Talk:Heavy metal music/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

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)

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)

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

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There is no consensus on which term would be more fitting as a common name. The issue of what a user would search for is already handled by redirects, thus this argument is not convincing enough to out-weigh the opposition comments. As there is no consensus or agreement, not moved. -Taelus (Talk) 21:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

---

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)
  • All I'm saying is that "heavy metal" is the most common name for it. There are 25,000,000 hits for "heavy metal" and only 1,600,000 for "heavy metal music". And the results for "heavy metal music" are mostly weird results like the one I mentioned. —Gendralman (talk) 21:57, 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)

If you read what I said you will see them. Please do not feel you have to reply to every comment, just of the sake of it, it really isn't productive. I have made my points and unless something new comes up I would like to let them stand and allow others comment.--SabreBD (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The disambiguation page would stay the same, and there would be a redirect so no links would need to be changed. —Gendralman (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That would provide a short term fix, but almost all of them are pipe links, so they would need to change since complex redirects are discouraged. However, perhaps someone with greater skills than me can get a bot to do that and avoid a massive manual task.--SabreBD (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Doing that would be quite unnecessary - in fact, moving this page to its natural title, Heavy metal, would probably save on a lot of bot work, as I'm willing to bet that editors frequently make frequent links to that title, which currently go to the dab page and have to be fixed.--Kotniski (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You would lose the bet: most have, over the years, been edited so that they are pipe links to here. If you are proposing a change to Heavy metal, rather than Heavy metal music, we need to have a new discussion.--SabreBD (talk) 09:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's what I meant - if we had this article at "heavy metal", then that continuous editing of mistaken links wouldn't be necessary. (And as can be seen at What links here, there are a dozen or so outstanding ones needing correction even now.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:44, 20 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)

  On the other hand: Jazz, Blues, Ragtime, Rock and roll, Rhythm and blues. Anyway, the rule is use the most common name. "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources." Disambiguation words ("(politician)", "(album)", "(planet)", etc.) go in parentheses. Anything outside the parentheses should be the name used by sources, and all the sources call it "heavy metal". There's no rule that different articles need to be named similarly. —Gendralman (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Normally I'd go with the most used form to encourage homogeneity. But if the standard is "most comonly used", I have to say that Heavy metal or even just Metal is what I hear the most. zubrowka74 18:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Only a dork would say "Heavy metal music." --Kvng (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Absolutenly no need for a move. The given reason is pointless. It has been discussed and declined already. No one says that "heavy metal music" is the actual name of the genre. It's a phrase chosen per consensus and according to WP:DISAMBIG:

  "If there is a choice between using a short phrase and word with context, such as Mathematical analysis and Analysis (mathematics), there is no hard rule about which is preferred. Both may be created, with one redirecting to the other",

  So it might be better to check the archives before requesting.--Lykantrop (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • First of all, that was three years ago, and it was "no consensus" with only three people opposing. That's not much of a precedent. The reason for the move is a policy: "use the most common name". "Heavy metal music" is not the most common name; it's not a name for the genre at all. The page you quoted is a guideline, and policy takes precedent over guidelines. Do you have an argument for this title, rather than just "there's no point moving it"? —Gendralman (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, in the context of article names, guidelines do often take precedence over policy, especially where the guideline is more specific than the policy. Similar things happen in the MOS. And of course there's WP:IAR. No change of vote (below). Andrewa (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support, or even better, just "Heavy metal" (it must be the primary topic, surely - even among chemists).--Kotniski (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The reason for using common names is so they'll be most recognizable to readers (WP:NC). In this case the most recognizable is possibly not the most used (not even convinced of this - I create and love the stuff, that's what my Hurricane is for, and don't think I'm a dork, see above, and I'm obviously comfortable to call it music), but anyone who calls this heavy metal would also recognise the term heavy metal music, and not vice versa, so the longer title is the more recognizable. Andrewa (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

Heavy metal meaning

Early hard rock was born in the mid 60's both in the States and UK (Cream, Hendrix, Kinks, Jeff Beck, the Who, Vanilla Fudge, etc), as a genre essentially linked with blues rock, but often with other rock subgenres like prog rock, psychedelic rock, garage, and proto-punk too. Hard rock at the time was an umbrella term for all the styles of "hard" rock music, but always related with blues, r&b and/or original 50's rock n roll roots. Back in the early 70's, heavy metal was born as a specific heavier and louder subgenre of hard rock. This means that heavy metal had all properties of generic hard rock music, but with its own peculiarities (like screams and louder often virtuoso guitars, instrumental prowess, generally a heavier, louder and more distorted and extreme sound than the rest of hard rock, and frequent occult themes [ironic or not]). In addition, if you take a look at music history, you must know that "the first documented use of the term "heavy metal" to describe this kind of music was in a review by Creem magazine for Sir Lord Baltimore debut album" (1971) wrote by Mike Saunders. That sound was in common with other heavy metal band like Zeppelin, Sabbath, Purple, Uriah Heep, Gran Funk, Blue Öyster, Alice Cooper, Budgie and other early days heavy metal band (followed by a "second wave" bands like ACDC, Kiss, Montrose, Aerosmith, Rush, Rainbow, Ted Nugent, Judas, Motorhead, Scorpions etc...). In fact the term started to be used by professional rock critics around this years (early 70's) for all this bands (i specify again, this bands was obviously hard rock too). Then, in the end of the 70's, with the advent of NWOBHM, emerged new harder and heavier heavy metal styles, that refused hard rock, blues and R&B roots in its own sound. From this time, it can be acknowledged that a part of (classic) heavy metal music wasn't considered a hard rock style anyomore (Maiden, Angel Witch, Grim Reaper and many others). With the addition of punk rock and hardcore punk influence on part of heavy metal music (punk influence on metal was started by Motorhead in the second part of the 70's and then by any other nwbohm band), this was the starting point of early extreme metal (essentially speed/thrash and black). Not only IMHO, that early 70's band was (and are) heavy metal, and if you read all music history books, heavy metal enciclopedias, music enciclopedias in general, and professional rock critics and musicologists opinion, this version is certainly confirmed. This is the real version of heavy metal history, the rest are banalities and personal opinion expressed by amateurs without a real knowledge about music culture and music history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.76.75.32 (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating... how do you know this? Andrewa (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading books, and than listenin' to this music.--151.76.83.211 (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

PS It's also commonly called just metal rather than heavy metal in my experience, and that's what the article says too! Andrewa (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The term "metal" is only an abbreviation of "heavy metal"; two terms are synonyms (most of the music history books, heavy metal enciclopedias, music enciclopedias, and professional rock critics and musicologists says it). You call "heavy metal" the traditional version of heavy metal music, the subgenre called "classic" or "traditional heavy metal". This subgenre contains all the styles of 70's heavy metal, and several styles of 80's heavy metal started by nwobhm period (end 70's/early 80's). But also new subgenres of early 80's like pop metal, power metal, speed/thrash, epic metal, are very close to classic metal. Indeed this wiki article appositely titled "heavy metal music" is referred to the umbrella term that includes all the subgenres, not referred only to the "classic" or "traditional" subgenre of heavy metal.--151.76.83.211 (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

the rest are banalities and personal opinion expressed by amateurs without a real knowledge about music culture and music history. "Reading books, and than listenin' to this music."

I guess you know Wikipedia's guidelines. Don't you? So please provide sources, instead of peremptory claims. Thanks for your comprehension. On a side note, I'm most particularly interested with the names of the musicologists you are refering to (Walser? Tagg? Anyone else?) since I myself am a musicologist, I'd be interested to read such books for my research. So far, in the books I read, not everybody seems to agree on this issue. As far as I can see, there's no unified point of view on this issue. For example, music critics such as Ian Christe and Sharpe Young have clearly different perspectives of what heavy metal is. Christe includes hard rock in heavy metal whereas SY excludes it. (cf. Ian Christe, The Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal, Flammarion,2007 and Sharpe-Young, Garry, Metal: The Definitive Guide. London, Jawbone Press, 2007)Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "hard rock" from intro and infobox

The note in the article makes no sense:

Note: Do not add "hard rock" here. As described in article, "heavy metal" and "hard rock" were synonymous for a decade—one did not precede the other.

The fact is that Wikipedia has separate articles for "hard rock" and "heavy metal music", and whether the terms were used synonymously in the 1970s and by many people even now is irrelevant. According to us, there is a difference, and there was one in the 1970s, even if it is only recognised by a small part of the population, and only retroactively, and even if there is no commonly agreed upon list of criteria that would help us tell the difference, or discussion of the issue in the relevant literature, which means that the issue must remain controversial.

As far as I see it, there is common agreement that the NWOBHM-Priest-Sabbath tradition definitely represents heavy metal (although the classification of part of the Priest discography as unambiguous examples of heavy metal may be disputed by some, and early Sabbath slightly more so), and bands like Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, etc., and also the Scorpions, not to mention AC/DC and even older bands, are surrounded by controversy as to the classification of their music as either hard rock and heavy metal.

But the current solution is tantamount to a refusal to acknowledge that a style of music that could be called "hard rock" and differentiated from heavy metal (however this may be done precisely) was ever played in the 1960s and 1970s at all. Again: Just because people did not differentiate something at the time does not mean that we cannot do so now. By the same token, you could argue that in the 1980s, no band played anything called "speed metal", "thrash metal", "death metal", "black metal", "doom metal", "stoner metal", "power metal" or "progressive metal", because back then, it was all just "heavy metal" and the names of the subgenres were not recognised or even thought up yet, or they were used in a different way, but that doesn't mean that on Wikipedia, we absolutely must represent the situation as such, i. e. exactly the way people saw it back then, and cannot retroactively attach labels if this is commonly done so now, because it reflects journalistic practice.

Another example: In the Middle Ages of Europe, people usually did not differentiate closely related dialects such as within Old Norse, Old English, Old High German, or Romance, but nowadays, linguists retroactively name those dialects and differentiate them from each other using certain criteria. Still nowadays, in popular usage, any number of German, Dutch and Frisian dialects are simply called "Platt" (including German dialects that are not even Low German nor spoken in Northern Germany, such as "Saarbrücker Platt"), Arabic dialects are usually simply called "Arabic" by their speakers, and some names are frequently used synonymously, such as "Provençal", "Occitan" and "Catalan", but that does not mean that linguists are not allowed to make any difference either! Scholarly usage is different, and usually more precise and differentiated, from contemporary (popular) usage. Although the finer points of the differentiation of various kinds of popular music are not usually discussed in musicological literature (sometimes they are, though), the present case can be compared to this.

Therefore, I submit that hard rock be recognised among the origins of heavy metal again, and the list be changed back to "psychedelic rock, blues-rock, hard rock". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

About the problematic title - more discussion is needed

I just saw the move to Heavy metal (music) proposal from a month ago and am disappointed I missed it.

A point that did not get made in that discussion is that one consequence of naming most articles by their most common name in Wikipedia is that titles implicitly convey that the title is the most common name used for the article's subject. This presents a problem when the most common name is not available due to a conflict, but is remedied by putting any information necessary for precision in parenthesis rather than modifying the name. This way the name remains clearly intact and nothing is wrongly conveyed.

In the discussion someone opposing the move made that the claim that, "No one says that 'heavy metal music' is the actual name of the genre." Well, maybe nobody said that explicitly in the discussion, but it's certainly implied by the title favored by all those opposed to the move.

Thus, Heavy metal music, the current title, incorrectly conveys that the most common name for this article's subject is "heavy metal music". However, if the title was "Heavy metal (music)", as was proposed, then it would correctly convey that the most common name is "Heavy metal". This aspect and purpose of article naming is often overlooked, and I, for one, would like to see it get more recognition.

I'd also like to point out that both times a move was proposed for this article the result was "no consensus". That suggests more discussion is needed. Kotniski's point about this article being the primary topic, even for chemists, also did not seem to get the attention it deserved. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You're completely right, and it's a shame the discussion was closed like that when the opposing arguments were so weak. One person said all genre articles follow this convention, but I had more counterexamples than he had examples. One person just said it was "pointless" which isn't really an argument. Two other people misunderstood the move request. All the other votes were "support".

Page titles (aside from parentheses) need to be real, accepted terms (WP:COMMONNAME), and "heavy metal music" is not a real term. And you're right, we're misinforming readers by implying it's the correct term. We have a system in place for disambiguation and we should be consistent about it. —Gendralman (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Developed largely in the United Kingdom and the United States?

The article states that the genre "developed in between 1968 and 1974, largely in the United Kingdom and the United States", yet all the examples of the pioneers of the genre are British bands - Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Judas Priest, Motorhead, Led Zeppelin.

It certainly seems like the Americans became more invested in it from the mid-80s onwards, just as the Scandinavians took up the mantle in the 2000s, but in its nascent state, heavy metal was almost entirely a British invention. 90.209.80.206 (talk) 06:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Iron Butterfly, who recorded in 1968 what is possibly the first metal album, then later Blue Öyster Cult, Kiss, Alice Cooper. But it may also be for the musical roots, blues-rock and psychedelic rock, which are deeply american. zubrowka74 17:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

USA or Europe/UK?? Precisely anonymous user.UK. Classic Metal and the NWBHM that generated conventional/modern Heavy Metal are from the UK. The bands from the USA started to make a contribution mostly from the 1980's onwards. I have already corrected the article regarding this and many other obvious mistakes.GFlusitania (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

These are not "obvious errors" and controversial changes like this need sourcing and a consensus here before they are carried out. Apart from the early US bands mentioned above, Alice Cooper and Kiss, Aerosmith and Blue Oyster Cult were all operating before 1980, to name but a few.--SabreBD (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There were metal bands all over the world long before the '80s. As far as US contributions, the giants already mentioned shared the genre with Sir Lord Baltimore, Pentagram, Dust, the heavier early work of Grand Funk Railroad and probably most importantly Blue Cheer. The last of these was even an influence on Sabbath. (Albert Mond (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC))

First line of this article has clear errors

The first line is:

Heavy metal (often referred to simply as metal) is a genre of rock music[1] that developed in between 1968 and 1974 , largely in the United Kingdom and the United States.

1) Metal is the name of the genre and Heavy metal is a subgenre. 2) It is not a genre of rock music. Metal is defined by being different from rock music by the guitar scale. Metal is based on a classical scale and rock is based on a blues scale.

This is such basic stuff I am sad that it is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.128.12 (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea that heavy metal music (sorry, "metal music") resembles classical music seems to be a popular delusion among metal fans who apparently never listen to classical music or they would never dream of claiming anything so preposterous. I wish they would take their weird revisionist history with its curious racist undertones to Encyclopaedia Metallum and leave Wikipedia alone. PS Led Zeppelin invented Viking metal \m/ 24.69.71.254 (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur - the music is called Heavy Metal. Metal is simply an abbreviation, not a super-genre. Metal is not defined by the scales it uses either - as a genre, it is not as limited as, say blues rock, but it still uses the pentatonic scale. It's true to say that heavy metal can now be studied at universities, and some heavy metal musicians learn with the same appetite for theory and virtuosic devices as classical musicians - but to date, no heavy metal band has produced anything on a par with a classical composer, because the musicians focus on the theory devices and playing techniques, and not the composition practices. Heavy metal remains what it always was - an overblown form of rock music, with all the pretensions of Progressive Rock, but none of the compositional ability. And that's exactly why I love heavy metal music /grin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.200.22.2 (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think heavy metal and metal are the same thing.

Discussion please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.80.54 (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The clearly are not. A good reference on this is the documentary Metal: a headbangers journey. Heavy metal is the root of metal and now exclusively refers to the new wave of British heavy metal. Metal contains several genre of metal.

People do seem to use Metal to refer specifically to bands that formed since the 1990s - so you may have a point. However, Heavy Metal doesn't refer exclusively to the New Wave - that's just wrong. There's plenty of Traditional Heavy Metal around.

When Metallica wrote Metal Militia, in 1982-3 (a song which includes the phrase "Heavy Metal"), this is a clear reflection of how people used both terms to describe the same thing at that explosive time in the music's history.

Metal is a suffix, not a prefix (title), hence we have Black Metal, Death Metal and so on, so I guess it works the same way as a surname. Heavy Metal is Metal just as much as Death Metal is, even though the two currently bear little resemblance - and there are other forms of metal, such as Glam Metal, Doom Metal and suchlike which again sound very different - but the roots are in the same music, ie Led Zep, Black Sabbath et al. I guess it's fair enough, then, that Metal should be the top level descriptor as a UNIFYING force - but consensus is needed. 62.200.22.2 (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Stylistic Origins "Garage Rock"

A user are putting without references, sources etc. that the Heavy Metal was influenced by the Garage Rock, but don't acredit it, please do something.--TheBloodrocker666 (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

We could probably resolve this by sticking a citation in the infobox, but a better approach might be to make this clearer in the text. It might also resolve some of the issues about the contribution in the US. If this is acceptable I will try to put something concise together over the holidays.--SabreBD (talk) 12:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This now done. I could have added more, but it would be difficult without breaking up the flow of the article. I left the early American band issue alone in the end. All the information is in there and in a logical place, readers just need to make a bit of effort to actually read the article.--SabreBD (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Justsayknow, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} RE: "Gestures" Dio got the gesture from his superstitious Italian grandmother. It was known as the "Moloch" and used to give, or protect from the, Evil Eye.

RE: "Image and Fashion" The "elements of S and M fashion" can be contributed to Judas Priest. Specifiable lead singer Rob Halford who was already into that scene.

Justsayknow (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

These edits would require reliable sources. Can you cite any, e.g. quotes from the people involved? Rodhullandemu 23:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought that the gesture came from Coven, a Devil-Worshipping Satanic band, who released an album in 1968 called "Witchcraft Destroys Minds and Reaps Souls". On the album cover, the guys are clearly displaying this gesture.

There is also a song on this album called "Black Sabbath", and the bassist is called Oz Osbourne. Co-incidence?

Those fashion items go back further than Priest, to the band that they (and KISS) copied (musically and fashion-wise); The Sweet, who were THE original Heavy Metal band if you ask me. Also if you don't ask me... /grin.

62.200.22.2 (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

I know I am late chiming in on this but I agree that I have never heard of Led Zeppelin being referred to as Heavy Metal. They are more blues than heavy metal but they are hard rock. When I think of heavy metal I think pure 1980s. Heavymetal81 (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Heavy metal as a term denoting a certain style of music did not become common usage until the mid-80s (according to the OED)--evidence of usage before this is sort of like people calling late 19th century balloon rides "air travel," which would not mean the same thing as the same phrase by the middle of the 20th century--as the Internet in 1992 is not the same thing it was in 2002, nor as it will be 2012.

The above is wrong. The term Heavy Metal was in common usage by fans at the time of the New Wave of British Heavy Metal. Songs such as Holocaust's "Heavy Metal Mania" and Saxon's "Heavy Metal Thunder" bear testament to this. Because of the "New Wave", people started looking back and it was common practice to describe bands like Zep and Purple as the original metal bands - although "everyone knew" that their music wasn't strictly metal. The NWoBHM should be used as a milestone to compare what is metal against what is hard rock (simply because it was called Metal then, and it's still in the name - even the kids can't change it) - and there's almost NO difference. Down with the revisionists!!! 62.200.22.2 (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As a guitar player since the 70s and as metal player since the late 80s, I can say that there is no way Led Zeppelin is Heavy Metal, they are a hard rock band. (I'll take a quick stab at reforming the effort that has so clearly gone very far astray here.) The process of categorisation should NOT be solely dependant upon the artists' definitions, but dependent upon both the general public, the fans, the artists, and musicians of other genres. Clearly, Zeppelin had an influence upon metal, however their style has very little in common with the speedy, self-consciously technical riffs of Metallica, Anthrax, Megadeth, or Slayer. Put bluntly, for which I apologise in advance: arguments to the contrary are simply absurd and show a basic misunderstanding of the rise of heavy metal in the 80s, an almost complete disregard for music itself, and a disappointingly shallow comprehension of the musicianship of a metal musician versus a hard rock musician.

Metallica et al were part of the Thrash Metal movement - Thrash is only one sub type of metal. The earliest and best defined Metal movement was, of course, the NWoBHM, which preceeded the thrashers. If you dig through that, there's a huge amount of crossover, to the point that Hard Rock and Heavy Metal have no real boundaries. Speed is only one element of metal - and bands like YOB, Electric Wizard and Coffin Nail undoubtedly play metal, yet much is as slow as the song Black Sabbath by Black Sabbath. I'm just saying let's ditch this preoccupation with speed as a defining factor - it's not. Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir" is hugely influential on metal, and is more a metal riff than hard rock - hence "arguments to the contrary" simply prove your points absurd.

Metal (here considered as heavy metal under which all forms of metal are comprised) is distinctively mechanical (to the point of being self-conscious of itself as mechanic--see Dave Mustaine's studio work on _Holly Wars_). This mechanical is often seen as simply speed and precision, however it is also in long repetition that challenge the player and the listener alike (reminiscent of production line, even James Hetfield discusses how parts of "Master" strain the muscles of his right hand when he plays them, and no one can be said to play the song more effortlessly). Metal is the music of industrialisation run amok--the singer's voice is often merely a screaming/yelling/growling accompaniment; lyrics are almost never sexual or romantic--"Wake Up Dead," "How Will I Laugh Tomorrow," along with a dozen or so other songs are notable exceptions--but no metal song I am aware of contains an explicit copulation metaphor, while 90% of rock songs do. Next, while triplets are certainly present within Heavy Metal, most often the tendency is for main riffs that are dependent upon "square" timed notes. The final element of metal is the tendency towards aggressive and speedy, at times atonal, guitar solos. In sum, Metal is not simply loud distorted guitar, but a music that contains an almost industrial dissonance. The effort by neo-libs--including in some cases the artists themselves--to remove the music from its historical context is bad scholarship and bad cultural history.

You seem to be stuck thinking that Metal started with Metallica. Get over it. Metallica simply developed the Heavy Metal that previous bands had developed. They picked up the thread started by previous generations - the speed of "My Generation", which became more intense with Blue Cheer, more technical and dextrous with "Speed King", faster and heavier with "Set Me Free" (The Sweet) and "Stone Cold Crazy", even faster with "Exciter" and "I Don't Know", faster still with Vardis, Jaguar, then Venom crystallising in unsung Swedish band 220 Volt and becoming popular through Metallica et al. Most historians agree that metal started with Black Sabbath. The title track of Sabbath's first album - and their music in general is not renowned for being speedy, with exceptions like Children of the Grave, which is a proven Heavy Metal root riff.

Hard Rock, of which early pre-metal is a part, is heavily distorted guitar based upon blues forms, typically with sexual topics: Deep Purple, Zeppelin, Sabbath, etc. but with a limited level of aggression in favour of the somewhat slower tempo of the blues grove and an always melodic and smooth singer. While certainly "Paranoid" is a song that is ur-metal, its aggressiveness is simply not on par with Antrhax's update of Joe Jackson's "Got the Time", to say nothing of a core Metal classic like "Four Horseman" or "Seek and Destroy"--worth noting it is not necessarily about "speed" but about relentlessness and dependence upon blues forms. For instance, while "Seek and Destroy" is unquestionably of blues origins, it escapes the blues based hard rock form by (first) being sung by James Hetfield -- a far from smooth singer in the 80s -- and second by the often long dominant down-picked, palm-muted open strings (E mostly but A as well). Finally, while the chromatics of this old Metallica song seem to be rooted in the logics/tonality of blues/jazz pentatonics, this is an illusion disrupted by song's overarching structure. A disruption not present in say Zeppelin's "Black Dog," which is very much a blues structure.

Again, you seem to think that Heavy Metal started in 1983. It didn't. Let's repeat - Heavy Metal is not necessarily fast, it can be very, very slow. There is some "relentless" and "aggressive" Hard Rock - try the 1972 album by Dust, or the 1972 album by Nightsun (which is also incredibly technical), or the speedy hard rock of the Pink Fairies (1971), or the intensity of German Krautrockers Necronomicon.

It's true that Heavy Metal tends to avoid "relationship" issues - but that's a tendency. Hard Rock can also go into matters mystical - for example, Uriah Heep. Deep Purple sang about going very fast in their cars, Black Nights, Space Truckin' and suchlike, and even Led Zeppelin sang about the mystical - it's wrong to say that all their songs were sexual.

Dust are a good reference point, as are Blue Cheer for "far from smooth" singers - both are good prototypes for Hetfield. Hetfield probably stole his vocal sound from Brian Ross (Blitzkrieg). It's baloney - or simply poorly informed - to say that Hard Rock singers are "smooth". Lemmy of Motorhead denies that his band has ever played Heavy Metal, for example.

Look no further than Deep Purple for down-picked palm muting. In fact, Metallica were among the pioneers of the up-down (alternate) picked palm muted riffs - there's no way that Whiplash or Metal Militia can be played entirely with downstrokes. If you want downstrokes only, listen to "Stone Cold Crazy" by Queen (1974).

Chromatics aren't necessarily a feature of metal, but the Tritone is a fairly clear defining point. The big problem comes when trying to separate the tritone from the Blues Note. In fact, they're the same thing. The bluesmen would often use chromatics - listen to John Mayall's "Bare Wires" album from 1968. 62.200.22.2 (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, that is all. This page is extremely disappointing, I wish that someone with some ethos (one of the artists who has become a musical scholar) would correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealklomp (talk • contribs) 17:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I like to think I'm a bit of a scholar... and yes, the page is disappointing - not to mention wrong in many places, but the main problem is that Heavy Metal is many things to many people, very few of whom are actually wrong. I think it's wrong to say that heavy metal is NOT (x) - unless it blatantly isn't. /grin 62.200.22.2 (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Definition of metal

The ambiguity of the definition is bothering me. This is largely due to the influence of pop culture and nu metal. Nu metal by the way is not metal and was only named that way to sell records. First of all, everything should have one and only one definition. This is an important part of communication among society. Dictionaries were invented for this purpose. Without a proper definition of something you can get into annoying semantics debates where you both agree but don't think you do.

Metal is a genre of pop music, and is, perhaps, the most ambiguous of all. ALL so-called sub-genres of Metal are named that way to sell records to rabid fans who won't listen to other, "false" types of metal. Nu Metal IS Metal - the clue is in the name.

It would be nice if everything had only one definition, for tiny bureaucratic minds to be able to sleep easily at night. For the rest of us, the real world isn't perfect, but it ticks away OK, despite the many definitions that exist of "world". 62.200.22.2 (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a very strict definition of metal. There are different sub-genres which add to the definition but still have the major elements. I am not a student of music and can try to explain the main points:

You mean that you have a very strict definition of metal. There isn't one strict definition or we'd all agree. I am a student of music, and will explain why your points need to be rethought.62.200.22.2 (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

1) Classically influenced. The early metal band such as Deep purple started with neo-classical guitar. This has now expanded to every instrument being played in a classical manner (symphonic/power metal) or different types of classical music (Folk music gives folk metal, opera give opera metal ......)

Black Sabbath had jazz influences. Not all modern metal has classical influences. Deep Purple used stylistic ideas from classical music, they did not play in a classical manner. For example, classical guitarists sit on a stool and put their foot on a footstool - and they typically do not use a plectrum. I don't accept this point. 62.200.22.2 (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

2) The vocals, although not always sung classically, have classical elements. There is a sense of no need for amplification. The lyrics are shouted or projected as they would have been in classical times. There is a distinct lack of modern "rapping" vocals that require amplification to be heard over large distances. Also the rythym in metal is different than for hardcore bands where the vocals have "bursting out sound". A good example of hardcore lyrics style being very different from metal is Raised Fist.

Again, I dispute this point wholeheartedly. In classical times they would emphatically NOT have shouted the lyrics. You're right about projection, but to my ears, only Ronnie James Dio truly had the projection thing from classical singers - and he was a tiny exception... 62.200.22.2 (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

3) The instruments are more important than the vocals. There are many metal songs that go a few minutes before a word is spoken. This again is a result of classical influence and separates it from rock which came from blues. Although this is not true for some forms of metal where the voice is used more like an instrument than a conveyor of lyrics (ie The Rapture, Nightwish).

Is this really true? You may have examples of metal songs that go for a while until the singer starts, but there are probably many more examples of the opposite. Anyway, rock would quite often do this too - for example, Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven", or any of a large number of early Genesis songs - you see where this is going. Metal as a genre has always stolen from other genres to give it more credibility - nothing wrong with that, but there is a big difference between stylistic borrowing and actual influence. I'd like to hear the metal equivalent of Bach - but it's never gonna happen 62.200.22.2 (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

4) The drumming is often very quick and hard hitting. Giving sense of power and speed. Although the drumming can vary in different genre there is a large difference from punk drumming that has a repetitive cyclical "du du da" sound, or industrial which has electronic sounding percussion.

Plenty of this in rock, but don't forget the vast number of slow metal songs, in which the drumming is not quick. Um... 62.200.22.2 (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

4) There is a sense of tightness between the different musicians. I many other forms of music the instruments take different parts that collectively add to the sound. In metal and symphony the instruments work together to mix and provide the sound.

In much metal, the instruments all play exactly the same thing - yes, it's tight, but blues bands can be tight, and so can pop bands. In a symphony, instruments are often delicately coloured by the composers, and there may be many separate parts that combine to make the whole - it's nothing like metal at all. Gentle Giant are a great example of a rock band who achieved this sort of thing better than any metal band to date. This point is wrong - not to mention quite difficult to understand because of the way it's written. 62.200.22.2 (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There are of course gray areas in all definitions. And some things sit on the edge between two things. Please note that I never mentioned loudness, satan, death, anger or scaring your parents in my definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.128.12 (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have - after all, those things separate metal from other genres much better than the other things you've mentioned! 62.200.22.2 (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

stylistic origins

under stylistic origins, only blues-rock & psychedelic rock are mentioned. But what about 'rock'? heavy metal after all is a genre of rock music. And also blues and psychedelic are also rock sub-genres. Secondly heavy metal sounds a lot like rock music (especially modern heavy metal bands and some old ones like judas priest. I think 'rock' should also be added in the stylistic origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.168.119 (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The clue is in the term "Rock". Think of it like a surname. Likewise, think of "Heavy" as a title, e.g. Heavy Psyche, Heavy Blues, Heavy Rock, and "Hard" as a title meaning more or less the same thing, but with maybe slightly different connotations. The thing is, there's also Surf Rock, Trash Rock, Garage Rock - you wouldn't want metal to get mixed up with all that stuff would you? Oh, wait... 62.200.22.2 (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hard rock origins

This article mentions hard rock didn't precede heavy metal.This is not true,as bands such as The Who,The Doors,Jimi Hendrix Experience,Cream,Vanilla Fudge,Iron Butterfly and Led Zeppelin all released their debuts before Black Sabbath,who's debut had some of the first metal songs,the follow-up being the first heavy metal album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Great Duck (talk • contribs) 18:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The terms hard rock and heavy metal were used interchangably in the early development. Sabbath's work was a point of divergence, but the term is still used here as it was at the time and, in fact, until relatively recently. I think we probably need a FAQ here to deal with this issue, which turns up a lot by new readers/editors.--SabreBD (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Twistedpsyche88, 16 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Heavy Metal was invented in Denmark in 1843 by Professor Garth Metallus in a horrible lab accident involving taut metal strings and a primitive electroacoustical transducer.

Twistedpsyche88 (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Atmoz (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Budgie/Led Zeppelin bias

I feel that Budgie should be mentioned somewhere in this article. Although they did not manage to imprint themselves within the mainstream eye, they have influenced countless Heavy Metal bands including Iron Maiden, Megadeth, Metallica, Soundgarden, and Alice In Chains. Many of these bands, especially Iron Maiden, have lifted multiple techniques from these guys. They are commonly played off as "Black Sabbath and Rush Ripoffs" though the fact is that Budgie's first three albums predate Rush's 1974 debut and there debut album came out one month before Black Sabbath's "Master Of Reality", an album Budgie's debut is often compared to.

Also, I feel this article highlights Led Zeppelin's influence way to much. I am well aware that at one point in time, Led Zeppelin was one of the heaviest bands in the world but that undeniably changed when Black Sabbath released there debut album. I find it even more surprising that a Led Zeppelin track is featured as an example of an early Heavy Metal piece. The writings on this article are misguided and should be re evaluated for importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.16.226 (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Boy Howdy! AMEN! BUDGIE ROCKS! BUDGIE RULES! "ROCK AND RULE!"

I felt compelled to add something, somewhere, to this miserable sludgefest of an Article, and the Discussion with its toss-and-return of toxic accusations of acute ideological deviation from the Sacred Principles and Holy Ethos of True Metal™, and to which sub-sub-genre of Metal the (hypothetical) "Kings of Sludge" are properly relegated... Macho-Sludge-Metal or Gay-Sludge-Metal? 'Coz after all the sociological pronunciamentos recited here that "Metal is Macho" we all know that the lead singer for the "Kings" was Teh Gay! OR DOES THIS (GAY=DISCO) BAND QUALIFY AS METAL AT ALL!

(And who the hell IS this repeatedly-cited "authority" Deena Weinstein anyway? OH GREAT: a sociologist; I would feel enthusiasm, but ARE NOT THE ATTENTIONS OF AN EXPERT IN ABNORMAL PSYCHOLOGY required here for "expert analysis" ?-) I checked out her website — "Who is Deena Weinstein?" — and got a list of "Rock-Related Publications"!!!!! OMG TEH ROCKER! SHE'S A MEAN CLEAN WP:RS MACHINE!)

Anyway, I would devote more time to arguments relating why genre-labelling is inherently stupid... but I think Chuck Eddy already took that job on (covertly) in his (brilliant) "Stairway to Hell: The 500 Best Heavy Metal Albums in The Universe". I have to move on, because the thought occurred to me that Croon Metal (which I invented three months ago) Is Dead; CROONCORE is where it's at!

And now I have to figure out what the hell is "Crooncore", anyway? It's a puzzle; solving it may prove not only musically challenging, not merely intellectually rewarding, but to yield $$$ !!! bonze blayk (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Stylistic origins.

I think the stylistic origins section should be different. The traditional heavy metal has many elements of blues-rock and psychedelic rock, but I don't think the contemporary does. It's way different, and I don't know how to describe the style. I just know it's nothing alike blues-rock and psychedelic rock, and not even hard rock. It's something way different, and I'm sorry, but I can't really tell what the stylistic origins for the contemporary are, I just know it's not like written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.120.193 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Tritone and the Association with "Evil"

Under "Characteristics/Musical Language/Typical Harmonic Structures," the article mentions that "The tritone, an interval spanning three whole tones—such as C and F#—was a forbidden dissonance in medieval ecclesiastical singing, which led monks to call it diabolus in musica—'the devil in music.' Because of that original symbolic association, it came to be heard in Western cultural convention as 'evil'. Heavy metal has made extensive use of the tritone in guitar solos and riffs, such as in the beginning of 'Black Sabbath.'" While all three statements are true, their juxtaposition obscures the fact that the association of the tritone with "evil" had disappeared centuries before the development of heavy metal (fully diminished 7th chords, which are built on tritones, are essentially ubiquitous throughout classical music), making this former association irrelevant to the perceived "evil" of heavy metal bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.244.158 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree, especially since it was a major element of the blues. I will have a scan through sources for something more reliable and significant.--SabreBD (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Redundance

I'm fixing the introduction paragraph to make it more enciclopedical (in the first line says that the genre is derivated from rock music, and in the third line also apears a similar sentence.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnotaurus044 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I bit worrying that you use the word "enciclopedical" (presumably "encyclopedic"?) in your statement here. The change introduced a number of errors and does not conform to WP:Lead. Please indicate exactly what you think is wrong with the lead and get consensus here before making major changes.--SabreBD (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2011 (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)

Come on!!! Black Sabbath did NOT introduce the Tritone (Diabolus in Musica) - it's been around for Centuries! In the days of the Blues, the flattened 5th was (and still is) called the BLUES note. There are many blue notes, but only one Blues note... according to my sources anyway, which may vary from yours. A blue note is formed by flattening the intended note by a semitone, which would introduce the minor 2nd...

It's true that the tritone has become more prevalent in metal music, but only since the thrashers in 1983. There was a whole generation of metal fans who had to live without the tritone, through the heady years of the NWoBHM - and not every modern metal band uses it.

The harmonic minor scale is interchangeable with the Phrygian mode - or more accurately, the harmonic minor perfect fifth below, dominant flat 2 flat 6 (in jazz), or simply the fifth mode of the harmonic minor scale - and this was used extensively by the Surf Rockers of the early 1960s. Listen to Dick Dale's "Miserlou" (which also begins with alternate picked 16th notes), or "Satan's Serenade" by The Lancasters - or any one of a huge number of Surf rock records.

Metal is more related to blues than classical. Sorry, but that's a fact. It is true, though, that much metal has moved away from the blues - this argument needs to be more informed and presented in a less defensive manner to succeed. Good luck. 62.200.22.2 (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Also in a rock context, Jimi Hendrix used the tritone in the intro to "Purple Haze", three years before "Black Sabbath". The problem with saying Black Sabbath is the one true heavy metal band is that there is nothing in their music that is radically different from other hard rock bands of their time, though the use of downtuning is quite distinctive. Black Sabbath's main contributions to heavy metal were image and lyrical themes with a certain dramatic flair. 24.69.71.254 (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2011 (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)

Provide a reliable source showing Led Zeppelin describing their music as heavy metal. Radiopathy •talk• 01:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Precisely, I think it is unanimous amongst HM musicians, genuine critics and fans that these great bands such as Deep Purple, Led Zepellin and Cream are not conventional Heavy Metal but Hard ROck on the borderline with Classic Metal and at best they can be defined as Classic Metal. This is the editor's guideline that I followed in my editing of the article. Black Sabath is a singular case that no-one can afford to miss; it is definitely a Classic Metal band. It is the ur-band that one way or another originated the genre, but since the genre was evolving and would only truly become HM during the NWBHM, Black Sabath should be designated as Classic Metal as a midway/compromise assessment that should satisfy all parts. Anyone with doubts, particularly someone who insists on re-editing the article back to a version with serious inaccuracies (showing an obvious ignorance regarding these musical matters) should study the wiki article Classic Metal which is rather good and serves as a very good introduction to this article; even though its list of bands is inaccurate because it is too comprehensive and so includes bands that are better defined as Hard Rock or on the borderline with Classic Metal or HM. GFlusitania (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hang on - does the above disagree or agree with the question... /grin 62.200.22.2 (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It really all depends on the generation, back in the Led Zeppelin was considered to be heavy. Now? It's not heavy at all compared to the "Heavy Metal" that's produced today. In my opinion, Led Zeppelin was not heavy metal at all but was definitely a contribution to the evolution to Heavy Metal. So yes, Wikipedia should make a change to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kisstudent10 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you just say that because it's your opinion that Led Zeppelin aren't heavy metal, that Wikipedia should change. Didn't you know that Wikipedia is anti OR (not that your opinion constitutes research, that is). Good grief, what a terrible argument. 62.200.22.2 (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that people still argue about this means one thing: some people really need to sit down and read a lot of reliable sources, particularly anything written on heavy metal between, oh, 1970 and 1980, when the band was a going concern. As I mentioned long ago, there's an NME encyclopedia of rock form 1977 that describes Led Zeppelin as the ultimate heavy metal band. That's just for starters. In the Iron Maiden Early Years DVD you have footage from the early days of the New Wave of British Heavy Metal where interviewees at the time mention the original metal bands: Zeppelin, Sabbath, and Deep Purple. There's an awful lot of historical ignorance floating around about the subject, which is really evident when you look at the edits of the IP that started this section in the first place, who simply removed Zep from the lead . . . but not the rest of the article, which lays out how important the band really was to the genre. Also, fun fact: I'm reading this Zeppelin biography right now where Geezer Butler admits "Paranoid" was a intentional rewrite of "Communication Breakdown". WesleyDodds (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: REVISIONIST HISTORY. Well, if you are antique... as am I! — you would feel no particular discomfort whatsoever classifying Led Zep et. al. and their hard rocking ilk as HEAVY METAL bands. (Of course, Black Sabbath is the archetype here.)

I'll cite a highly relevant WP:RS source... the cover article for the Phonograph Record Magazine, in the April 1973 issue: "Alice Cooper & Heavy Metal", written by rock critic Metal Mike Saunders... now posted courtesy of the MetalMan himself on his Facebook Profile pages: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150150494853288&set=a.10150150485158288.305272.712353287.

"Heavy Metal" didn't become more rigidly defined and codified and fragment into a zillion sub-genre formats until years later on. (COI disclosure: Yes, Metal Mike is my older brother. Is it any wonder that many folks really wish that someone else had introduced and popularized the use of "Heavy Metal" as a genre label, given that he hates anything labelled "Heavy Metal" that was produced post 1975 ?-)

One final comment: Pigeonholes are for... pigeons. Thank you! bonze blayk (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

What was considered heavy metal in 1968 would not be considered metal in 2011. Led Zepplin, Deep Purple, etc. were heavy metal for their time.

I propose we close this discussion. --Confession0791 ^talk 10:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)