|
Unsung Forum » Why I prefer Van Halen to Radiohead |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
GeeZa 137 posts |
May 06, 2008, 17:30
|
||
|
IanB wrote: [NWOBHM was just as much a genuine national grass roots movement as Punk or "New Wave". Probably more so and just as revolutionary in the cutting of HM away from the Blues and Prog roots. Punk was much more of a media construct. The young metal bands got very little coverage until it was nearly all over and Sounds got on the bandwagon. Absolutely. There was/is a very good set of gig reviews from a guy who followed very early Maiden around in the 70s and witnessed the birth of NWOBHM and in parallel punk. It was interesting how the reality of this movement was very "Bad News" in that it was battered transit vans full of hairy motherfuckers unloading Marshalls into grim pubs around the arsehole ends of the East End, usually playing to five drunks and a dog. Ever been to Maryland at the bottom of Leytonstone High Road? It's a dive now so I bet the gigging pubs around those areas weren't much better back then. Punk was seen as a "West" thing in London, all the media attention and links with fashion and politics inflated this sense of something not everyone could identify with. NWOBHM on the other hand was just plain heads-down working-class music, with a work-and-music ethic and fan relationship that punk didn't really have for the most part. When Maiden disappeared for a year or so in the 70s people assumed they were fucked, but they stubbornly came back with Di'Anno and the rest is history. Like most metal, it's (ongoing) influence is generally ignored out of embarrassment.
|
|||
IanB 6761 posts |
Edited May 06, 2008, 18:02
May 06, 2008, 17:56
|
||
|
GeeZa wrote: IanB wrote: [NWOBHM was just as much a genuine national grass roots movement as Punk or "New Wave". Probably more so and just as revolutionary in the cutting of HM away from the Blues and Prog roots. Punk was much more of a media construct. The young metal bands got very little coverage until it was nearly all over and Sounds got on the bandwagon. Absolutely. There was/is a very good set of gig reviews from a guy who followed very early Maiden around in the 70s and witnessed the birth of NWOBHM and in parallel punk. It was interesting how the reality of this movement was very "Bad News" in that it was battered transit vans full of hairy motherfuckers unloading Marshalls into grim pubs around the arsehole ends of the East End, usually playing to five drunks and a dog. Ever been to Maryland at the bottom of Leytonstone High Road? It's a dive now so I bet the gigging pubs around those areas weren't much better back then. Punk was seen as a "West" thing in London, all the media attention and links with fashion and politics inflated this sense of something not everyone could identify with. NWOBHM on the other hand was just plain heads-down working-class music, with a work-and-music ethic and fan relationship that punk didn't really have for the most part. When Maiden disappeared for a year or so in the 70s people assumed they were fucked, but they stubbornly came back with Di'Anno and the rest is history. Like most metal, it's (ongoing) influence is generally ignored out of embarrassment. Ah Leytonstone. Sweet memories. I used to rehearse on and off with a half assed Punk band in the rehearsal studio under the railway arches (this would be 78 ish) and one time when auditioning for guitar players this local lad turned up with a Jeff Beck hair cut and an SG and just shredded the thing. It was the first time I had heard someone play up close with punk energy and metal chops. Made all that Shelley / Diggle type stuff we were doing sound a bit thin. We hit it off big time but my band mates weren't having any of this guitar army stuff. Those rehearsal rooms were chocca with bands just as you describe - hair, leathers, cider, Rothmans, rusty transit van out the front, serious volume. The local pubs were a bit on the grim side but then London in the 70s was a bit like that.
|
|||
|
keith a 9574 posts |
May 06, 2008, 18:02
|
||
|
I liked Girlschool - they were one of the few bands associated with rawk at that time that I did like. But I don't think they, or any of the others, are 'important'. They were fun though! Going off on a tangent in reply to a few messages here... The NWOBHM (which I never classed Girlschool as TBH) scene might have spawned lots of successful bands who sold far more records than The Ramones ever did, but it was of no cultural importance whatsover as far as i'm concerned. Surely it was looking back, not forward - Punk may have had its roots in the early Who, etc, but ultimately we'd not seen its like before, and it was a movement which then led to some of the most interesting music ever over the next few years. What legacy did NWOBHM leave other than curly perms and overblown videos? I don't get this idea that it was 'working class' and therefore of more merit than something which isn't. It's surely about whether something is any good or not? But as we're on the subject, there seems to be this idea that punk was just some arty middle class thing. That's Malcolm revisionism for ya! The punks I knew were working class, and so were most of the early punk bands. End of. The people I knew who hated NWOBHM weren't being middle class elitists. They came from ordinary backgrounds and had something between their ears, and just thought it was brain dead shite that appealed to spotty teenagers who were too young to have been around when Zep and Sabbath had been around. As far as I'm concerned Saxon and Def Leppard (regardless of the fact they released a record themselves which wasn't so much of a deal by then) were to the likes of Sabbath what The Exploited were to the Pistols. TOO LATE! I don't think we should confuse importance with commercial success. Otherwise we'd be saying that Engleburt Humperdink is more important than a band like The Velvet Underground who sold bugger all!
|
|||
Vybik Jon 7720 posts |
May 06, 2008, 18:12
|
||
|
keith a wrote: Engleburt Humperdink is more important than The Velvet Underground That's an outrageous claim! Justify yourself!!
|
|||
|
machineryelf 3681 posts |
Edited May 06, 2008, 18:27
May 06, 2008, 18:19
|
||
|
Keith A said ''The punks I knew were working class'' I found the complete oppisite, all the punks round our way were elitist middle class and small minded to the nth degree. My early dislike of punk was fuelled by their horrible attitude and blinkered vision that anything that didn't fit the punk mould was rubbish, this included The Ramones, Amon Duul 2 & the MC5. luckily me & my mates got on with digging Iron Maiden and whatever else tickled our fancies new or old. Personally I find most music fans have pretty blinkered vision when it comes to range of musical tastes but the late 70s/early 80s seemed to bring out the worst in people. Keith A said''The NWOBHM (which I never classed Girlschool as TBH) scene might have spawned lots of successful bands who sold far more records than The Ramones ever did, but it was of no cultural importance whatsover as far as i'm concerned. '' It did give Motorhead a leg up, and for that matter AC/DC, maybe not your idea of a good thing but probably of cultural import, swathes of underground rock from Black Flag, Melvins, Stupids, Napalm Death to Sunno))) all have their roots somewhere in the NWOBHM , the musical landscape today would be radically different if Maiden , Leppard et al had gone the same way as Nutz or Quartz
|
|||
|
IanB 6761 posts |
Edited May 06, 2008, 18:22
May 06, 2008, 18:20
|
||
|
keith a wrote: I don't think we should confuse importance with commercial success. Otherwise we'd be saying that Engleburt Humperdink is more important than a band like The Velvet Underground who sold bugger all! Agreed. Though some people will beg to differ. Not me I hasten to add. We should also not confuse press coverage (good or bad) with real influence (or otherwise). Importance is always relative to personal taste. Influence, measured by what you inspire others to create, is a more reliable standard of cultural impact. There is no greater influence than inspiring someone to go out and form a band. It's a much higher compliment to a band than a stack of good reviews from the likes of the NME imho. Which is where we came in I think.
|
|||
|
machineryelf 3681 posts |
May 06, 2008, 18:31
|
||
DLRs book is an excellent read, and is an indicator of why Van Halen are good and Motley Crue are terrible. Crazy from the Heat is a great read and makes you think I'd like to meet DLR, The Dirt is a great read and makes you think if i ever end up in the same room as the Crue I will shower for a week afterwards.
|
|||
|
GeeZa 137 posts |
May 06, 2008, 18:38
|
||
Excellent tale. :-)
|
|||
|
machineryelf 3681 posts |
May 06, 2008, 18:39
|
||
|
Nutz were still in thrall to Zeppelin imho, see Lonestar [who i still love] and Quartz who were more Sabbathy. Maiden, Leppard, Samson etc etcbroke away from metals adherence to the Zep template as did Van Halen, and the often overlooked Judas Priest [inventors of thrash? changed the face of music? more influential than Magazine?], they also were free of the Stones influence[ more so than many punks bands imho] of course this is reflected in the extremely limited press coverage of the Stones & Zep these days :-)
|
|||
|
IanB 6761 posts |
Edited May 06, 2008, 19:22
May 06, 2008, 19:16
|
||
|
machineryelf wrote: Nutz were still in thrall to Zeppelin imho, see Lonestar [who i still love] and Quartz who were more Sabbathy. Maiden, Leppard, Samson etc etcbroke away from metals adherence to the Zep template as did Van Halen, and the often overlooked Judas Priest [inventors of thrash? changed the face of music? more influential than Magazine?], they also were free of the Stones influence[ more so than many punks bands imho] of course this is reflected in the extremely limited press coverage of the Stones & Zep these days :-) What you say is true. Lone Star were really special live. The first album still sounds pretty good too. The C90 copy I have of Firing On All Six is all but unlistenable. I remember Nutz being much more aggressive live than the records. Which weren't very good. They weren't Blues in that Purple / Zep way you describe and they weren't doing proggy metal like LS either but no they weren't Judas Priest that's for sure. Punk owed a fair bit to the Who and Stones (as did most of the Nuggets bands) and the Kinks too in terms of the two note fuzztone guitar chords. More than they cared to own up to at any rate but you only have to look at the ubiquity of the Keef haircut to see that!
|
| Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| Unsung Forum Index | |
