"The Roots of Metal" Project

Given that we've always positioned our brand as being academic, I've been thinking for some time that we should start to take more of an educational angle. As a part of that (& much like Ben & I were doing with our original Metal Academy podcast), I think it's very important that we provide our members with somewhat of a user's guide to the history of metal so I've been wondering how we might contribute to that. As a first step, I thought it might be fun for us all to collaboratively collate a list of the first ten genuine metal releases ever. I'm not suggesting that we all simply send in lists here though. I'd like us to take an in-depth look at each release & what makes it metal or not which will take some time but give us the most comprehensive result. I'd also like to do it in a controlled fashion so I don't want to do it with multiple genres at once. Let's just go with this thread to begin with & see how we go at developing our first chronological list.

In order to get this moving we'll first need to define some parameters around what percentage of a release needs to qualify as legitimate metal for that release to be deemed to be a metal release. I'm open to ideas on that but I think 40% is a pretty fair line of delineation. When there isn't a genre that reaches 40% of a release then it'd need to be the major genre for that release. Thoughts?

Then, once we've defined that, I'd like everyone to submit their nominations for the very first metal release so as to give us a short list of where to start. Once that's been defined we can start our analysis of each release to determine which way we'll go as a collective membership group.

Sound good? I think it sounds fun anyway. Here's your homework:

1. What percentage needs to be metal to qualify as a metal release?

2. What do you think is the ground zero release for metal?

An interesting idea Daniel, although I suspect a number of "heated debates" may ensue. I have quite a big interest in late-60's, early-70's heavy psych and hard rock, so may have something to contribute. I have a list on RYM of albums that I think contributed to the evolution of heavy metal, from The Sonics 1965 album, "Here Are The Sonics!!!" right up to Maiden's 1980 debut.

I've already been outspoken about how I consider Deep Purple in Rock to the the bare standard for the heavy metal subgenre, as there are some classic "metal" albums that are indeed too light to call metal for me, notably Sad Wings of Destiny and Never Turn Your Back on a Friend.  Another bare minimum IMO is Under Lock and Key.

As for percentages, I reiterate a previous statement that the bare minimum should be 50%.

Having said this, places like this are so personal in the collaborative sense that I largely don't care what the final consensus is as long as I keep that Deep Purple album on my top 100.

So, are you in or are you out Rex? I don't want people coming into this exercise with agendas as that defeats the purpose. You're free to do whatever you want with your own lists though so I don't know why that should come into it. The fun part is the process more than the outcome & people are encouraged to challenge the status quo in the interest of healthy discussion but majority will rule at the end of the day. Everyone will be entitled to state their cases prior to reaching that outcome though. Where there are initially mixed feelings on the validity of a particular release, we'll examine it track by track as a group in order to come to an agreed membership consensus. Anyway, are you nominating "Deep Purple In Rock" for consideration as the very first metal release?

Personally, I like to have the extra 10% flexibility for releases where the most important songs are the metal ones but where metal doesn't quite make up half the album. 30% definitely doesn't seem like enough to me but I'm OK with 40%. What do the rest of you think is a fair cut-off point for this exercise?

I'm cool with the 40% cut.  Like I said, it's not the biggest issue to me.  So I'll nominate In Rock, as it's a very early album that had a big say in metal's development.  Count me in.  I'll even chip in to help write paragraphs or even articles if you need me to, as I enjoy that.

There's only one place to start for me and that is Black Sabbath. The S/T was released almost four months earlier than In Rock, on 13th Feb 1970, so that is my nomination for the first true metal album. Side one especially is where it's really at. I'm guessing Tony Iommi's forced downtuning helped, but that's where I first hear heavy psych morphing into true metal.

Blue Cheer's Vincebus Eruptum is often quoted by some, but I don't buy it. That one is still heavy psych for me. High Tide's Sea Shanties is another, but again, I don't hear enough true metal there.

There's only one place to start for me and that is Black Sabbath. The S/T was released almost four months earlier than In Rock, on 13th Feb 1970, so that is my nomination for the first true metal album. Side one especially is where it's really at. I'm guessing Tony Iommi's forced downtuning helped, but that's where I first hear heavy psych morphing into true metal.

Blue Cheer's Vincebus Eruptum is often quoted by some, but I don't buy it. That one is still heavy psych for me. High Tide's Sea Shanties is another, but again, I don't hear enough true metal there.

I just mean to nominate it as a bare minimum standard for what heavy metal was back then and may be now.  The Sabbath debut is definitely the beginning of metal, but it's so heavy even by today's standards that it's not much of a bare minimum, but more like the fine line between heavy metal and traditional doom.

Other albums we should EXCLUDE include the whole Zeppelin catalog.  They are easily my favorite band, but they only had a handful of songs that to me would qualify as early metal, and those handfuls are rarely even on the same album.  In other words, we have to be careful about which early albums qualify as "heavy metal" and "proto-metal."

I'll give my vote to Black Sabbath's debut as ground zero for metal. Half of the tracklisting wasn't metal but all of the most important tracks were clearly metal as fuck so it certainly qualifies in my opinion.

Deep Purple had a few albums before "In Rock" Rex. Is "In Rock" the only one of their first four that you consider to be metal or would you like us to consider any of those earlier releases? I completely agree with you on Led Zeppelin. The greatest hard rock band that's ever lived but certainly not a metal band.

Andi, Morpheus, Ben, Vinny, Saxy, Xephyr, SilentScream, etc? Would any of you like to be involved in this exercise?

There's only one place to start for me and that is Black Sabbath. The S/T was released almost four months earlier than In Rock, on 13th Feb 1970, so that is my nomination for the first true metal album. Side one especially is where it's really at. I'm guessing Tony Iommi's forced downtuning helped, but that's where I first hear heavy psych morphing into true metal.

Blue Cheer's Vincebus Eruptum is often quoted by some, but I don't buy it. That one is still heavy psych for me. High Tide's Sea Shanties is another, but again, I don't hear enough true metal there.

I just mean to nominate it as a bare minimum standard for what heavy metal was back then and may be now.  The Sabbath debut is definitely the beginning of metal, but it's so heavy even by today's standards that it's not much of a bare minimum, but more like the fine line between heavy metal and traditional doom.

Other albums we should EXCLUDE include the whole Zeppelin catalog.  They are easily my favorite band, but they only had a handful of songs that to me would qualify as early metal, and those handfuls are rarely even on the same album.  In other words, we have to be careful about which early albums qualify as "heavy metal" and "proto-metal."

I agree Rex. Much as I love Zeppelin (not as much as I did back in the day, admittedly), they certainly aren't a metal act, the odd track such as Communication Breakdown and Immigrant Song aside. That bassline to Dazed & Confused sounds awfully doomy to me, though.

Just a thought, although it wasn't released until 2005 I think, would members count Bedemon's Child of Darkness as an early (if not the earliest) trad doom album? The oldest material was recorded in '73. They later went on to become Death Row and then Pentagram, for anyone not familiar with the album.

Good question Sonny & that sort of thing was something I pondered over yesterday when considering a release like Motorhead's "On Parole" which was technically finished in 1976 but wasn't released until 1979. Personally, I think if we're to keep things historically accurate we have to take each release on its actual release date. I'm certainly open to going the other way if that was the consensus though.

I'd like to get at least five of us contributing to this exercise to make it valid so hopefully a few more members put their hand up today.

Good question Sonny & that sort of thing was something I pondered over yesterday when considering a release like Motorhead's "On Parole" which was technically finished in 1976 but wasn't released until 1979. Personally, I think if we're to keep things historically accurate we have to take each release on its actual release date. I'm certainly open to going the other way if that was the consensus though.

I'd like to get at least five of us contributing to this exercise to make it valid so hopefully a few more members put their hand up today.

I don't see any problem attaching the actual release date to the entry on the official list as long as we mark it as something like "archival" the way RYM does, or at least write in its entry slot that it was recorded long before and released later.  However, this leads to another question: if it was all released later, how much does it contribute to the genre back then, assuming it was ever heard at all?

However, this leads to another question: if it was all released later, how much does it contribute to the genre back then, assuming it was ever heard at all?

That's entirely my point actually. The intention behind this exercise is to give people a road map of the releases that built the scene. I don't think you can say that archival releases have had much of an impact in the majority of cases. This also leads into the question of when a release is popular enough to be relevant too but I don't think that'll be an issue for some time yet so it's a conversation for another day.

However, this leads to another question: if it was all released later, how much does it contribute to the genre back then, assuming it was ever heard at all?

That's entirely my point actually. The intention behind this exercise is to give people a road map of the releases that built the scene. I don't think you can say that archival releases have had much of an impact in the majority of cases. This also leads into the question of when a release is popular enough to be relevant too but I don't think that'll be an issue for some time yet so it's a conversation for another day.

We should really just stick to the bare essentials of popularity for the early stages of the scene itself.  A good example would be how Deathcrush helped skyrocket the popularity of black metal, which is an obvious one.

However, this leads to another question: if it was all released later, how much does it contribute to the genre back then, assuming it was ever heard at all?

That's entirely my point actually. The intention behind this exercise is to give people a road map of the releases that built the scene. I don't think you can say that archival releases have had much of an impact in the majority of cases. This also leads into the question of when a release is popular enough to be relevant too but I don't think that'll be an issue for some time yet so it's a conversation for another day.

I raised this particular release as a case in point because, although it wasn't released until much later, the material was the basis for the evolution of Death Row and Pentagram and was also available as a bootleg long before it's official 2005 release  and is often name-checked by many other doom metal practitioners as an early influence.

I guess that's not really relevant to a project to discover the earliest actual releases, but I think it is interesting as a discussion point regarding the development of metal, and especially doom metal, nonetheless.

I'm not convinced of the metal pedigree of these few suggestions, but they are probably worth discussing:

Sir Lord Baltimore - Kingdom Come

Flower Travellin' Band - Satori

Budgie - S/T

Ursa Major - S/T

Icecross - S/T

Although Sabbath were knocking true metal albums out left right and centre while all these were being released, so most of the first ten true metal albums will be from the Brummie foursome I reckon.

Three albums of 1970 are tagged as metal on RYM: Sabbath, Paranoid and Kingdom Come.  Using this chart here and adjusting the years through the 70's and the early 80's, we can have a clearer description of which albums to look through in terms of development.

https://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album,ep,mixtape/1970/g:metal/

This will also take into account extended plays, just in case we miss something small.

I'll give my vote to Black Sabbath's debut as ground zero for metal. Half of the tracklisting wasn't metal but all of the most important tracks were clearly metal as fuck so it certainly qualifies in my opinion.

Deep Purple had a few albums before "In Rock" Rex. Is "In Rock" the only one of their first four that you consider to be metal or would you like us to consider any of those earlier releases? I completely agree with you on Led Zeppelin. The greatest hard rock band that's ever lived but certainly not a metal band.

Andi, Morpheus, Ben, Vinny, Saxy, Xephyr, SilentScream, etc? Would any of you like to be involved in this exercise?

Not for me thank you Daniel.

Deep Purple had a few albums before "In Rock" Rex. Is "In Rock" the only one of their first four that you consider to be metal or would you like us to consider any of those earlier releases? I completely agree with you on Led Zeppelin. The greatest hard rock band that's ever lived but certainly not a metal band.

Like I mentioned, that's the only one from DP's early works that I consider a metal album.

I'll give my vote to Black Sabbath's debut as ground zero for metal. Half of the tracklisting wasn't metal but all of the most important tracks were clearly metal as fuck so it certainly qualifies in my opinion.

Deep Purple had a few albums before "In Rock" Rex. Is "In Rock" the only one of their first four that you consider to be metal or would you like us to consider any of those earlier releases? I completely agree with you on Led Zeppelin. The greatest hard rock band that's ever lived but certainly not a metal band.

Andi, Morpheus, Ben, Vinny, Saxy, Xephyr, SilentScream, etc? Would any of you like to be involved in this exercise?

I'm busy with a couple reviewing projects that I have planned, but this looks like an interesting exercise I might consider doing.

In Rock definitely deserves some talk. It very definitely has a metal sound to it, but because they're more of a hard rock band overall, that tends to get dismissed. It has an unusual sound, but hey, so does Black Sabbath's debut.

Lucifer's Friend's debut is cited as an example sometimes, but outside of their song Ride the Sky I don't really see it. It should probably be added for completionist's sake if nothing else. Looking at my list of chronological metal albums from M-A, I see Buffalo, Night Sun, Tarkus and Bang. No idea about any of those yet, I haven't been listening to much this past month because I got sick.

As to the demo question, I'd just like to point out that even back in the day, you had some bands like Hellhammer who never released an actual album who were more well known than those who did.

It looks like it might be just the four of us gents i.e. myself, Sonny, Rex & Morpheus. Perhaps Andi might join us too. It's also looking like Black Sabbath's self-titled debut album is the unanimous nomination as release number one for metal music. In order to set the scene for some interesting discussions moving forwards, I'd like to suggest that we all keep an open mind & do our due diligence before accepting that position. I'm proposing that we examine each track individually & come up with a position on how much of the album is actually metal &, if so, what subgenre it should rightfully fall under. Let's not simply take what other ill-informed sites have to say on the matter. We're better than that. Let's start with the highly celebrated opening track "Black Sabbath". Is it traditional doom metal, conventional doom metal, heavy metal, heavy pysch, hard rock. etc.? Perhaps something else I haven't mentioned? What do you think is the predominant sound there?

If anyone considers it light for doom metal, that's just because of the time period.  The whole point of this song is soul-crushing guitars drowning to sadness and despair.  That's doom metal in a nutshell.  It doesn't even steer into any hard rock or real levels of psych until the last two minutes.  Until the last two minutes, the psych is faint

My vote goes to conventional doom metal.

I completely agree that "Black Sabbath" is a metal track & should have a doom metal tag of some description. I'd argue that it's not just the last 1:40 that represent the traditional doom metal sound though. The clean parts at the start offer both a deep blues & a psychedelic components on top of being extraordinarily doomy. If you've ever gotten extremely stoned to it then you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. The faster crescendo at the end also accounts for a good 30% of the song so I'm gonna go with a traditional doom metal tag but it doesn't make all that much difference in the grand scheme of things given that Metal Academy doesn't differentiate between traditional & conventional doom metal sounds.

Sonny, Morpheus? Thoughts on this? Feel free to disagree.

I completely agree that "Black Sabbath" is a metal track & should have a doom metal tag of some description. I'd argue that it's not just the last 1:40 that represent the traditional doom metal sound though.

I think you either misread my post or mistyped yours.  I said the last two minutes doesn't really represent doom at all.