Talk:Heavy metal music

Correct term?

Reading old magazines I cannot find any reference to bands like "Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Deep Purple" being called "Heavy Metal", the term most used is "Heavy Rock", with groups like Iron maiden and Judas Priest being referenced as "metal" or "heavy metal". Why has this changed retroactivly.--Reiknir

I Believe that's a mistake to include these bands as Heavy metal bands, because there's no CONSENSE. The specialized media try to include them in their "tribe" to help the head bangers to accept them. Head bangers don't appreciate any kind of music than Metal, so they can treat These bands as Metal, if they want to sell.

So I would laike to propose to remove these references, because there's doubts, and if there's no consense, it could be wrong.

This is reasonable doubt. in Doubt Don't accept.

Thank You. Deep Peace.

Ricknupp (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)ricknuppRicknupp (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no mistake including Black Sabbath as a heavy metal band. Black Sabbath started Heavy Metal. Saying Black Sabbath calls themself a heavy metal band so headbangers would buy their albums is just like saying Elvis calls himself rock'n roll so fans of rock bands like AC/DC or the Rolling Stones would buy his records. Metalfan72 (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If you search google news archives for 'heavy metal' between the years 1970 - 1975 you will find plenty of articles referring to Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and Black Sabbath as 'Heavy Metal'. I myself was 23 in 1975 and all those bands mentioned were referred to as Heavy Metal by the media and my peers.

Here are some verifiable sources Metafis (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

aerosmith

someone should add the band aerosmith or at least "back in the saddle" cauz thats defiinetly metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.19.46 (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

aerosmith is definitely and absolutely not metal at all ,but glam rock ,only people born in the 18th century would consider them as heavy!Val hallen (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes go to the wiki site glam rock,aeorosmith is not metal,metal is Megadeth,Metallica,Pantera,Black Sabbath,and Black Label Society.

Changing the title of the article

This article is called heavy metal music,however,it talks about metal in general,so I think the title should be changed to "Metal music",as the term "heavy metal" refers to bands such as Sabbath,Maiden,Priest,Motorhead,Saxon,Manowar,Accept and other traditional metal bands,and all of them have heavy metal listed as their genre,yet cases where this could be applied as an umbrella term are pretty rare. The Great Duck (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really agree. While 'heavy metal' itself is used to refer to the traditional style (along with 'traditional metal' and 'traditional heavy metal,' of course), it's also still used as an umbrella term in the same way as 'metal.' (Albert Mond (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC))

Just "metal music" would be more accurate,IMHO,one of the reasons being the traditional metal bands having "heavy metal" and not "traditional metal" listed as their genre,and its not like say Iron Maiden or Dio played glam,heavy,prog,power,thrash,black,doom,gothic and death at the same time.

78.3.126.90 (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this article should be called metal music instead of heavy metal music. Heavy metal and metal are both used as titles of the whole genre but heavy metal also refers to traditional heavy metal while metal only refers the overall genre. I also don't think someone who listens to only death metal and black metal would refer to their music as heavy metal. Metalfan72 (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Allmusic describe related genres of "heavy metal" to be "Hard Rock, Hardcore Punk, Grunge, Arena Rock, and Album Rock". They do not seem to recognise a separate brand of "metal", although if search style for "metal", you get a list of various sub-genres, "funk metal", "rap-metal", etc. So if there is an overall genre called "metal" distinct from "heavy metal", I don't think it exists except as a shorthand for "heavy metal", which has been around as a term since 1968/69. Rodhullandemu 22:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A quick google books search suggest the term "metal music" is rarely (if ever) used in isolation and "heavy metal" or "heavy metal music" is used frequently in the literature.--SabreBD (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Then what subgenre would be used to classify bands like Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Dio and Black Label Society who play heavy metal that does not fit into any other subgenre? Metalfan72 (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Traditional heavy metal" if you really, really want to avoid any potential confusion. "Heavy metal" works too, but "heavy metal" as an umbrella and "heavy metal" as traditional metal are two different things. It's a matter of context. (Albert Mond (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

Led Zeppelin is NOT Heavy Metal. Not even close. Its hard rock at best.

Fix your shit, retard.

Oh, do piss off. (Albert Mond (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

Add Madonna. She used to wear a lot of jewellery made of metal. So she's heavy metal too. Led Zeppelin is HM because Page was using thick metal strings (E1=1,2mm) on his acoustic guitars in Led Zeppelin III. That's why they're HM. AC/DC is HM too because they were on the highway to hell and 'hell' is the most used word in HM lyrics. Let me see... aha but how come T-rex are not HM in that case? I mean they were painting their faces as well as another HM band: Kiss. And Kiss is HM because someone said so. Or how come Iggy Pop & the Stooges are not HM? When Iggy was screaming 'Now I wanna be your dog' it was more heavy than all of mentioned. This article was most probably written by my dead Grandma... or some arrogant journalist who had no capacity and talent to become a musician, but was quite enough frustrated to become a journalist and wikipedian... 78.3.49.115 (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is even supposed to be an argument. You started off by saying that a band which epitomized '70s hard rock is hard rock "at best" as though they somehow weren't good enough. Your new mound of assorted fallacious cliches, of course, starts off by comparing '80s pop icon Madonna to a group which was associated with metal well before the start of her career. Oh, of course. If one includes a band which, in its heyday, was far-and-wide looked upon as a leading metal and hard rock (yes, it's not impossible to be both) band due to its sound and image, one has to include a completely disparate artist who has never actually been considered metal on any significant scale whatsoever. You go on to mention AC/DC and KISS, both of whom are listed as metal here on primarily musical grounds as well as cultural. T-Rex is another relatively disparate group (at least it's a rock group this time), so I won't go into that. Oh. And "I Wanna Be Your Dog" isn't as heavy as "Immigrant Song." Or "Dazed and Confused." Or "Achilles Last Stand." Hell, it's not even as heavy as the end of "Stairway to Heaven." None of this particularly matters anyway, since heaviness doesn't even determine whether or not a band is metal. (Albert Mond (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

I don't know who that clown was, but it's a simple genre misclassification. I define Heavy Metal as a style of music. Led Zeppelin was the 70's version of the 80's power ballad. As for "hard rock at best," simply put, Heavy Metal is better than hard rock. To vault a band to heavy metal status based on popularity is laughable. Led Zeppelin is hard rock. Heavy Metal is powerful, loud, and in-your-face music, and Led Zeppelin doesn't have enough of the three to be called heavy metal. Talented? Sure. Heavy Metal? No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.126.221.248 (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd think the '70s rock ballad would be the '70s version of the '80s power ballad. That it would be someone screaming about Vikings over heavy fuzz in the '70s is downright strange. Add on that there's a vast number of objectively real documents from that time referring to Zeppelin's music as "heavy metal," and the hole thing gets further down the rabbit's hole. There's no basing it on popularity here at all, except that you've just said that they aren't metal because... hard rock isn't as good as metal. Do you not see the irony here? (Albert Mond (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

It's all about popularity, man. There is no doubt about it. This is MUSIC. When has the music industry NOT been about popularity? Never, that's when. Realistically, anyone can call anything Heavy Metal, that doesn't make it true. As previously stated, LZ doesn't have the raw power that is absolutely required to be Heavy Metal. They may have a few songs here and there that fall closer to the Heavy Metal category, but they fall short on so many different levels. I can't even begin to count how many LZ songs there are that seem to be ballads. Look at Iron Maiden, for example. They are Heavy Metal. I'm rifling through my collection as I type this, and the closest to a ballad I see of is Charlotte the Harlot, and if you listen, there's a huge difference between that and Whole Lotta Love. Sure, Iron Maiden has a couple of slower songs, like Prodigal Son, and if you want to call that a ballad (I'm not), they're crooning to a demon. Basically, you need to realize that Heavy Metal isn't some blanket term for anything that can't be outright classified as anything, but is still loud. I'm not even going to delve into how your whole document is flawed by this misconception. I mean, going by your logic, most of Jethro Tull is Heavy Metal, and not that I'm bashing them, but they fall more into the category of hard rock, also. Remember when they won the grammy for Heavy Metal? Remember how generally upset the music community was? I love Tull, but they aren't Heavy Metal, either. And, if I'm not mistaken, Ian Anderson and the rest of that crew were around before LZ. Ian Anderson had been making music since at least '62 or '63, and yet you didn't mention them as one of the pioneers of Heavy Metal. Seems like a popularity contest to me. I see plenty of irony in that, don't you?

Also, for the record, as far as I care, hard rock isn't as good as Heavy Metal, which is probably why I get so upset at the masses for the misclassification of said genres. Furthermore, upon reading some of the other comments here, it would seem that most of the people here with the chutzpah to say anything hold relatively the same opinion as me, which is while Led Zeppelin may be talented, and an influential band to most real heavy Heavy Metal bands from the mid to late '70's, they aren't Heavy Metal. Again, I must stress that I'm not trying to bash any one particular band or genre, I'm trying to get you to see the clear difference between the two. Hard rock is loud and distorted and sounds very much like Heavy Metal, but it doesn't have the drive and force that Heavy Metal has. It lacks that in-your-face quality that is necessary for it to be Heavy Metal. Hard rock makes you want to tap your feet, and drum on your legs. Heavy Metal makes you want to get out of your seat and scream and yell, pump your fist in the air, it transfers its energy into you. To put another way, if you're reaching for your lighter, its probably hard rock, not Heavy Metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.126.221.248 (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"It's all about popularity, man. There is no doubt about it. This is MUSIC. When has the music industry NOT been about popularity? Never, that's when."

That's relevant to selling records. While record companies have -at points in time- misattributed established genres to certain bands as a selling point (see screamo), Led Zeppelin was being described as metal during the genre's infancy. If it were somehow about raw popularity here, Wiki would be labeling Elvis, The Beatles and Radiohead as metal.

"As previously stated, LZ doesn't have the raw power that is absolutely required to be Heavy Metal."

Punk has heaps more rawness than many metal groups and your argument is also not objective.

"They may have a few songs here and there that fall closer to the Heavy Metal category, but they fall short on so many different levels. I can't even begin to count how many LZ songs there are that seem to be ballads. Look at Iron Maiden, for example. They are Heavy Metal. I'm rifling through my collection as I type this, and the closest to a ballad I see of is Charlotte the Harlot, and if you listen, there's a huge difference between that and Whole Lotta Love."

Iron Maiden also came about a decade later... and have covered Zeppelin.

"Basically, you need to realize that Heavy Metal isn't some blanket term for anything that can't be outright classified as anything, but is still loud."

I don't consider a blanket term for anything loud. I also don't consider "hard rock" a blanket term for anything loud. I'm basing my stance here on both the music and verifiable history.

"I'm not even going to delve into how your whole document is flawed by this misconception. I mean, going by your logic, most of Jethro Tull is Heavy Metal, and not that I'm bashing them, but they fall more into the category of hard rock, also."

That's not by my logic. Tull probably falls best into progressive rock.

"Remember when they won the grammy for Heavy Metal? Remember how generally upset the music community was? I love Tull, but they aren't Heavy Metal, either."

I've heard that before. Looking it up again just now, the actual name of the award was apparently "Grammy Award for Best Hard Rock/Metal Performance Vocal or Instrumental" which makes it seem significantly more reasonable.

"Ian Anderson had been making music since at least '62 or '63, and yet you didn't mention them as one of the pioneers of Heavy Metal. Seems like a popularity contest to me. I see plenty of irony in that, don't you?"

Just because a band's been playing longer than another band doesn't mean they were playing the exact same thing the entire time. The Beatles' debut was not a psychedelic rock record. Tull also has significantly less association with metal than Zep, DP and Sabbath. I'll admit that this seems somewhat anomalous what with the semi-metallic leanings of some Tull material, but I'm not going to argue much with it. It doesn't seem like a popularity contest to me.

"Also, for the record, as far as I care, hard rock isn't as good as Heavy Metal, which is probably why I get so upset at the masses for the misclassification of said genres."

I rather like both hard rock myself, an as such don't appreciate it being used as though it were some sort of genre dump.

"Furthermore, upon reading some of the other comments here, it would seem that most of the people here with the chutzpah to say anything hold relatively the same opinion as me, which is while Led Zeppelin may be talented, and an influential band to most real heavy Heavy Metal bands from the mid to late '70's, they aren't Heavy Metal."

I've not noticed that 'most' of them said that. Even if that were the case, Wiki relies on reliable sources. I find it somewhat strange that you should get upset about 'the masses' misclassifying something and then use 'the masses' as defense for your argument. (Albert Mond (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC))

First, I'd like to point out that metal is different than Heavy Metal. Metal is more a blanket term, and can be used as such. Heavy Metal, while not wholly different than metal, does have a clear distinction from metal, thereby making it more of a sub-genre, which LZ does not fall into. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. If this were a discussion about metal, I'd have little to no gripe. Maybe you're trying to shorten it as I shorten Led Zeppelin to LZ because I'm tired of typing it out, but as of now it seems as if your trying to backpedal and call them something else. I don't know, that's just my take on it.

To use your format(I don't know how to make it italic, feel free to change it, if you like, I don't care. Please forgive the choppiness.):

"That's relevant to selling records. While record companies have -at points in time- misattributed established genres to certain bands as a selling point (see screamo), Led Zeppelin was being described as metal during the genre's infancy. If it were somehow about raw popularity here, Wiki would be labeling Elvis, The Beatles and Radiohead as metal."

No, you are wrong. Elvis, The Beatles, and Radiohead aren't labeled as Heavy Metal because its pretty clear that they are not. And, again, if we were talking about LZ being metal, maybe I'd leave well enough alone. Also, I see little difference in a record company mislabeling genres to sell more albums and a magazine mislabeling a genre. A mistake is a mistake, they need to be corrected.

"Punk has heaps more rawness than many metal groups and your argument is also not objective."

This isn't a discussion about punk, its about whether or not LZ is Heavy Metal, therefore your point is moot. I won't deny that punk has quite a lot of rawness to it, but it lacks the power of Heavy Metal. I have nothing against punk, some of the older English punk is really great, it got me through a good portion of high school. I'm not sure I can properly convey what I mean by raw power without sitting in the same room as you and listening to a whole lotta music together. 'Tis the nature of the internet, I'm afraid.

":Iron Maiden also came about a decade later... and have covered Zeppelin. "

Moot. Faith No More covered Lionel Ritchie. Anyone can cover anything, that's what a cover band/song does/is. I have previously mentioned that LZ has certainly influenced plenty of Heavy Metal bands. That does not, however, make LZ Heavy Metal.

"I don't consider a blanket term for anything loud. I also don't consider "hard rock" a blanket term for anything loud. I'm basing my stance here on both the music and verifiable history."

I'm going to assume you meant to put Heavy Metal in the fist sentence, otherwise the comment makes absolutely no sense. You do, in fact use Heavy metal as a blanket term, for example when you state that LZ is both hard rock and Heavy Metal, then blanketing the entire classification as Heavy Metal. Your stance on the music is biased by your opinions(which is fine, your entitled to do so), and history itself by nature is biased. If history was unbiased, you would hear both sides of the story in every instance throughout the course of time. For example, plenty of people believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth, and plenty of people believe that we evolved over the course of billions of years. However, only one is taught in a large majority of public schools. Granted, this is quite an off topic example, but my point remains valid. I'm not here to debate who's right in that example, I'm using it just to show that there are different perceptions of history, and that the more popular one is the only one stated. The old saying goes "History is written by the winner's." While this may make it seem the the winner is right, that is not always the case, but its much harder to prove and state references to, as no one prints the loser's story. My point is this: Just because a few people said LZ is Heavy Metal/metal whatever, doesn't necessarily make it fact. It may be a generally accepted theory, but a theory is just that. A theory.

(I am going to combine two comments, as they are directly related to one another, and this is already quite lengthy)

"That's not by my logic. Tull probably falls best into progressive rock."

"Just because a band's been playing longer than another band doesn't mean they were playing the exact same thing the entire time. The Beatles' debut was not a psychedelic rock record. Tull also has significantly less association with metal than Zep, DP and Sabbath. I'll admit that this seems somewhat anomalous what with the semi-metallic leanings of some Tull material, but I'm not going to argue much with it. It doesn't seem like a popularity contest to me."

It would seem to me that you can at least accept the possibility that Tull can be classified as metal, or even Heavy Metal, but due to an overwhelmingly larger amount of popularity, and the general opinion of most people that Tull is something other than Heavy Metal(I'm not going to get all hot and bothered over what they are, as that is not the point of this diatribe), you do not list them as such, which is fine by me, except for the complete lack of mention of them at all. Whether they are metal or not, they still had, and still have plenty of influence in the genre. To deny that is just plain ignorant. Or, its a popularity contest. Take your pick, its only one of the two choices. The fact of the matter is you(or whoever wrote this document. I will assume its you, just for simplicity's sake) place LZ in the Heavy Metal category because, either A. You honestly believe them to be so, or B. Someone told you to put them there(I understand this is the internet, and no one TOLD you to do it, but you should get what I mean, I just want as little confusion as possible.). Either way, that seems like a popularity contest to me, which is a much more suitable alternative to being ignorant.

"I've heard that before. Looking it up again just now, the actual name of the award was apparently "Grammy Award for Best Hard Rock/Metal Performance Vocal or Instrumental" which makes it seem significantly more reasonable."

I'll give you that. I double checked, and I was wrong. It does seem more reasonable, but at the same time, it's still a valid point. True, much less valid now that I've checked again(it was late and I was tired), but still valid, as many people were upset about it, and their own label made a joke about it, claiming "The flute is a heavy, metal instrument."

"I rather like both hard rock myself, an as such don't appreciate it being used as though it were some sort of genre dump."

Due to a typographical error, I have to assume again. This time I'm guessing you meant to omit the word "both," as the comment makes way more sense without it. I find that statement odd, as you are using my argument to defend hard rock as not a genre dump. That is exactly what I am trying to convey to you about Heavy Metal. As I have said once before, metal is more of a genre dump, or blanket term, than Heavy Metal. The use of an adjective in the name clearly defines it as a modified version of metal, as that is what adjectives do. They modify nouns to more clearly distinguish one thing from another. That's basic English. If you were to label LZ as metal, we probably wouldn't be having this debate, now would we? While I would still define LZ as hard rock, I am willing to accept certain liberties for simplicity's sake, as it would be an even more lengthy discussion about how the two(metal and hard rock) are related, and let's face it, that's not the point of the document.

"I've not noticed that 'most' of them said that. Even if that were the case, Wiki relies on reliable sources. I find it somewhat strange that you should get upset about 'the masses' misclassifying something and then use 'the masses' as defense for your argument."

Maybe I was unclear with my phrasing, I work very early in the morning, and sometimes I don't express what I mean properly when I'm exhausted. I think it was way past 11pm here when I finished that. I should have said something more descriptive, I don't know. I've spent a considerable amount of time researching what I consider a reliable source for music, the people's general consensus, which is the only real way to define music, not a magazine, or a few writers opinions, or even a record company. All of these have some sort of motive to classify things to get the people to believe what they are saying, whether it be sales, fan fervor, or anything else you can think of. The people who listen to the music decide, not the people making it. I can make steak all day and call it chicken, that doesn't make it chicken. If everyone comes up to me after eating it and says "Great steak!", I would have to change the name of my meal to steak. Again, another off topic example, but I find it hard to make a comparison about music without either using other music to compare it to, which would be kind of outlandish given the circumstances, and the general direction of my argument. On the discussion page here, the general consensus is that LZ is not Heavy Metal. Google Led Zeppelin Heavy Metal, you'll find its a topic of great debate everywhere. As I'm not going to go through the phone book starting with Aaron A. Adams and ask everyone single person till the end of the Z's, I find that its just as relevant to look at blogs, and other assorted websites to find out what the people think. Most people believe that LZ is not Heavy Metal. Now, I can all ready see it coming, you'll refer to my statements about history. Save yourself the trouble of asking how I can say that there, and then make this statement. My point is that you cannot call LZ Heavy Metal, then deny anyone else's opinion. The same holds true in reverse. Taking into account the name of the topic, I realize that may also sound strange, but a blatantly dissenting opinion and an insult is more of an attention grabber than "Umm, excuse me, but do you think you could maybe possibly amend your wording here?" It would seem as though I was right about that, as I got the desired results, but that's neither here nor there. I'm done. If you don't get it by now, you never will, and for that, I really do pity you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.126.221.248 (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"First, I'd like to point out that metal is different than Heavy Metal. Metal is more a blanket term, and can be used as such. Heavy Metal, while not wholly different than metal, does have a clear distinction from metal, thereby making it more of a sub-genre, which LZ does not fall into. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. If this were a discussion about metal, I'd have little to no gripe. Maybe you're trying to shorten it as I shorten Led Zeppelin to LZ because I'm tired of typing it out, but as of now it seems as if your trying to backpedal and call them something else. I don't know, that's just my take on it."

'Metal' is still pretty commonly used as both a shorthand for 'heavy metal' and an umbrella for every subgenre of heavy metal. 'Heavy metal' in its full form is also frequently used as an umbrella term for subgenres. If I wanted to be extremely specific, I could -I suppose- write out "traditional heavy metal," but I see no need to do so since Zeppelin was most prominent in a time before metal split into subgenres.

"No, you are wrong. Elvis, The Beatles, and Radiohead aren't labeled as Heavy Metal because its pretty clear that they are not."

What's your argument here, then?

So Led Zep isn't heavy metal and just gets the label because of popularity... but other popular groups don't get the label because they aren't metal?

I mean, The Beatles released stuff like "She's So Heavy" and "Helter Skelter," so if society doesn't know what heavy metal is and this extremely popular group released a couple heavier songs, why isn't society holding them in the same regard as Zeppelin?

And what of ZZ Top and other popular hard rock bands?

"And, again, if we were talking about LZ being metal, maybe I'd leave well enough alone. Also, I see little difference in a record company mislabeling genres to sell more albums and a magazine mislabeling a genre. A mistake is a mistake, they need to be corrected."

How is it mislabeling a genre if the genre itself is emerging? The first well-recorded instance of a magazine describing Zeppelin as metal that I know of was nearly 40 years ago.

"This isn't a discussion about punk, its about whether or not LZ is Heavy Metal, therefore your point is moot."

And how is that? You said Led Zeppelin didn't have the "raw power" to be heavy metal. If that's what you equate with metal, why shouldn't punk groups face said label?

"I won't deny that punk has quite a lot of rawness to it, but it lacks the power of Heavy Metal."

How does one go about measuring power?

"I have nothing against punk, some of the older English punk is really great, it got me through a good portion of high school. I'm not sure I can properly convey what I mean by raw power without sitting in the same room as you and listening to a whole lotta music together. 'Tis the nature of the internet, I'm afraid."

Indeed.

"Moot. Faith No More covered Lionel Ritchie. Anyone can cover anything, that's what a cover band/song does/is. I have previously mentioned that LZ has certainly influenced plenty of Heavy Metal bands. That does not, however, make LZ Heavy Metal."

Faith No More (or at least Patton) has a good deal of soul influence, though. While I'll acknowledge that a band from one genre covering another band doesn't make the second band a member of that genre, I really can't say "Communication Breakdown" seems an incredibly eclectic choice on Maiden's part.

"I'm going to assume you meant to put Heavy Metal in the fist sentence, otherwise the comment makes absolutely no sense. You do, in fact use Heavy metal as a blanket term, for example when you state that LZ is both hard rock and Heavy Metal, then blanketing the entire classification as Heavy Metal."

I'm not blanketing hard rock into heavy metal. I'm saying a band can be both. I don't consider hard rock to be a form of metal at all, simply a closely related genre which exchanged influence with the latter.

"Your stance on the music is biased by your opinions(which is fine, your entitled to do so), and history itself by nature is biased."

I'm really not sure what you're getting at here.

"If history was unbiased, you would hear both sides of the story in every instance throughout the course of time. For example, plenty of people believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth, and plenty of people believe that we evolved over the course of billions of years. However, only one is taught in a large majority of public schools."

That's hardly bias. It's not biased to exclude the religious view, as that would mean you'd have to find and teach every religious creation story ever and as an alternative to an essentially unified scientific belief that surpasses religion.

"Granted, this is quite an off topic example, but my point remains valid. I'm not here to debate who's right in that example, I'm using it just to show that there are different perceptions of history, and that the more popular one is the only one stated. The old saying goes "History is written by the winner's." While this may make it seem the the winner is right, that is not always the case, but its much harder to prove and state references to, as no one prints the loser's story. My point is this: Just because a few people said LZ is Heavy Metal/metal whatever, doesn't necessarily make it fact. It may be a generally accepted theory, but a theory is just that. A theory."

It's not just a few people, however. And this was tens of years ago, not millions. We still have the documents which attested to Zeppelin's metal status when both Zeppelin and metal were relatively new. It's hard to say that it's a case of history being written by the winners when the primary writings weren't written after the fact. I'd also like to point out that any claim to a band's genre can basically be pointed out as not being 'fact,' no matter how heavy the evidence.

"It would seem to me that you can at least accept the possibility that Tull can be classified as metal, or even Heavy Metal, but due to an overwhelmingly larger amount of popularity, and the general opinion of most people that Tull is something other than Heavy Metal(I'm not going to get all hot and bothered over what they are, as that is not the point of this diatribe), you do not list them as such, which is fine by me, except for the complete lack of mention of them at all."

Tull was immensely popular in their time. I expect Zeppelin's popularity has likewise fallen a good bit. I'll admit that I have little clue what Tull's status was in relation to 'metal' during the height of their career, but I highly doubt it was comparable to Zeppelin's.

"Whether they are metal or not, they still had, and still have plenty of influence in the genre. To deny that is just plain ignorant. Or, its a popularity contest. Take your pick, its only one of the two choices."

I disagree. I think that Zeppelin still surpasses Tull on a musical level in relation to how 'metal' they are/were.

"The fact of the matter is you(or whoever wrote this document. I will assume its you, just for simplicity's sake) place LZ in the Heavy Metal category because, either A. You honestly believe them to be so, or B. Someone told you to put them there(I understand this is the internet, and no one TOLD you to do it, but you should get what I mean, I just want as little confusion as possible.). Either way, that seems like a popularity contest to me, which is a much more suitable alternative to being ignorant."

I don't see why I would believe any band to be one way or the other if I had no outside input on the matter. "Heavy metal" is hardly a term embedded in the brain in utero, so it makes little sense that one would believe any artist to play any genre without some form of source on the matter.

"Due to a typographical error, I have to assume again. This time I'm guessing you meant to omit the word "both," as the comment makes way more sense without it. I find that statement odd, as you are using my argument to defend hard rock as not a genre dump. That is exactly what I am trying to convey to you about Heavy Metal."

I know what you're saying. However, I see people frequently saying 'so-and-so' isn't metal because their friends or some such say it isn't and throwing everything from glam to nu metal under "hard rock" as though that's somehow more correct. It doesn't matter what it sounds like or what supposed higher authorities class it with or what it was influenced by, because some people are more picky than others about the 'metal' term due to its popularity.

"As I have said once before, metal is more of a genre dump, or blanket term, than Heavy Metal. The use of an adjective in the name clearly defines it as a modified version of metal, as that is what adjectives do."

Except that the term "heavy metal" pertained to music before "metal" did.

"They modify nouns to more clearly distinguish one thing from another. That's basic English. If you were to label LZ as metal, we probably wouldn't be having this debate, now would we? While I would still define LZ as hard rock, I am willing to accept certain liberties for simplicity's sake, as it would be an even more lengthy discussion about how the two(metal and hard rock) are related, and let's face it, that's not the point of the document."

The article itself uses "Heavy metal" both as a synonym of "metal" in general and in the traditional sense.

"Maybe I was unclear with my phrasing, I work very early in the morning, and sometimes I don't express what I mean properly when I'm exhausted. I think it was way past 11pm here when I finished that. I should have said something more descriptive, I don't know. I've spent a considerable amount of time researching what I consider a reliable source for music, the people's general consensus, which is the only real way to define music, not a magazine, or a few writers opinions, or even a record company."

There isn't a "people's consensus." That's why this argument comes up on the internet over and over and over. People don't unanimously agree. Fortunately, Wiki doesn't have to wade through it all to count them, as it uses the near-consensus established by professionals. Also, why should a record company be more accurate than the others?

"All of these have some sort of motive to classify things to get the people to believe what they are saying, whether it be sales, fan fervor, or anything else you can think of."

Wouldn't have been accurate during the time period in which Zeppelin were first named to be a metal band. It wasn't exactly a flattering term at the time.

"The people who listen to the music decide, not the people making it."

Magazines don't make the music.

"I can make steak all day and call it chicken, that doesn't make it chicken."

You can make steak all day and call it steak. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they aren't. I happen to believe that the magazines were correct, but Zeppelin was one of the first to get the term applied to them... so it's not even a matter of 'right' or 'wrong,' it's a matter of 'still right' or 'not applicable anymore.'

"If everyone comes up to me after eating it and says "Great steak!", I would have to change the name of my meal to steak. Again, another off topic example, but I find it hard to make a comparison about music without either using other music to compare it to, which would be kind of outlandish given the circumstances, and the general direction of my argument. On the discussion page here, the general consensus is that LZ is not Heavy Metal."

If you exclude those who believe otherwise, sure.

"Google Led Zeppelin Heavy Metal, you'll find its a topic of great debate everywhere."

True... but not so within reliable sources.

"As I'm not going to go through the phone book starting with Aaron A. Adams and ask everyone single person till the end of the Z's, I find that its just as relevant to look at blogs, and other assorted websites to find out what the people think. Most people believe that LZ is not Heavy Metal."

Doesn't take an expert to make a website. I have my own site to express my beliefs which differ from what can reasonably be put on Wiki.

"Now, I can all ready see it coming, you'll refer to my statements about history. Save yourself the trouble of asking how I can say that there, and then make this statement. My point is that you cannot call LZ Heavy Metal, then deny anyone else's opinion."

You can't say they aren't and deny anyone else's opinion. Alternatively, you can't say Judas Priest are metal and deny anyone else's opinion. I really don't see a necessity in adding a "Not metal?" section to the Judas Priest article dedicated to whoever inevitably simply retroactively regards them as an "influence."

"The same holds true in reverse. Taking into account the name of the topic, I realize that may also sound strange, but a blatantly dissenting opinion and an insult is more of an attention grabber than "Umm, excuse me, but do you think you could maybe possibly amend your wording here?" It would seem as though I was right about that, as I got the desired results, but that's neither here nor there. I'm done. If you don't get it by now, you never will, and for that, I really do pity you."

Awright. Bye. (Albert Mond (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC))

How arrogant. You wallow in your receiving end of these constant "battles". This is damn convenient. Who are you decide, anyway, Albert? We've had this discussion before, and the article stays in the same shitty state, not because of your cheap strategic moves and weak arguments that no one has the energy to follow up because of your drenching them in rhetoric bore, but because you are on the receiving fucking end. This article is not fit to be a handbook on heavy metal for a seven-year-old, where Led Zeppelin (doesn't this constant assault on LZ not being a metal band make you wonder?) gets the same, and even more, credit than Black Sabbath. Stay comfortable, dualist pioneer. Revan ltrl (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Slipknot also receives constant 'assaults' on their 'metalness.' I hate 'em, but they're pretty clearly a metal group. Now Zeppelin, of course, have a proper and vast historical background to their label (all Wiki itself actually requires) and I honestly find the "too fused" argument used in Slipknot arguments far more understandable than the "not heavy enough" claim made towards Zeppelin. (Albert Mond (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC))

This argument will never be finished, it keeps raging on all possible forums. i can tell from these that many fans who have listened through LZ material don't consider them metal, but I will leave that unsettled on this site. However there are ways to have this article without necessarily consider that issue, for example by the edit i just did to the top section. There are two different issues here: whether LZ should themselves be considered Heavy metal, and the influece they had on the genres creation. The latter I don't think anyone here is doubting, and just because you create a style or genre it doesn't mean you have to be count as part of it yourself, a bit like The Beatles and Classic Rock. CentraCross (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You reach new heights with the Slipknot argument, Albert; it demolishes itself, and doesn't shy away from being complete garbage. And CentraCross' implication that LZ created metal while not being a part of it itself is also kind of, uh, unnecessary.

There is still an even bigger issue here, which me and Albert have discussed earlier, and where he had the receiving end (I guess he's that sort of guy) as well, a position that could, out of pure ignorance, dismiss the Darwin theory, if that be the case. This is issue is the equal representation of Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin. Mark: this issue acknowledges Led Zeppelin as heavy metal and even influential in its creation, but this overrepresentation of the band is unacceptable, and a sign of their POPULARITY's part in this article, something Albert talked against, but lacked in sufficient arguments. Black Sabbath's underrating here needs to be altered. Revan ltrl (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the reason I put it there was simply to tell the readers that there is this argument, all over the internet. Since there is such debate about wether or not they are a Metal band, you ought to point that out, as the impression from the rest of the article is that they clearly are. CentraCross (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The equal representation is historically accurate. Saying that it's "underrating" is like saying that paying attention to the plight of the condor is turning a blind eye to that of the polar bear... for lack of a decent comparison. We know fully of Sabbath's importance and influence, and we cover that in the Black Sabbath article. However, I don't believe that they're too good to be placed next to a band as massively popular and influential as Zeppelin. I don't think this article underrates either band. (Albert Mond (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

There's no basing it on popularity here at all. How the hell can you discard the popularity argument when used against Led Zeppelin and then use it in order to defend them, Albert? You're pathetic. And Black Sabbath are very much underrated in this article. They need credit for discarding blues in heavy metal, for one, and not Judas Priest. Unlike Albert's insistent rambling about documents and shit, there is actual musical evidence that Black Sabbath was the most important band in the genre, and that they discarded blues before anyone. Come to think of it, no one in this shitty discussion forum has expressed any arguments about the god damn music except for me. I'm thinking about writing some fucking essay in order to make my point clear and out of reach of rhetorical shit arguments like Albert's. There are some major factors no one have commented on here. Revan ltrl (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"How the hell can you discard the popularity argument when used against Led Zeppelin and then use it in order to defend them, Albert?"

Because the "popularity" claim I was arguing against was that they are listed as metal due to popularity. This is objectively incorrect as the usage of the term to refer to them predates their current status. Your argument seems to be that Sabbath is too important to be classed with them or something along those lines, making it fundamentally different from the other claim. I pointed out Zeppelin's popularity and influence because that's exactly what you were downplaying. The reason Zeppelin is classed with Sabbath in this article (not above as you seem to think) is because they are both enormously popular, early and influential. Meanwhile, Blue Cheer gets a start earlier than both and also proves influential. However, they get less pseudo-fanfare in this article than either Sabbath or Zeppelin. Yes, popularity plays some role, but not in whether or not Zeppelin is classed as metal, which is what this entire argument was about until you came in and tried to make it about Sabbath. (Albert Mond (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

OK, you focus on one tenth of what I said, believing your shit answer proves anything. Why not tread the musical aspect, for a change? You're only shedding light on documents and shit, still, believing this whole article should be based on a fucking timeline or popularity figure and documents and shit. I'm still promoting the musical aspect, which has been neglected in this article, believe it or not, and there lies the evidence elevating Sabbath to a higher status. Try it. Still... who gives you the fucking aithority, man? Not only for you to answer. Revan ltrl (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't get anything new to argue with out of the rest of it. I do believe I tread the musical aspect. It has relatively little way of supporting a Wiki article, but it does support my personal beliefs. All Wikipedia articles are based on documents. That's how Wiki works. It's not perfect, but it's decent. (Albert Mond (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

This dicussion is becoming more of a forum at this rate. Sabbath were primarily blues-based, don't believe me? Let's see the evidence at hand:

• Robert Palmer's Rock & roll: An Unruly History page 125, "and take blues-based rock one step beyong into - into heavy metal"
• Steve Taylor's A to X of Alternative Music page 40, "Driven by a love of blues-based rock"
• Daniel Bukszpan's The Encyclopedia of Heavy metal, "their music was essentially blues-based"
• The groups entry for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, "The lack of frills and contrivance worked to advantage, as the group’s riff-driven, blues-based hard rock came through loud and clear on “The Wizard,” “N.I.B.,” “Warning,” and, of course, “Black Sabbath.”"

Alright, case dismissed. Also, Revan please try to be keep your comments civil. RG (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Case dismissed? Where do you get the authority? I don't aim at giving you things to discuss, and I seriously do not believe you have tread the musical aspect worth a damn, Albert, however convinced your personal beliefs may be by that. I am aware of the fact that wikipedia works that way, and that is also why articles that deal with music are not decent, as you say, but very very indecent and bad, as a result. Your attempt at enlightening me about Black Sabbath's blues influences is an insult, Albert; I kind of remember our earlier discussion, where I didn't dismiss their blues influences in their early albums, but where you failed to see my point, as you do now, that they very much discarded blues, and that I know what I'm talking about. Your attempt falls flat. You want me to link something, as well? I know you wouldn't grasp the musical side of arguing here; you didn't before. Revan ltrl (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

re The groups entry for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Can I point out that N.I.B. is not a blues riff, it has a II note, which is not part of the blues scale, its a straight minor riff, as was common in many Sabbath songs, such as Iron Man and Children of the Grave for e.g. Metafis (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This very basic and fundamental fact (among others) fails somehow to enlighten wikipedia guys like Albert, Metafis. We'd have an easier way explaining them to five year olds. Sabbath revolutionized metal music with their self titled song, introducing the tritone interval, which then became standard in all of metal music, and, as Metafis said, the M2 they use in their music, and the m6, are from the natural minor scale, which is dominant in their music, hence, discarding blues. They also use the harmonic minor scale, which has a middle-eastern flavor. All in all, by far more related to classical music than blues. They should get the credit, at least, for discarding blues. Revan ltrl (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Your arguments, no matter how good, will mean nothing if you don't have sources to back them up. The "Led Zeppelin is Heavy Metal" concept has been documented and referenced. Unless you find sources stating the opposite, it's just your POV. zubrowka74 16:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What about modern heavy metal?

The page is called "Heavy Metal Music". Their should be at least a paragraph on bands that still play traditional heavy metal, like Black Label Society, and not a modern genre of metal, like metalcore or nu metal. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against nu metal or metalcore, I just think some modern heavy metal bands should be mentioned. Metalfan72 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.. Maybe we should add a section on it. The article does really mention the "pioneers", but I didn't see anything on the newer metal. Maybe it's because newer metal itself is so different than older metal that it has it's own genre. All modern metal bands have to be heavy metal, but the only bands I see listed as heavy metal are the older ones like Dio and Black Sabbath. If I click on even a band that sounds like older heavy metal, and it will be categorized as doom metal, or black metal. It's a loose term, and we'll have to do something about that. BlackSabbath1996 (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Metallica and Megadeth are modern —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalshark02 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

what is NWOBHM ? how is it different from American,Swedish,German metal or just heavy metal

It is short for "New Wave of British Heavy Metal" referring to a number of UK bands who revived popularity in heavy metal. Rodhullandemu 17:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Heavy Metal

Heavy Metal is music metal is all about the instruments,the tone,and lyrics.For example,go to A tout la mondeMetalshark02 (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Heavy Metal and Classical

So yeah, I must express my confusion on just how much influence classical music has on hevy metal. I noticed the there is a section of this article that states that heavy metal is influenced by classical and I thought I'd do a kindness and change the stylistic origins to reflect this, but I suppose that said edit got rejected, so yeah, would someone mind explaining to me the relationships betweens these two musical style and how classical music has or has not developed this wonderful musical genre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.72.101 (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's a frequent misconception about this issue. Actually there's a difference between influence and origin. While there's no question metal has sometimes been influenced by classical (though not always), metal comes from rock and blues, not from classical. In fact, the current descendant of classical today is the large movement known as contemporary classical music which encompasses modernist movements such as twelve tone music, serialism,concrete music, Electroacoustic music, spectral music and postmodernist ones such as minimalism, neotonal music (neo-baroque, neo classical, neo-romanticism). Heavy metal and classical are not rooted in the same traditions. Metal comes from popular music tradition whereas Classical comes from Art music tradition (note the term art music should not be taken litteraly, as metal is art as well of course. This is just a conventional musicological terminology which doesn't imply classical is more artistic or something).

Actually classical has a very academical approach primarily based on writen musical tradition and extensive considerations on harmonic languages and compositional techniques(counterpoint, fugue, tonal, modal,neomodal,atonal, serial, microtonal, etc...),forms (Sonata form, ABA form, arch form, rondo, etc...), genres formats(symphonies, sonata, concerto, tone poems, lieders, variations) (note the term "genre" in classical has a special meaning and should not be confused with "style"). Also Classical music is composed by one composer in order to be played by other perfomers (even though composers sometimes may play or direct their own music by themselves). On the other hand Metal, as many popular music doesn't rely very much on writen tradition. Yeah, sure they refer to tabs, but that's not the same as a real formal writen score - most popular musicians can't read music)and their approach to composition is more intuitive. While theorical considerations such as use of scales and chords are important in metal and rock, they are not concerned with academical considerations mentioned above like harmonical language or compositional techniques. But of course there are always exceptions though (I think of bands like Dream Theater for example). Also Metal is generaly composed by bands and performed by themselves. In popular music the the primary reference is the original recording whereas in art music tradition the primary reference is the original writen score.(and there are many interpretations of it). Note I'm not trying to legitimate any elitist view of music (metal is one of my favorite music). I'm just underlining a difference of tradition without implying one is superior to the other one. Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Now to reply to your question concerning the influence: Indeed many artists have been influenced by classical. Most famous examples include Ritchie Blackmore, Yngwie Malmsteen, Randy Rhoads, Jason Becker, Accept, Therion etc... many of them covered famous classical tunes or borrowed specific scales (such as the harmonic minor scale), melodic contours and chord progressions. Some even arranged their music for large orchestra including Therion, Metallica, Scorpions and many symphonic metal bands.Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong information in "History" part

I just realized a major mistake while reading the heavy metal music history here. While talking about the origins it wirtes: "In 1968, the sound that would become known as heavy metal began to coalesce. That January, the San Francisco band Blue Cheer released a cover of Eddie Cochran's classic "Summertime Blues", from their debut album Vincebus Eruptum, that many consider the first true heavy metal recording." And then continues with: "The same month, Steppenwolf released its self-titled debut album, including "Born to Be Wild", which refers to "heavy metal thunder" in the lyrics."

But "Summertime Blues" is not a 1968 song, it was released ten years earlier in 1958. So it's not a same month, but a ten years older song than "Born to be Wild". Also since the song was released in 1958, it shouldn't be under the title "Late 1960s and early 1970s"

I didn't edit the page becuase it seems such an obvious mistake. Am I missing something trivial here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.252.168.236 (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're thinking the original. The Blue Cheer version is from the '60s. (Albert Mond (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC))

Proposed move

Heavy metal music → Heavy metal (music) —

This article has been placed at "heavy metal music", but that just isn't the name. It's "heavy metal". Virtually every source uses that name, as does the lead sentence. If you Google "heavy metal music" it's mostly robotic nonsense like "Heavy Metal Music Radio-News-Interviews-Reviews-Podcasts-Concert Tour Dates-iPhone App". —Gendralman (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support because as Gendralman says Heavy metal (music) seems closer than Heavy metal music to actual usage. However, it doesn't make much difference in Google Web search results, as far as I can tell. The Wikipedia article about this genre appears first in the search results either way. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The term heavy metal is needed for a disambiguation page because of the many other uses of the term. Bear in mind that chemistry had the term before music. Without this distinction there would need to be a very long list of other possible uses in hat notes at the top. A huge number of pages also link here and eventually the links on those pages would have to be changed. It is fine, leave it as it is.--SabreBD (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• This proposal does not affect the disambiguation page. That will remain where it is now, at Heavy metal. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I misread the proposal, probably because I cannot see much point in moving to a page with brackets around the last word.--SabreBD (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to change your vote to comment or support? Like this: Comment Oppose. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No I wouldn't or I would have done it, but the reasons are slightly different.--SabreBD (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well then, would you like to give those reasons? They may be reasons we have not thought of. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose As per other genres as Hip Hop music, Pop music, Rock music, etc, are written in this way. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

  Heavy metal is in the rock music category, which also has Yuca (music), but I take your point and note that most articles in that category are disambiguated with " rock". By that pattern, this article should have the page name Heavy metal rock. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Here are the first 5 Google Web search results for "heavy metal site:wikipedia.org". 69.3.72.9 (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Heavy metal music
2. Heavy Metal (film)
3. Heavy metal (chemistry)
4. Heavy metal
5. Heavy Metal (magazine)