How are The Cult and Guns 'n Roses Heavy Metal?

[e-merlin]

OK, so I was listening to House of Hair on the radio yesterday, something I listen to occasionally, and good ol' Dee Snyder played songs from these respecive bands.

Now, I've never considered The Cult to be a Heavy Metal band. I think of it as somewhere between the Rolling Stones and Zep on the Rock and Roll heaviness chart. GnR goes in somewhere between Zep and Deep Purple, but nowhere near Black Sabbath.

OK, neither of these bands is Merle Haggard and the Strangers, but Metal? Nope. Not in my opinion...

[Fearnot]

Splitting hairs...

[Nick JD]

The Cult were great. Most people I knew didn't know they were English.

[castpolymer]

I saw the Cult ( who I like quite a bit ) open up for Metallica ( who I also like quite a bit ) at Red Rocks back in the early 90's. Most of the Metallica fans ( they dominated the audience ) who berated, spit and threw things at the Cult did not feel they were a metal band either.

[63dot]

I can't speak for the Cult since I have only heard one song of theirs.

Guns and Roses, love them or not, are one of metal's biggest bands ever. I prefer Metallica from those years and their take on metal, but Guns had the right mixture of metal and well, pop rock. They could go high decibel but at the same time cross swords with anybody on Billboard. They appealed better to the opposite sex and were far more accessible and radio friendly. Metallica were more the purists of the two in terms of metal and it was a little strange that these two toured together. Guns would have gone well with Poison, Motley Crue, Cinderella, Bon Jovi, Dokken, White Lion, Def Leppard, or other very accessible "hair" metal bands. I am sure if Axl Rose wanted to join a Norwegian black metal band he could do well on the vocals, but he is, and the band is who they are.

People make the mistake of thinking they weren't heavy enough, being in heavy metal magazines a lot in their heyday, but they wrote good hooks, had a solid groove, and gave Les Paul a good resurgence among guitar players. Either they didn't have the skill, or desire, to strap on superstrats, wang on Floyd Roses and play to the Mike Varney crowd of diatonic shredders. In a way, I was glad to see something different when Guns changed heavy metal, along with the likes of Bon Jovi, into song based bands vs. guitar solo based bands. That being said, I like to hear Vai or Paul Gilbert rip like the rest of them.

[Canuckcaster]

Originally Posted by castpolymer

I saw the Cult ( who I like quite a bit ) open up for Metallica ( who I also like quite a bit ) at Red Rocks back in the early 90's. Most of the Metallica fans ( they dominated the audience ) who berated, spit and threw things at the Cult did not feel they were a metal band either.

The "...And Justice For All" tour Cast? I saw the same 2 bands on that tour when I was 18. The crowd reaction was similar. I too liked both bands.

CC

[bassmantweed]

I wonder if metal means the same thing across the decades? seems like as time goes on metal gets progressively harder and you have to sing from your a**hole and sound like something choking on a pubic hair to be called metal.

[MonkeyKing]

COntext is everything -the cult came out of the landscape of the cure and culture club, funboy 3 and haircut 100 - compared to that `2nd british invasion` they WERE metal, for new wave england, and were HATED for it. Strangely, they were accepted by `alternative` fans who hated metal.
G`N`R -well, that was the great hair metal era -compared to poison, cinderella and trixter they were heavy . . . but they were pretty glam starting out, fo sho . . .
Check out `Fargo Rock City` for details on that era. I thought Mickey Rourke was going to bring it all back in the wrestler, but it looks like we`re safe for now . . .

[Colo Springs E]

I consider both of them more rock 'n roll... not metal. (and that's a good thing)

[Blue Bear]

The Cult, to me, at least are considered hard rock. Not heavy metal. They in no way sound anything close to Judas Priest or Black Sabbath or Iron Maiden. Or even Deep Purple.

[TheGoodTexan]

Originally Posted by castpolymer

I saw the Cult ( who I like quite a bit ) open up for Metallica ( who I also like quite a bit ) at Red Rocks back in the early 90's. Most of the Metallica fans ( they dominated the audience ) who berated, spit and threw things at the Cult did not feel they were a metal band either.

Same, exact, thing happened when I saw Candlebox open for Metallica. It was supposed to be Alice in Chains as the opener, but Lane went into rehab the week before and Alice had to cancel all their shows.... so Candlebox it was. They were not treated nicely at all.

Re: Metal versus hard rock... I've always found a kinship between metal and funk. Metal has to have a hard groove to it. Rock does not - Rock relies more on melodies.

And there are some examples of crossover stuff. Van Halen 1984 is certainly a pop/rock album, but the track House of Pain from that album is pure metal.

[Blue Bear]

Nothing from VH is pure metal. Sorry but that is my opinion.

[kelnet]

Originally Posted by bassmantweed

I wonder if metal means the same thing across the decades? seems like as time goes on metal gets progressively harder and you have to sing from your a**hole and sound like something choking on a pubic hair to be called metal.

Yeah, the definition of a heavy metal band has changed over the decades. Gun n Roses might not sound like early Black Sabbath, but they certainly fit the pop metal sound of the 80's. The Faces, for example, didn't sound like Bill Haley and The Comets or Elvis Presley, but they were definitely rock and roll.

[Jackson Jackson]

Originally Posted by TheGoodTexan

Re: Metal versus hard rock... I've always found a kinship between metal and funk. Metal has to have a hard groove to it. Rock does not .

Interesting perspective. I would have said the exact opposite. Case in point, Metallica started off as a metal band, but when they began to groove more they became more of a hard rock group.

[Fearnot]

Originally Posted by TheGoodTexan

Re: Metal versus hard rock... I've always found a kinship between metal and funk. Metal has to have a hard groove to it. Rock does not - Rock relies more on melodies.

'Metal' has a groove and 'rock' doesn't? That's a new one on me. Sheesh.

[Lerb21]

Originally Posted by TheGoodTexan

Re: Metal versus hard rock... I've always found a kinship between metal and funk. Metal has to have a hard groove to it. Rock does not - Rock relies more on melodies.

Uncle Ted and I agree.

[1955]

Back in the 80's I think of Metal being stuff on Headbangers Ball, Iron Maiden, Metallica, Judas Priest, etc. People who didn't like any of it, didn't know it, or thought it was satanic (charismatic types), grouped stuff like Slayer, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, (and Poison even,) together as "Heavy Metal." All the T-shirts looked menacing to the parents, with skulls and goat heads, etc.

To me at the time "metal" was stuff that didn't have that lame reverb on the drums, and everybody was from Europe and wore weird medieval boots. Torches and blood were present, and nobody was overweight.

To me the only band that is, ever was, or will be, heavy metal, is Black Sabbath. That's my story and I'm stickin to it. I did see G&R live, and they did in fact "rock."

[Nick JD]

Is this "metal"?



This is metal.



This is a bit like asking "what is country?"

[sonny wolf]

What is Metal anyways....it's just a marketing name to sell a type of music that is usually played loud with hard drumming and heavy distorted guitars with wild vocals.Where do you draw the line...who cares?Is AC/DC hard rock or metal?In 1978 they would be considered metal by many as they were one of the heaviest bands in those days.Pantera is obviously a lot heavier than AC/DC but does that mean that AC/DC lost it's 'metal' title because newer bands progressed with harder styles?

[Westerly Sunn]

Originally Posted by 63dot

I can't speak for the Cult since I have only heard one song of theirs.

Guns and Roses, love them or not, are one of metal's biggest bands ever. I prefer Metallica from those years and their take on metal, but Guns had the right mixture of metal and well, pop rock. They could go high decibel but at the same time cross swords with anybody on Billboard. They appealed better to the opposite sex and were far more accessible and radio friendly. Metallica were more the purists of the two in terms of metal and it was a little strange that these two toured together. Guns would have gone well with Poison, Motley Crue, Cinderella, Bon Jovi, Dokken, White Lion, Def Leppard, or other very accessible "hair" metal bands. I am sure if Axl Rose wanted to join a Norwegian black metal band he could do well on the vocals, but he is, and the band is who they are.

People make the mistake of thinking they weren't heavy enough, being in heavy metal magazines a lot in their heyday, but they wrote good hooks, had a solid groove, and gave Les Paul a good resurgence among guitar players. Either they didn't have the skill, or desire, to strap on superstrats, wang on Floyd Roses and play to the Mike Varney crowd of diatonic shredders. In a way, I was glad to see something different when Guns changed heavy metal, along with the likes of Bon Jovi, into song based bands vs. guitar solo based bands. That being said, I like to hear Vai or Paul Gilbert rip like the rest of them.

Everything you say is true... Which proves the OP's point.