What is Heavy Metal?

Robert Crowther Mar 2024

Following links I waded into the Wikipedia article on Heavy Metal. Perhaps, given it’s subject and conclusions, it’s appropriate that this article is grotesque? The article is thousands of words that spiral round minor observations and sociological pools. In one section the article talks about T‐shirt logos. Which is kinda like telling me the color of a can‐opener without telling me it can open cans. Next to none of it works as definition.

If we follow the article—and this is my filtering so feel free to argue—Heavy Metal,

Sociology‐wise, the article says Heavy Metal is made by and for young white blokes with mental disturbance. Style‐wise, Heavy Metal requires long hair.

You can argue about how I’ve filtered, but if you follow then the above will function as a pop description. As definition, it’s picking wreckage from the street. More questions than answers—what are the drums for, what is special about guitars, what has loud got to do with anything? And as definition it generates unlikely possibilities. If I amplify a Bluegrass performance—which will have base chords played fast—is that Heavy Metal? Or will converting the lyric to a story about elves do the job?

The article also fails to reflect audience beliefs. A huge and bizarre collection of bands are mentioned, many of which would never pass for a Metalhead. Even allowing for subcultures and influence, since when did anyone call the likes of The Stooges, Alice Cooper, Jane’s Addiction or Nine Inch Nails as Heavy Metal? And finally musicians will disagree. The article contains numerous references to a band called Motörhead. Motörhead’s main man, Lemmy, repeatedly grumbled they were not Heavy Metal,

We were not heavy metal. We were a rock ‘n’ roll band. Still are. Everyone always describes us as heavy metal, even when I tell them otherwise. Why won’t people listen?

A fact to back up—people who own music by Motörhead are likely to own albums by Budgie or Thin Lizzy, but not Black Sabbath. Or, a story… a short‐lived TV production once visited Lemmy to look at his record collection. The interviewer pulled a record from Lemmy’s collection. With the incredulity of a disillusion journalist‐hipster, he asked, “The Eagles?” Lemmy stared at him, then grated back, “Good musicians. Good music”.

I’m not in the way of delving this muddle, and the sociology in the article is for the rodents. So here it is, my way. If I mention Heavy Metal, it means,

A few qualifications. In the wider scope of a Heavy Metal performance, a riff may be further shaped by movement usually provided by a singer. The rhythmic drag and release was described by Joe Carducci as the ‘Heavy’ sludge of some Blues music when it meets the uptempo of the city, both in tension. For the variations in the unison, as Joe Carducci noted, the guitar may break off for solo statement or, as Joe Carducci described the playing of Geezer Butler in Black Sabbath, the bass may ‘roam in the night’.

My approach has it’s downs—I don’t mention volume. In the Sixties, volume was important for a mundane reason—P.A. was not good and audiences were expanding. No musical reason. However, volume was important musically because it produces sustain, introduces harmonics and ties in with drum hits. This creates new possibilities for tension/release and harmonic density. People were chasing these ideas long before Heavy Metal, hear for example work by Bo Diddley or Paul Burlison. The article mentions some of the musical effect, but then fails to address the interaction between the two. Public Address systems needed to grow as the audience grew. Much as the Blues artists in Chicago adjusted their performances for rowdy urban bar‐rooms, rock bands adjusted to the new Public Address systems. Yet I can agree, as this happened, new possibilities of feedback and complexity became available. So the possibilities for musical effect also drove the escalation of sound‐system size.

So why don’t I mention volume? Well, as the Eighties Shoegaze and Soundscaping musics—the guitar effects crew—demonstrated, these effects could be created by the new‐arriving electronics and computer chips. Nowadays, a ukulele can be used to produce a ‘dirty’ sound at noise levels no louder than a toaster. The article’s claim that Heavy Metal ‘’needs’ loudness is old. While I wouldn’t disagree that an in‐concert experience of loud music, usually alcohol‐fueled, is cathartic, it’s a cultural effect. Not a musical primary. Since loudness is not listed, this definition allows the possibility of near‐acoustic Heavy Metal. ‘Battle of Evermore’ and ‘Black Country Woman’ by Led Zeppelin verge on Heavy Metal and, come to that, so it goes with the Neil Young groups and ‘Shots’ or ‘My My, Hey Hey (Out of the Blue)’. Oh Well.

On the other hand, this definition moves forward. Lovely riff, legendary, but ‘Smoke on the Water’ doesn’t play through, and the Deep Purple rithm is sharp and uptempo, so not Heavy Metal. Neither is anything by Motörhead—for all the riffs, the song leads and no sludge… salute you, Lemmy. But The Experience and ‘Purple Haze’, or Black Sabbath and ‘Snowblind’, or Led Zeppelin and ‘Whole Lotta Love’ are Heavy Metal. Ah, and Cream were, when using the through‐moving bass riffs, close to Heavy Metal. This is how audiences and musicians talk about these older bands.

The definition also means I can talk about ‘Heavy’ music which is not Heavy Metal. Have you heard work by Atomic Rooster or High Tide; or one‐offs like The Open Mind and ‘Magic Potion’, Blossom Toes and ‘Peace Lovin’ Man’ or The Move and ‘Don’t Make my Baby Blue’? Musicians used to talk about this you know (and I believe there would still be room).

You arguing? Go ahead. It’s a free world.

References

2005 documentary on Heavy Metal. I havn’t seen it,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal%3A_A_Headbanger's_Journey

Contradicting the above, the Metal Family Tree from the above documentary,

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Metal_Genealogy.jpg