The Corroseum forum (new design under construction)

I downloaded this compilation,Its all canadian bands as the title suggests with the "moose" as a canadian stereotype.

The metal archives note for the band dagger mention this

"Despite the clothing, Dagger didn't play glam rock. They played the same branch of heavy metal as Keel did, a branch that bears the name flash metal."

Do you consider this a valid thing to call it alot of these bands sound similar to Keel and WASP and Thrasher(US), I agree it should have a different name as "Heavy Metal" is a damn broad term if you really think about it,I don't always want to hear these type of bands so I think it would be a good way to separate them from the large amount of different sounds in heavy metal.

odin wrote:I downloaded this compilation,Its all canadian bands as the title suggests with the "moose" as a canadian stereotype.

The metal archives note for the band dagger mention this

"Despite the clothing, Dagger didn't play glam rock. They played the same branch of heavy metal as Keel did, a branch that bears the name flash metal."

Do you consider this a valid thing to call it alot of these bands sound similar to Keel and WASP and Thrasher(US), I agree it should have a different name as "Heavy Metal" is a damn broad term if you really think about it,I don't always want to hear these type of bands so I think it would be a good way to separate them from the large amount of different sounds in heavy metal.

DAGGER Heavy Metal? Ha Ha. No, no way. Hard Rock with the 80s meaning of the term maybe (The kind of music that lots of greedy sellers describe as "classic metal" which is nothing more than uninspired melodic/sleazy HR). Their LP is godawful btw.

So your saying they are in metal archives because of favoritism, I've known it to happen quite a bit, fucking metal archives admins and mods add their favorites at will,some of these bands are truely metal though and thats the topic I wanted to discuss, they aren't classic heavy metal but they still count as metal such as the way WASP does.

I really don't know what's the story with all those tags/descriptions in Metal Archives. What i wanted to say is that i've seen many times bands in the style of DAGGER being described as heavy metal, something which is quite wrong for me. There are other bands as you're saying which sound similar to WASP and are considered to be heavy metal and that's reasonable. I only hope that WASP are generally considered to be heavy metal and not some kind of glam/sleaze metal hybrid.

What would you consider to be the main difference between WASP and other heavy metal bands, as they obviously don't sound like classic heavy metal or whatever else.

For me that difference isn't that obvious. Their debut album is one of the most aggressive and raw metal albums of all times. The pure wrath on "The Crimson Idol" is something you don't find easily in a HM release. The same thing can be said for the genious of "The Headless Children" which is a manifesto of Rebellion. Musically speaking, WASP were way more intense and heavy than most of the glam bands to be regarded as glam metal and there's absolutely no need to discuss about the differences between their lyric approach. The albums i mentioned stand in the same league with the classic stuff of ACCEPT and JUDAS PRIEST. Actually WASP are one of the few bands that i call "Metal with Balls". All i can say is that nothing will change my point my view for them even if the whole planet considers them as a glam and not a heavy metal band.

The more 80's bands the better on Metal Archives even if they play A.O.R Thank god they accepted STRYPER it was a band that i wondered why not yet on M-A.

Yes it sometimes makes getting info alot easier, but It sucks when you see a band on there and you expect classic heavy metal and sorely disappointed.

odin wrote:Yes it sometimes makes getting info alot easier, but It sucks when you see a band on there and you expect classic heavy metal and sorely disappointed.

Yes but here's my advice don't you rely always to what someone as a tag puts. The are other things too that makes you sense what genre a band plays(f.ex year of release,image,cover,origin,ex-members,record label etc)

sometimes,but sometimes there just isn't enough info to make that judgement.

Yes but you must admit that in recents years we discover even more underground bands and filling the blanks of even more old cult bands.Imagine that before 1999 noone really knew much about that stuff only random reviews from magazines and fanzines but they made what they could, it is not always easy to get that damn info.

For all styles of rock & metal, if I cant find it in 'Metal-Archives' I always try www.rockdetector.com & usually find the info I want...

Fucking Åmål wrote:The more 80's bands the better on Metal Archives even if they play A.O.R Thank god they accepted STRYPER it was a band that i wondered why not yet on M-A.

Its about time they were accepted. Those moderators on that site!

Makes me think of the documentary "The Decline of Western Civilization pt. 2", where all these awful glam bands refered to themselves as 'Metal'
An American phenomenon? It pisses me off to no end to have my favourite music dragged in the mud like this. WASP were true Metal to the bone imo, even if I think they never rekindled the spirit of their debut LP.

Damn, just noticed i have that Molten Moose Metal comp but I've never played it

I thought it was a hilarious film none the less,most of these bands that thought they were going to get big faded away amongst the masses of hair metal clones,The band Seduce was a real metal band in my opinion with a godly bass sound but I could never find any albums by them.