Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BlueMeanie]

^ 'All Day' is definitely hard, but heavy metal? Old Man Going sounds like it could be a sixties version of Metallica to me. Anyway, we'll agree to dissagree. What certainly isn't heavy metal is Heartbreak Hotel!! Though I see Nelson has now edited all his posts to make nonsense of the thread.

[Kevin]

I'm finding it hard to get a clear defination of what Heavy Metal is, but most seem to agree on the following: loudness, distorted guitar, reliance on chorded riffs, a loud consistent beat  and macho lyrics.
If I were a music archeologist, digging up the bones of songs, probably the best thing to do would be to look for songs that had the most of these characteristics.
Plenty of songs are loud. And due to technology a song recorded in 1964 will never sound as loud as a song recorded in say 1968, so we have to judge them by the standrads of their day. In 1963 Twist and Shout was loud, but no one would call that proto metal. Rain is loud and has distorted guitars, but no riff or macho lyric. All of The Day is loud and has chorded riffs and macho lyric.
Dunno.

[Kevin]

Have to talk about George and his sitar. We know that at that time quite a few bands were playing around with Indian rhythms and instrumentation.
I think it's hard to decide which is more important, bands making a guitar sound like a sitar (Yardbirds) or those using a sitar to sound like a guitar (Beatles.) Or whether having a sitar (or a guitar made to sound like one) on a pop/rock record is of any real importance in the first place. It certainly wasn't the first time "exotic" instrumentation had been used on a pop record (go Rolf!) and the brief craze for the thing hardly changed the course of popular music. (again I agree that The Beatles use of the thing popularised it's use, but that's not the same thing as initiating the idea.)
Love You To could be a break through in that it is almost completely devoid of any traditional western instrumentation. Whether this is a good thing I'm not to sure. But hats off to George for having the balls to try.

[BlueMeanie]

^ As always, things are difficult to categorise. It reminds me of the scene in Back To The Future when Michael J Fox takes the stage to play guitar with that Rock n Roll band. One loud distorted guitar makes it sound like heavy metal.

Btw, shouldn't we consider 'You Really Got Me' ahead of 'All Day'?

[Kevin]

Btw, shouldn't we consider 'You Really Got Me' ahead of 'All Day'?

Damn. That's the song I meant. Oops...

[BlueMeanie]

BRING BABK THE DELETE FUNCTION. PLEASE.....

What would you like deleted?

[Kevin]

What would you like deleted?

My 02.06.44 post please (I meant to modify)

[BlueMeanie]

^ I presume you meant 12:06:44. Done. Carry on.

[The Swine]

Have to talk about George and his sitar. We know that at that time quite a few bands were playing around with Indian rhythms and instrumentation.
I think it's hard to decide which is more important, bands making a guitar sound like a sitar (Yardbirds) or those using a sitar to sound like a guitar (Beatles.) Or whether having a sitar (or a guitar made to sound like one) on a pop/rock record is of any real importance in the first place. It certainly wasn't the first time "exotic" instrumentation had been used on a pop record (go Rolf!) and the brief craze for the thing hardly changed the course of popular music. (again I agree that The Beatles use of the thing popularised it's use, but that's not the same thing as initiating the idea.)
Love You To could be a break through in that it is almost completely devoid of any traditional western instrumentation. Whether this is a good thing I'm not to sure. But hats off to George for having the balls to try.

its always stated that it was the first time it was used on a pop record (norwegian wood). im not sure though.

[Kevin]

its always stated that it was the first time it was used on a pop record (norwegian wood). im not sure though.

It seems to be, and trust me I've looked. The Yardbirds brought in an Indian chappie to play one on Heart Full Of Soul (early 65) but I've read that either he couldn't cope with the 4/4 time or the sound was too thin, so they dropped it and distorted Beck's guitar to sound like a sitar.
So it seems The Beatles were first band to release a song featuring a sitar (that sounded like a guitar) while The Yardbirds were the first to record with a sitar (though not a band member) and the first to release a song with a guitar made to sound like a sitar. Phew. Whether one is more important than the other, or either or both are important at all, escapes me.

[Mairi]

I think it's an important factor that the Beatles actually recorded with a band member. It's also important that it was the Beatles. They were the most popular band in the world at the time and their influence was enormous. If a less popular (though still great) band such as the Yardbirds were the first to actually release a sitar-tinged song, perhaps Indian music wouldn't have caught on as quickly or become so popular.