Well actually, I think you bring up a good point, and I'm going to qualify my earlier comment.

Technically speaking, Randy Rhoads was playing in Quiet Riot prior to that, and those early Japan only release albums are a lot more the L.A. hard rock sound. And then Randy brought that style of playing to Ozzy, though I think Bob Daisley was also an important component to the actual songwriting. But I think they knew the Ozzy gig was not to produce a "party album", so while some of the riffs and song ideas could have been adapted however, the final product was going to have titles like "Mr. Crowley", "Over the Mountain", "Diary of a Madman", etc.

The main riff to "I Don't Know" is pretty heavy, same with "Over the Mountain". Other stuff strays a little lighter, like "Flying High Again" and "Steal Away the Night". Though I will say the haunting build up to the heavy part of "Diary" (the song) gets me to this day! That heavy riff that finally kicks in is truly wicked. Randy was also a more melodic lead player than EVH which I think goes with the "metal" theme a little more, having studied classical guitar and all that. It's a good point of debate I think you raise.

Metallica and Korn are interesting enough to get their own reply.

Metallica has absolutely had different eras. Their 80s as you said Supercat is a great example of pretty pure and great metal. I'd argue the black album in 91 was still metal. Heavily commercialized for sure, but by far more metal than not. I'd call it metal with rock elements more than rock with metallic elements.

Load and Reload are firmly rock albums. I'd say Load has close to zero metal if any. Reload has a little more but not much, and I feel is not as strong. People called them alternative, but I really struggle to hear much alternative in either of them. They don't sound like what the alternative bands were doing, anyway. I mean, yes, some of the flavors are there in a few songs. The House that Jack Built is probably Metallica's best Alice in Chains homage. There were some very 90s guitar effects on Reload, too, and LOTS of vocal overdubs, for sure.

After the 90s, I'd call what they did a return to metal, though they allow their other influences to show, too. And it's not as good as the 80s metal lol.


Korn is a funny case because early on, I am pretty sure they absolutely did call themselves metal. I recall an interview where they described themselves as basically taking metal like Sepultura, and instead of only having the slow groovy breakdown riff being a small part, take that and make it the whole song, but do it over hip hop beats. So, boom. Korn = half time parts of thrash songs crossed with hip hop.

There was another interview where one of the guitarists was being interviewed about genres and nu metal vs. this that or the other, and he dismissed the subcategories and said "we (being the actual musicians and peers) just called it all metal. So even among the bands, the genre categories are fuzzy and fluid.

I'd call Korn nu metal more than traditional metal as they basically pioneered it, but I don't say it with derision. Instead of think it's a bastard offshoot, I think it's just another style of metal that blew up when it did.

NWOBHM sometimes strayed between what some would call metal and some would call hard rock. I think what those groups had most in common was a more "in your face" attitude, a down and dirty hard rocking band kind of vibe.

Take a contemporary NWOBHM song like this one from Tygers of Pan Tang:



Then compare to this one from Def Leppard (same year, 1980):



I think both are in the same ballpark in terms of "heaviness". But again, I think it's more the "feel" of these that makes it something different from say Van Halen for me.

I agree, but this was pretty much all on Ed at that point. He was so deep into the keyboards and he was always one to experiment with tones and gear and so you end up with stuff like 5150. Sammy will even tell you he was NOT the one telling Ed to write and record that way.

So that album comes out in 1986 as the first "post-Roth" incarnation of Van Halen, and then DLR restarts that same year with "Eat 'Em and Smile". What a study in contrasts! A young Steve Vai on guitar just tearing it up (not getting too "Zappa-esque" either) and Billy Sheehan on bass, they had a statement to make and the album is a guitar-laden hard rocker that's a total classic.

Back on early VH, as is well known, the relationship with Roth was always rocky. First off, he flat out couldn't sing, and failed his original audition for VH back before they were signed. But he did work hard to try to train his voice to be, well, "less bad" even though he never became a particularly good singer. Supposedly even VH's producer Ted Templeman thought about replacing him with Sammy even back then to record the first album (Ted had produced Montrose, and their first album is a bit of a VH prototype in itself), but then thought better about it.

But what Diamond Dave did bring was something pretty helpful for the band...he drew a LOT of women to their shows. And unlike Ed who was very shy in interviews, Dave's gift of gab was perfect for promoting the band. Plus Dave had a PA system they used back in the early days!

Fast forward again to Van Hagar, beyond just where Ed's head was creatively, that was a pivotal year where a lot of bands started to change it up similarly, and those darn keyboards/synthesizer tones were showing up everywhere. The edge was coming off a lot of hard rock and metal. Priest released Turbo as well in 1986, and after the brilliant 2 punch combo of Screaming for Vengeance and Defenders of the Faith, well, that was something different and more commercial sounding. They even "glammed" themselves up for concerts. Maiden, same thing with the synthesizer tones on Somewhere in Time, also 1986.

On the flip side, 1986 was THE year of thrash with Puppets, Peace Sells, and Reign in Blood all coming out. So metal was very much alive, but a different scene diverging from the MTV fueled more commercial trend.

Back on Def Leppard, they were never "heavy" per se, a song like Wasted just shows a bit the harder side, and you can go back to their even earlier material like the 1979 EP and some of the live cuts from that time to see more of their raw early days. I would put them somewhat on the "lighter" side of that scene, but this was an era where Maiden was doing stuff like "Running Free" so again I would say hard rock/metal kind of blended during this time.

Interesting that Eddie was driving that sound, but I agree, it was definitely the zeitgeist of the time for better or worse (worse IMO). That time was NOT kind to established rock acts sonically. Some of my favorite bands put out their absolute worst material during that time.

But as you say, the underground was keeping things going. 1986 was an incredible year for thrash as you say.

And I'd say hard rock and metal have always kind of blended, much to the dismay of genre snobs. Things like musical influences just don't separate out neatly into separate beakers as much as some might want them to.

I started this post in one of the general music threads and quickly realized nobody there would care, so I am posting the longer version here in case one or two people might haha. I've been listening to a very mid band called Kittie. I


Genres
If you're unfamiliar, they started as nu-metal and have done various extreme metal styles since, including groove, melodic death, some various mishmashes of *-core elements, etc. Not a clear unified style, but clearly playing that general space.

Musical analysis
Their music is relatively simplistic and basic compared to their peers. Even when they try to do more detailed stuff, it is pretty safe and basic. Despite that, they have two and a half albums of music I like without qualification and a few other songs here and there. 


My General Assessment
They have albums I enjoy from "pretty good" to "I really like that," but never quote hitting "I LOVE IT!" territory.

Then they have albums that are absolutely unlistenable, grating garbage to my ears, and virtually nothing in between.


My Experience with Them
They came out in the late 90s-early 00s around the time I was going into college, and I can't think of an artist that is more hit and miss with me.



I liked their first album at the time it came out. I was the right age for it and the nu metal zeitgeist was in full force. I'm not really sure why I kept checkout out their new material after because their next two albums were virtually unlistenable. I think I felt like I should like them on paper so I kept trying, and they finally did put out more that I liked. At the time, girls in metal were fairly rare and I was in roughly the same age range as them, so I think I wanted to like them and struggled to do so LOL. 

So, they've gone through a few genres and flavors of heavy music and the associated vocal stylings. The good and and bad with bands who change it up is sometimes their stuff lines up with what I like, and sometimes it doesn't. 

Vocals and Album Impressions
Their singer uses a mix of styles. She has a nice clean style that contrasts the heavy music nicely, and she's used a variety of extreme styles. Sidenote, it took me a long time on my metal journey to develop a tolerance for extreme vocals, and it was after I heard most of their work.

Their first album was mostly clean vocals with the raspy affectation common at the time with some barked heavy accents. Fine with this. Their second album, Oracle though...

It was this godawful shredding-your-vocal-cords SHRIEK that I absolutely hated every second of. Even now with a tolerance for harsh vocals, I still can't stand it, which is disappointing because musically I would otherwise like it.

They used a similar style on their next album, and frankly the songs weren't great.

I had mostly written them off, but then I picked up their 2006 album Funeral for Yesterday, and WOW. I really like this one. It is probably their most unique album aside from their debut. Whereas the debut was typical nu-metal of the time, this one was like the contemporary albums of the time. Right off the bat, it had a guitar lead hook and melodic intro. WHOA, melody and radio song structure in Kittie? Then there are vocal harmonies, showing off that clean singing voice, catchy choruses and songs, interesting guitar parts. Even lead licks thrown in for accent.

This was clearly an attempt to crossover into some mainstream appeal, and it suited them very well. It was such a departure I wonder if they had outside songwriters involved. Regardless, it was the most developed and detailed effort I'd ever seen them do. There was an obvious focus on melody and song structure they largely didn't have before. There were hooks, but it still sounded like Kittie. It started mostly clean with the occasional growl for accent tossed in, with a little more by the midway, but mostly a commercial effort.

You'd almost think they took a turn away from their extreme side to purely pursue the radio. But then you get 2/3 through and they turn the corner haha. MAN they bring the aggression back, and it's heavy Kittie being heavy Kittie, but even the grows are done in a less grating way.

This is far and away their best effort to my ears. I enjoyed the next one a lot, too, which was more like a diet Lamb of God. Similar stylings but more simplistic music.

They did one more after that was kinda forgettable but not a huge departure from the previous. Then they broke up. They did just put out a new single and seem to be back. It didn't do much for me, but glad to have them back.

Summary
Just rambling about them because they're on my mind. Normally if I disliked so much of a band's material, I would just not engage further, but that first album and wanting to see if I was just missing something kept me coming back, and I'm glad I did.

If you like nu metal, their debut is nice. There was an EP version of their single from that album Paperdoll that was IMO their best effort from that period and showed the most promise of their potential.

If you like harsh groove/melodeath and can tolerate shredded shrieked vocals, you might like Oracle and Until the End, but there are better bands that made better albums in those styles.

I really like Funeral for Yesterday, and if you liked those other "used to be metal/core/emo/rock crossing over into mainstream rock with some 80s metal throwback elements" period you probably will do.

In the Black is diet Lamb of God. If you like LoG and don't mind simpler versions, it's good.

Their last studio album I've Failed You is eh.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

Happy Birthday! Welcome to CCF and welcome to the metal thread!