořák before, but I'm classically illiterate and I have no idea whether that's baloney.) Also, is Glenn saying the genre name "heavy prog" was actually used at the time, or is that his own formulation? Curious who else would qualify for that genre, from that time, either way....Uriah Heep, I guess? Some King Crimson? Who else?

iron butterfly.

any band basically that played hard rock with extended organ solos.

So Deep Purple too, obviously.

gets the head nodding but nothing below the neck.

Agree with a lot of this, and I've grown to like plenty of late '70s and '80s metal that fastnbulbous might called "modern", but I'll always be dumfounded that this change was considered an improvement. Why is "not swinging" considered better -- or harder, or heavier, or more modern -- than swinging?

I mean, I guess it could be "heavier" in the sense of being more leaden, but why is that good? (And a lot of the stuff we're talking about is fast, so "leaden" wouldn't really apply, either.)

Not everyone thinks from their knob?
xp

(not that I'm saying you do)

(honest)

any band basically that played hard rock with extended organ solos

attila

(sorry!)

(but not really sorry)

(billy joel was)

Well this isn't about the best metal or modern metal album. I never argued that modern is implicitly better. Just different. The question is, when can that difference be pinpointed. I like a handful of proto-metal albums more than most modern metal. Of course overall there is just more modern stuff, which I also like for different reasons.

Obviously European music spans centuries and metal emerged toward the late 20th century, when pretty much all culture is accelerated. No reason one can't compare them in general. Modernism and postmodernism occur in differing time periods depending on whether you're talking about visual art, architecture, literature, European music and metal.

I'll always be dumfounded that this change was considered an improvement. Why is "not swinging" considered better -- or harder, or heavier, or more modern -- than swinging?

I don't get it either - I like a lot of stuff that doesn't swing but I certainly don't see it as an improvement; it's just different. I wish that metal had continued to evolve in both directions, but British Steel seemed to put a lot of nails in the classic swinging style.

that's why i picked judas priest instead of sabbath. obviously sabbath got the ball rolling but metal really did take the form of priest in a big way. and a modern way! for years. and even now. or maybe i should just say priest/maiden?

Why is "not swinging" considered better -- or harder, or heavier, or more modern -- than swinging?

If it actually is considered better, it's probably nothing more thought-out than that it seperates it from what came before - the music of *that* generation - and lends it a certain unfriendly extremity ie freaks out the squares

I mean, no doubt there are some out there with dubious Geirish cod-musicological theories, but I doubt it's the norm

i also think that a lot of 70's bands were well-versed in other genres. they had played in a zillion garage/bar bands and they had grown up on blues rock, but also r&b and other dancey musics. modern day metal warriors listen to LOTS of metal and they learn how to play metal and they are really, um, into metal. early thud rock "proto-metal" bands were heavily influenced by sabbath but they were also heavily influenced by bands like grand funk - a band whose influence should never be underestimated - and the blooze rock trios and quartets had funky feet at times. which is why i love 70's stuff so much. and bands that could blaze hard rock and then pull out an extended funky percussion break like it wasn't no thing. but modern dudes if they came from anywhere else but the metal world came from, like, the hardcore punk world. or the other way around. not much variety there. thus, most of them couldn't swing if their lives depended on it. or want to swing for that matter.

but you still love it?

the first glimmers of "modern" metal go back a LONG way too. here's a random example from 1972:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIsvaLkxtDw

Scott's post is great. I know the Coverdale/Hughes era of Deep Purple gets slighted, mostly because of what those guys did AFTER they left that band, but that band could fucking swing and rock like no other. When they got Tommy Bolin in the band, it sounded like Stevie Wonder on steroids (a good thing). Come Taste the Band is one of the most underrated things ever.

"and bands that could blaze hard rock and then pull out an extended funky percussion break like it wasn't no thing"

This sentence sums up Coverdale-era DP perfectly.

dubious Geirish cod-musicological theories

Ha ha, I've been listening to UFO's Force It this morning, and it's a good record, but what hits me is that it mainly seems to be about melodies. There's something missing for me; it feels thin, somehow. I like it, but don't love it. Wonder what Geir would think if he heard it.

maybe i should just say priest/maiden?

Yeah, I was wondering why Maiden weren't a bigger presence on this thread; seems what metal eventually evolved into is as attributable to them at least as much, maybe more, than Priest (who sound more rock'n'roll, of the two, right?) And obviously what's always most stood in my way with those two bands, what I've always probably held against them, is that they got rid of metal's swing. (Never liked their singing much either, so sue me.) And swing is a big part of what I always loved about both Motorhead and AC/DC (though I'd say both of them forfeited a lot of it, as time went on.)

Also wondering why Blue Oyster Cult haven't been mentioned here more. Didn't they sound pretty modern, early on? Or is it just that almost nobody later was able to replicate what they were great at?

Guess lots of Tull (and lots of other bands) would count as "heavy prog" too, come to think of it.

grand funk - a band whose influence should never be underestimated

... in the USA, no-one else in the world listened to them

skotm

"... in the USA, no-one else in the world listened to them"

not true. ask the members of buffalo or a thousand other non-u.s. heavy bands of that time.

This thread has moved from baffling to "I sorta get it" to downright hilarious (e.g., Drugs A. Money's "non-modern metal-Zep as transitional-first Sab=heavy metal, fully formed" trajectory). But I've had one question consistently throughout:

For the purposes of this poll, I consider power metal, NWOBHM, true, thrash, speed, black, death, grindcore and some others all as modern metal. Some of you view Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Uriah Heep, Budgie, early Scorpions, as just plain metal, pure and simple, rather than proto-metal. Understandable.

So did just plain metal ever exist, Fastnbulbous?

not true. ask the members of buffalo or a thousand other non-u.s. heavy bands of that time.

Well, I've never heard of Buffalo, so obv. I'm no expert! In the UK then, for certain.

Are they Australian perhaps?

just spinning wax out of gold, kjb.

Yeah, Buffalo were Aussies (and really great.)

And yeah, I've been wondering, too, why fastnbulbous seems to think things would have gone straight from "proto metal" to "modern metal". Which is kinda what I've been asking since the very beginning.

xp And I guess, for me, when you get rid of the swing, the blues, the dance, that Scott talked about in '70s rock, what ultimately happens is the music gets colder, more clinical. And right, more reined in, influence-wise. Which doesn't mean it can't still be great. Just hard for it to get better that way. (And probably a lot of that has to do with me being an American who grew up on soul music and pop and funky rock'n'roll as much as metal. When I was really young, I even liked '50s rock'n'roll as much as most current '70s stuff. If metal is all I'd ever listened to, my ears would be different.)

i will say this, as far as international borders go, van halen hit the u.s. hard in the same way that judas priest hit the u.k. hard. meaning, a thousand spotty u.k. kids started playing guitar/forming bands when they got bit by judas priest and a MILLION pimple-pussed american kids did the same when they heard VH. but judas priest created a thousand NWOBHM bands and VH created metal bands and hard rock bands and glam rock bands. people took different things from van halen. people took leather and studs from judas priest. americans were a little slower in embracing priest. but it wouldn't be long before they were gods on earth here.

well, chuck, that's probably why you like modern stuff that takes elements of other genres and sounds like goth or folk or whatever and adds it to modern metal. because that IS a way to make it better. for you. or make it different. more enjoyable? for you. me, i'll listen to anything.

Right. Jigs are dance rhythms, too! But I still don't think I like even the best of that stuff anywhere near as much as my favorite metal from the '70s, even '80s. It's not even a close match.

because of nostalgic reasons or because you've known them for nearly 40 years its comfortable?

Its perfectly natural though, not everyone is john peel. I still love stuff from the early 90s when i really got into music, i just love modern stuff as much i guess.