Jethro Tull- best guitar riff & best flute solo?

[JeffCarney]

It didn't matter what they thought they were back then. Of course they were hard/rock. Hard/rock and heavy metal were the same back then. It only became a separate "genre" in the 80s during the NWOBHM and the whole Thrash scene. That's when you started seeing the distinction between "hard rock" and "heavy metal." I remember when Led Zeppelin were also referred to as heavy metal back in the 70s and even 80s. They (Zep) were part of the scene that gave birth to metal. Today it's almost laughable that Zep were part of that scene. Sabbath, on the other hand were the most influencial heavy band. A couple weeks ago someone (Jeff?) posted an article about Sabbath spawning every sub-genre of Heavy Metal (doom, stoner, thrash, sludge, etc.). That's my point. It didn't matter what they (Sabbath) called their music. They were hard/rock, of course, but they pretty much invented a darker, heavier style of hard/rock which became heavy metal.

Yup. Well stated.

[JIF]

By the way guys (Jeff, Ron, Jif, whoever), we're not arguing here.

I know that. It's just a discussion.

[JeffCarney]

You've overlooked that I was simply explaining why "I've never thought of them as heavy metal...". I didn't say they weren't, as though that could be somehow fact-based. 'Heavy metal' to me is a narrower description based on the time I grew up, and the images and sounds I was exposed to at an impressionable age.

Ok, I see ...

Well, all I know is that one can buy albums through 1969 until they have filled up several houses with them. And what Sabbath recorded in November of 1969 will always stand out a mile. The title track of the debut is completely "out there" and, truthfully, it is such a bold and definitive statement that some even misperceived it as too much of a stripped down sound. But its "simplicity" is very deceptive. It oozes with a point, which is give us "three fucking chords and the truth" and we'll show you what can be done when originality is at the core and discipline is used to build tension and release. It is to hard rock what Henry Cow are to prog. I'm always amused by people citing Blue Cheer or High Tide or whoever else, because these people are mistaking a heaviness via distortion and volume as the makings of "heavy metal." What Sabbath did was completely beyond this. The Who were loud, Jeff Beck Group, Cream and Hendrix were loud. It wasn't just about being loud. There was a completely different feel and at the core was a tension and release component different from what had come before. Dynamics were an integral part of the approach. Not just "loud part soft part" dynamics but even dynamics within the heaviest music.

Since this thread has been taken over by this anyway, I'll go further and state that the title track of the debut is Exhibit A as to why people were trying to find a new "term" for this music. Of special note on the live show from 1970 ("Paris") that is all over YouTube is the finale, where Osbourne begins to completely flip out in a manner that was unprecedented and proto-punk in more ways than one. It is a complete and utter abandonment of the "poser" component often rampant at the time. The flip of the hair, the pushing out of the chest ... they all serve no purpose. There is nothing but tension and release. The tension is built and glimpses of release occur, and then the "galloping" section takes over as the tension is taken to yet another level ala the best classical music. Iommi's solo expresses the release as Osbourne is literally almost banging his head on the ground from an upright position after Iommi returns to the greatest G chord played after a solo ever. It is so powerful in every way and the musical brand so distinct that they were even well aware that many would not like it. Still, they pushed forward. Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Metallica ... give me a break. Sabbath crushed the barriers that even made it possible for those bands to walk through and find an area of grass in which to play.

[Calabasas_Trafalgar]

Interesting that Sabbath nicked the main riff of their title track from Quatermass' Make Up Your Mind - listen at 4:42 of the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlA5vCTj0HY

[JIF]

Interesting that Sabbath nicked the main riff of their title track from Quatermass' Make Up Your Mind - listen at 4:42 of the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlA5vCTj0HY

Um, didn't the Sabbath album come first. In the U.K, Sabbath's debut was released on February 13th, 1970. Quartermass's debut was released in May, 1970. Could it be that both song borrowed from The Planets suite?

[Vic2012]

Good post Jeff. These types of discussions are always interesting to me because I've always been fascinted by the history of this music. At what point? Who was the first? This, that, the other, and on and on. The way I'bve always observed it is that it (heavy metal/hard rock) started with psychedelia. It was the blues electrified and cranked up to 11.

I'm always amused by people citing Blue Cheer or High Tide or whoever else, because these people are mistaking a heaviness via distortion and volume as the makings of "heavy metal."

This has always interested me too. So what makes this music "metal?" Is it volume, distortion, in other words, is it the "sound?" Or is it an image, or a vibration, and attitude, ???etc.. I don't think you can dismiss Blue Cheer in a discussion of the history of heavy metal. They can't just be a footnote.

There was a completely different feel and at the core was a tension and release component different from what had come before.

I'd agree with this, but I think Led Zeppelin were doing some of the same things on their first album as well. The difference with Zeppelin was that they were just a little more seasoned and wanted to incorporate more of the blues, folk, Celtic influences. The Zep guys were already seasoned musicians by the first album. Sabbath on the other hand were a garage band. That's not a put down. I remember the first Zeppelin album was praised by a lot of older rock fans. I remember this because I witnessed it. The same, older rock fans that liked the first Zeppelin album thought of the second album as a sellout because it was more monochromatic in sound. LZ2 is a heavy fucking album. We can't talk about the history of Heavy Metal without including Led Zeppelin in it (as well Blue Cheer, Hendrix, etc.). The difference between the "sound" of Sabbath vs. Zeppelin, Cream, Blue Cheer, etc. was a twist of fate. The guitarist had an accident and it affected how he tuned his guitar strings. Then you add the "horror film" aspect of it, ....... and a genre was born. I really have no problem acknowledging that Black Sabbath (1969) was YEAR ONE, but all those other groups, and even some psychedlic groups from the Summer Of Love in SF are part of that history too.

[Vic2012]

Sabbath on the other hand were a garage band.

Let me re-emphasize again, that this isn't an insult to these guys (lest someone find it offensive). Led were (especially JPJ and Jimmy) seasoned, studio musicians. They were almost a studio creation, so to speak. Sabbath were like a lot of other groups where a group of neigborhood blokes got together and formed a band (like The Beatles and countless others). They found their sound on their own for the most part. Hope that all made sense.

[ronmac]

We can't talk about the history of Heavy Metal without including Led Zeppelin in it (as well Blue Cheer, Hendrix, etc.).

And songs like "Helter Skelter."

[Trane]

I share this POV too, though I wouldn't say the band "regressed." They just don't grab me like the first two do. Them being a metal band doesn't interest me as much as them becoming a metal band. I just like the heavy blues/psych thing more.

OK, maybe "regressed" is (way) too strong a word... let's just say that they didn't evolve the way I'd have wanted to... Which even then is kind of twisted from me, since I only bought Paranoid, MoR and the debut and in 75, and by that time, they'd done 5 or 6 albums... So it's not like I lived Sab by the album...

It didn't matter what they thought they were back then. Of course they were hard/rock. Hard/rock and heavy metal were the same back then. It only became a separate "genre" in the 80s during the NWOBHM and the whole Thrash scene. That's when you started seeing the distinction between "hard rock" and "heavy metal." I remember when Led Zeppelin were also referred to as heavy metal back in the 70s and even 80s. They (Zep) were part of the scene that gave birth to metal. Today it's almost laughable that Zep were part of that scene. Sabbath, on the other hand were the most influencial heavy band. A couple weeks ago someone (Jeff?) posted an article about Sabbath spawning every sub-genre of Heavy Metal (doom, stoner, thrash, sludge, etc.). That's my point. It didn't matter what they (Sabbath) called their music. They were hard/rock, of course, but they pretty much invented a darker, heavier style of hard/rock which became heavy metal.



Yes I'm aware of that. I don't remember when I first heard that term as regards to hard/rock, but it was in the 1970s. I remember that it wasn't a popular term yet but it was around. Any history that's ever been written about this music (Heavy Metal) as a genre always includes Black Sabbath. I go back even further. The roots of what became known as Heavy Metal go back to Jimi Hendrix and Cream. Today they wouldn't be included in a history book about metal, but Sabbath certainly would be.

One might want to take a look at the Metal Music Archives definitions... Ok, they're done with some kind hindsight that may near reisionism... (but unnlike PA, the tagging is by album and not by bands)

But Heavy Metal does not relly applyto purely-80's metal style like Speed or Thrash. The admins offered me at the time to worry about 70's metal bands that would find and fit the Heavy Metal genre (I turned down the "job" >> definitely not my interest >> and these endless genre debates >> no thanks) and as a sub-genre of HM was NWOBHMB... Apparently it's still that way...
But Ozzy's Sab, Zep and Purple are now called proto-metal (along with some Nazeareth and Heep albums), which is again another distinct category from the trad HM (where Dio's Sab is classed)...
and Hard Rock is yet another (where Ac/DC, Rush, Van Halen are classified)....

Sounds like major pigeonholing? (it is!! ) But these guys are ultra-metal fans (which I wasn't)

Heavy metal kind of stops being around 84 or 85... after that the "heavy" part of the Metal genre disappears in favor of thrash, speed, glam and other styles

[Vic2012]

And songs like "Helter Skelter."

No disagreement but I think the Beatles did heavier songs. I think the reason that Helter Skelter gets cited as being "The Beatles doing Heavy Metal" was because it was loud, chaotic, abrasive, and it had a big guitar riff. I think songs like Taxman, Day Tripper, She's So Heavy were just as heavy (without being overly loud and chaotic) as Helter Skelter.

[Vic2012]

Sounds like major pigeonholing?

Yeah, this seems to be an obsession today, as we look back over 40-50 years as this music developed. Genres evolve. They stew for a while and then years later we say ok this particular band started this particular style. 1969 was a pivotal year for prog and heavy metal. I get that. Even Santana was a hell of a heavy band back then. Carlos Santana doesn't get much mention in the evolution of heavy rock but if you listen to those first 3 Santana albums there's lot's of heaviness. Yeah, I was mostly paying attention to the percussion, but Carlos' distorted guitar, and Gregg's big ass Hammond were HEAVY.

[ronmac]

No disagreement but I think the Beatles did heavier songs. I think the reason that Helter Skelter gets cited as being "The Beatles doing Heavy Metal" was because it was loud, chaotic, abrasive, and it had a big guitar riff. I think songs like Taxman, Day Tripper, She's So Heavy were just as heavy (without being overly loud and chaotic) as Helter Skelter.

Not sure I agree, though I might add "Everybody's got Something to Hide..."

"Day Tripper" and, arguably, "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" are straight blues. Take McCartney's guitar lead away from "Taxman," and it's not really that heavy. I would consider that and "Paperback Writer" as being pure hard rock, not metal.

But, we're splitting hairs.

[Vic2012]

I wasn't calling those Beatles songs "metal." Heavy, yes.

[JeffCarney]

I think Led Zeppelin were doing some of the same things on their first album as well. The difference with Zeppelin was that they were just a little more seasoned and wanted to incorporate more of the blues, folk, Celtic influences. The Zep guys were already seasoned musicians by the first album. Sabbath on the other hand were a garage band. That's not a put down. I remember the first Zeppelin album was praised by a lot of older rock fans. I remember this because I witnessed it. The same, older rock fans that liked the first Zeppelin album thought of the second album as a sellout because it was more monochromatic in sound. LZ2 is a heavy fucking album. We can't talk about the history of Heavy Metal without including Led Zeppelin in it (as well Blue Cheer, Hendrix, etc.). The difference between the "sound" of Sabbath vs. Zeppelin, Cream, Blue Cheer, etc. was a twist of fate. The guitarist had an accident and it affected how he tuned his guitar strings. Then you add the "horror film" aspect of it, ....... and a genre was born. I really have no problem acknowledging that Black Sabbath (1969) was YEAR ONE, but all those other groups, and even some psychedlic groups from the Summer Of Love in SF are part of that history too.

I can kind of see where you are coming from here, but the analogies don't completely work, IMO.

First of all, Tony Iommi was "seasoned" by the time of the first Sabs album. He'd been playing professionally since about 1964 and was well known in the Carlisle area as a guitar wizard even before Earth, but let's move on to the bigger points because overall Zeppelin had a lot more recording experience than Sabbath in 1969. It's not even close.

A commonly repeated yet mistaken point about early Black Sabbath is the "downtuned" guitar. The fact is that both the first album and Paranoid are in standard tuning. While there was some experimentation live in this respect, it wasn't until Master Of Reality that Iommi downtuned. The difference in Sabbath was more about approach, feel and content. It was also a lot about what they chose not to play.

I definitely see some of the beginnings of "heavy metal" in the first Zep album. The problem is that it is still tied pretty firmly to a sound not too distant from Cream and Jeff Beck Group. And it doesn't help that the most "metal" sounding song on the album is "Dazed And Confused." No matter how great it is, this was not an original composition. It doesn't matter where they took it and I know much of it sounds more like the Yardbirds version than Jake Holmes, but whatever ... it's a cover in the end. A great cover.

So there were murmurings from Led Zeppelin, Blue Cheer, The Who, Hendrix, Cream ... all of these people and more. But Sabbath were the ones who defined what became "heavy metal" in the end. Look at it this way, I can guarantee that in a poll about who was the most influential on heavy metal amongst heavy metal musicians, Sabbath would run away with the top spot and it would be a landslide. That has to count for something no matter how much people caught up in ten zillion little musical "categories" choose to over dissect.

[ronmac]

I wasn't calling those Beatles songs "metal." Heavy, yes.

Ah, my mistake.

[ronmac]

I would say that Iron Butterfly created a certain vibe that Sabbath used in some songs.

EDIT: I'm not suggesting BS borrowed it. But there's a creepy vibe that both bands dabbled with. Iron Butterfly was certainly more psychedelic.

[JIF]

I really have no problem acknowledging that Black Sabbath (1969) was YEAR ONE, but all those other groups, and even some psychedlic groups from the Summer Of Love in SF are part of that history too.

Didn't Black Sabbath's debut come out in 1970? Were they still called Earth in '69?

[Trane]

A commonly repeated yet mistaken point about early Black Sabbath is the "downtuned" guitar. The fact is that both the first album and Paranoid are in standard tuning. While there was some experimentation live in this respect, it wasn't until Master Of Reality that Iommi downtuned. The difference in Sabbath was more about approach, feel and content. It was also a lot about what they chose not to play.

Interesting... And if true (which I don't doubt), then this might explain why I suddendly don't like Sab nearly as much as before from MoR onwards

But from what I've read (though I'd say that Classic Rock mag is a very "iffy" source >> read not-so-trustworthy), Iommi had developped the downtuning because of his missing fingertips and his home-made protheses experiments as a follow-up after he lost them tips in a steel mill accident.... And this accident would date from the mid-to-later 60's.

[JeffCarney]

Interesting... And if true (which I don't doubt), then this might explain why I suddendly don't like Sab nearly as much as before from MoR onwards.

Technical Ecstasy and Never Say Die! are also in standard tuning. Your reasons for thinking there was a "decline" after Paranoid are not something I would personally try to figure out, but given that half of the original eight albums are in standard tuning, "blaming" it on downtuning would seem an epic stretch to say the least.

And even on the albums where downtuning was employed, not every track was done in that manner.

But from what I've read (though I'd say that Classic Rock mag is a very "iffy" source >> read not-so-trustworthy), Iommi had developped the downtuning because of his missing fingertips and his home-made protheses experiments as a follow-up after he lost them tips in a steel mill accident.... And this accident would date from the mid-to-later 60's.

This story is repeated all the time, but as I say, the first two albums are in standard tuning. The story typically just doesn't get into enough details about when the downtuning started, but while he did experiment with it live (half-step at first), the first two albums are not downtuned. Period.