Julian Cope presents Head Heritage | Unsung Forum | Is/Are Zeppelin Really That Good? Maybe Sabbath...

Mule

588 posts

Re: Is Zeppelin Really That Good? Maybe Sabbath...

Dec 06, 2007, 13:25

redbarchetta wrote:

Sabbath win hands down for me every time. I don't see them as heavy metal per se - more like amped pschedelic rock with distortion pedals.

Now there's a debate! I agree, I wouldn't call Sabs heavy metal. In fact, I'd argue that heavy metal as a genre (regardless of who first used the term and when) didn't exist until the New Wave Of British Heavy Metal. I'm well aware that the phrase might well have been used occasionally by reviewers, just like any other phrase. But I don't believe it can be legitimately applied to any band pre-NWOBHM.

I recall as a 12-year-old asking my brothers, "So are Led Zeppelin hard rock or heavy rock?" - because they were the only terms we used. I think - going a bit academic here, I apologise - heavy metal might only be applied more properly to those emulating pre-punk rock, with the benefit of the hindsight of punk.

Anyway, that's enough bollocks from me! I can sense people nodding off!

In reply to:
Re: Is Zeppelin Really That Good? Maybe Sabbath... (redbarchetta)

Replies:
Re: Is Zeppelin Really That Good? Maybe Sabbath... (zphage)

Unsung Forum » Is/Are Zeppelin Really That Good? Maybe Sabbath...	Log In to post a reply

64 messages	Topic View: Flat \| Threaded