=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
Unsung Forum »
Why I prefer Van Halen to Radiohead
Log In to post a reply
78 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
IanB
IanB
6761 posts

Edited May 06, 2008, 19:22
Re: NWOBHM
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!
In reply to:
Re: NWOBHM (machineryelf)		 Replies:
Re: NWOBHM (Vybik Jon)
Topic Outline:
Unsung Forum Index