• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Do you consider Led Zeppelin a METAL band?

#221
[Head Shaking]Led Zeppelin in 1969 was probably the first band referred to routinely as the "heavy metal kids" even though Hendrix, Deep Purple and a few others preceded them by a couple years. Of course, most TB participants weren't yet born when heavy metal was current so I would expect to read exactly what we're reading in this thread. Nothing important happened before you were born.[/Head Shaking]

Flame on!
 
  • Like
Reactions: khutch and okcrum
#222
Sure, at the time, Led Zeppelin was described as heavy metal, along with similar contemporaries at the time, but only Black Sabbath was truly heavy metal and would go on to become the godfathers of the genre, and would go on to affect all the sub-genres that developed thereafter: downtuned instruments, dark themes and dark/moody instrumentals.
 
#225
J-Bassomatic said:
No, they did not. I was there (I'm on my last legs) LZ was never considered heavy metal. Trans-genre maybe but NEVER heavy metal.
Click to expand...

Ok then who was metal in the early 1970s? Sabbath? Yes. Deep Purple? Yes. Zeppelin was part of this rock movement. Do some research on the phrase metal and heavy metal and where and when it was applied when it was first coined.
 
#226
J-Bassomatic said:
I really and respectfully have to disagree, when Led Zep first appeared they were mainly out of the blues strained through England's vision of American bluesmen. In the day we NEVER referred to them as heavy metal, they were 'Led Zeppelin'. I honestly think they were not even pioneers of the genre (heavy metal), true, they could rock out. I would put the linage on Steppenwolf, Deep Purple etc eventually Sabbath who really nailed it down. I do not, will not argue and no snark intended. It does make for a great discussion, this is the view of someone who was 16 or so when Zep hit. One of the first 'genres' I can remember was when no one could classify the Eagles (Burritos, Parsons etc) and it was designated as 'country-rock'. Silly people. Trix are for kids. Hell, I remember buying a Led Zeppelin record and a Micheal Nesmith and the First National Band record on the same day. PTOO on genre. Dig the MUSIC.
Click to expand...
Totally dig the music. I can't stand disputing semantics, however, just because you didn't call them Heavy Metal, and you were there, doesn't make them not Heavy Metal. Even Rush was arguably considered Heavy Metal on their debut album. Obviously this is a controversially nerdy topic. I love hearing everyone's take on it. Including yours. I mean no disrespect by disagreeing with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe Ty
#227
RickyWoo said:
Totally dig the music. I can't stand disputing semantics, however, just because you didn't call them Heavy Metal, and you were there, doesn't make them not Heavy Metal. Even Rush was arguably considered Heavy Metal on their debut album. Obviously this is a controversially nerdy topic. I love hearing everyone's take on it. Including yours. I mean no disrespect by disagreeing with you.
Click to expand...
No problem, it was a very fluid thing as it was coming together. 'Heavy metal' was applied to this or that seemingly without any concrete guidelines. Sometimes 'hard rock' gets tossed around. Eventually it coalesced into a more 'definable' structure, kind of how a bunch of spinning debris becomes a sun and planets. If, looking back, you want to categorize it that's fine with me. I'm just happy people are listening to it still. I always gravitated toward the oddballs anyway, Pere Ubu, Ramones, Captain Beefheart and I have a weakness for old country (George Jones, etc) and I'm thrilled when I stumble onto something on the internet. Cassandra Jenkins was the last one. I listen to a lot of the links provided by TB members to the work they are doing and have heard a lot of fine things. Noise Ninja's stuff is interesting. Happy listening!
 
  • Like
Reactions: RickyWoo
#231
7f5fa7f9f599092d09a38be7c0436931.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeyjm2
#232
My beef with today's classification of metal and multitude of sub-genres is that it lacks any rock elements. Rock being the platform that Heavy Metal was built on. Sabbath? Rock and Roll. Lamb of God? No Rock and Roll. Zero.

Statements like "Is (insert band) even heavy metal anymore?" kinda answer themselves. It implies they are a heavy metal band.

Just to go on a tangent, some people consider Waylon, Willie, and The Boys to be real country. They are. I love them and they are true blue country. Show the same people some Carter Family and a lot of them will cringe, not knowing that it's true blue country as well.. Let alone the originator of the genre.

For the record, I am a fan of today's metal.
 
Last edited:
#237
At this point in the thread I'd like to chime in from a different angle. In college I majored in history and psychology. What we're doing here falls pretty neatly into what historians deal with on a regular basis. TB is asking itself the question "Should Led Zeppelin be understand in the context of its contemporaries or in the context of their contemporaries and everything that came after?" The answer to that question is determined by the question you're trying to answer and this is where the semantics really get ginned up. Some posters are answering the question "what was Led Zeppelin called" some are answering "what is Led Zeppelin called now" and others are answering "what should Led Zeppelin be called?" All of these questions can be validly answered differently, which is why we're going on 12 pages.

If Led Zeppelin should be only understood in it's original context, then the "Heavy Metal" crowd have something to say as Zep was very much active when they were being categorized as Heavy Metal. If we wish to understand Zep in a fuller context, the label Heavy Metal ceases to have the same utility because "Metal" has come to have such a drastically different meaning. My personal position is that you can label a band with a period appropriate label or a musically appropriate one. I would argue that both "heavy metal" and "classic rock" are context dependent labels that offer nothing substantive about the actual music of Led Zeppelin in the present context and both suffer from giving too great a weight to select few hits that they produced. The Zeppelin catalogue is deep and wonderful and does not align itself particularly well to any label that does not include a reference to the blues especially when being compared to modern rock music that is virtually completely free of Blues influences.

Time is a tricky thing. I'm jealous of those of you who had the privilege of being contemporaries of Zep, but I don't envy you the difficulty of keeping up with semantic changes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjohnson441496 and mikeyjm2
#238
Pumpkin said:
At this point in the thread I'd like to chime in from a different angle. In college I majored in history and psychology. What we're doing here falls pretty neatly into what historians deal with on a regular basis. TB is asking itself the question "Should Led Zeppelin be understand in the context of its contemporaries or in the context of their contemporaries and everything that came after?" The answer to that question is determined by the question you're trying to answer and this is where the semantics really get ginned up. Some posters are answering the question "what was Led Zeppelin called" some are answering "what is Led Zeppelin called now" and others are answering "what should Led Zeppelin be called?" All of these questions can be validly answered differently, which is why we're going on 12 pages.

If Led Zeppelin should be only understood in it's original context, then the "Heavy Metal" crowd have something to say as Zep was very much active when they were being categorized as Heavy Metal. If we wish to understand Zep in a fuller context, the label Heavy Metal ceases to have the same utility because "Metal" has come to have such a drastically different meaning. My personal position is that you can label a band with a period appropriate label or a musically appropriate one. I would argue that both "heavy metal" and "classic rock" are context dependent labels that offer nothing substantive about the actual music of Led Zeppelin in the present context and both suffer from giving too great a weight to select few hits that they produced. The Zeppelin catalogue is deep and wonderful and does not align itself particularly well to any label that does not include a reference to the blues especially when being compared to modern rock music that is virtually completely free of Blues influences.

Time is a tricky thing. I'm jealous of those of you who had the privilege of being contemporaries of Zep, but I don't envy you the difficulty of keeping up with semantic changes.
Click to expand...
That's fine, like I said, I don't think there was a unanimous consensus AT THE TIME that LZ was a heavy metal band, they weren't to me and the guys I hung with. There was pretty much consensus at the time that Black Sabbath was.
I do agree with you BTW and was thinking the same thing throughout this thread.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back