From: m38853v@saha.hut.fi (Matti Varis)
Newsgroups: alt.rock-n-roll.metal
Subject: Re: Good vs. Bad Mellower Music
Date: 27 Jan 93 09:43:11 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <0096725C.AE804D00@vms.csd.mu.edu> 5ea8manchest@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>It has come to my attention that many people who like glam "metal" bands and
>the like (such as this Bon Jovi is as good as Sabbath character) think that
>true head-bangers can only appreciate music that is monotonously heavy and
>loud.  This is often not true.  Bands like Bon Jovi aren't crap because
>they're mellower, but because they lack innovation, creativity, and passion. . .  they are, in a word, commercialized generic crap. this obviously also
>applies to Warrant, Skid Row, Ugly Kid Joe, and other countless obvious
>others. On the other hand, a lot of DM is also uninteresting and generic
>in its own way; about 80% of it is not worth listening to, though if forced
>I'd rather listen to it than glam stuff.  Anyway, just to prove that
>true headbangers who are into kick-ass stuff like Entombed, old >Trouble,
>Helmet, Cathedral, old Black Sabbath, Black Flag, etc. do not pan
>everything simply for being non face-smashing, here is a list of groups
>who are not mind-numbing DM but are still worthy of respect:
>King's X, Masters of Reality, Thin Lizzy, old Bad Company, mellower Zep
>and Deep Purple, some Golden earring, Pink Floyd, Cream and Clapton,
>old ted Nugent, BOC (some of it, anyway), Steppenwolf, 24-7 Spyz (though
>some of it is near face-smashing), King Crimson (if one considers thyem rock),
>old Rush, The Call (I'm sure I'll hear it for this one<), UFO, some old
>Christian rock like old Jerusalem (e.g. Volume II and Warrior) and most
>Rez Band stuff (though some of their material is admittedly crappy),
>Hawkwind, and Queen.  These bands could qualify as lighter heavy metal, 
>but they are not glam and therefore even people who do not like them will
>not criticze them with any regularity for being "poser," "sell-outs," or
>the like.  They play with passion and creativity, and this is why they
>are commendable.  This cannot be said for Bon Jovi, Def Leppard, and
>the like.  (Let me add old Yes and old Kansas, along with rainbow, to my
>"respected" list).  Eric M.  I would like to get some responses on this.

Yeah! I totally agree with you! (With the exception of Skid Row being 
commercialized generic crap. Perhaps they're not very original, but they
surely got some musical talent and passion. There are still countless
others in the same category with Bon Jovi.) And I have few additions
on the "respected" list: old Jethro Tull and Uriah Heep, The Who,
Jimi Hendrix, Neil Young, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Blackfoot, old Fleetwood Mac 
and Aerosimth. 
These are all bands who have been at their best in between a time period
from late sixties to early eighties, when hard rock and metal were born.
There are also many bands I respect who have dominated earlier than that, 
but who are not really even hard rock, so I left them out.

I've also noticed that there are people who consider themselves as true 
headbangers, who only listen to headbanging music. Even if it's absolute 
crap, but it's heavy and loud, they seem to be liking it. And they ignore 
all non-metal music (even those "respected" bands) only because it 
simply is not metal.
Of course this is only a matter of opinion, you should listen to
anything you like. But I don't see very much difference between these 
headbangers and those disco-poppers who listen to top-20 crap, only because
everybody else seems to be listening to it.

The above is of course all IMHO, so try avoid flaming, but feel free to
comment.

.

Matti K. Varis, m38853v@saha.hut.fi, Helsinki University Of Technology, Finland

Frozen world outside, Made by Foolish pride 
(Armored Saint/Aftermath)