Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
InZeppWeTrust

Zeppelin, are they metal?

Recommended Posts

The problems I have with reflections like these is, first, that they don't help one to understand the music that is actually there on Led Zeppelin's albums - rather, the focus is shifted from what they really did to what (some) people made of the Zep legacy; and second, they seem to me to rely implicitly on an account of the origins of heavy metal that is overly simplistic, because as the musical style familiar today as heavy metal, it relies on several older bands, and not just Led Zeppelin - in fact, it relies much more directly on these other bands. Ev has already pointed out Black Sabbath and Judas Priest: these examples are right to the point. Add to that the feel of a song like Deep Purple's Fireball, or if you want solos, the "classical" sound of the arpeggios Blackmore is doing in Highway Star, or the style of many of Brian May's riffs on the first three Queen albums. All this seems a lot closer to what we would call heavy metal today than the heavy blues passages of Led Zeppelin's first albums. The interest in Led Zeppelin's legacy in heavy metal circles is genuine, very real, but it is already seen there from a limited perspective, from within an idea that was NOT the concept Led Zeppelin based themselves on.

Hogwash. I wasn't talking about what people made of their legacy. I'm saying there is a very real connection to what Zeppelin was about in the late '60s and the emerging heavy metal sound. It was avant-garde at the time and it was intentional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hogwash. I wasn't talking about what people made of their legacy. I'm saying there is a very real connection to what Zeppelin was about in the late '60s and the emerging heavy metal sound. It was avant-garde at the time and it was intentional.

But Zeppelin isn't and never were metal.

They may have unintentionally inspired it to a point where every man and his dog tried to emulate them and that's where the connection begins and ends.

The difference between Zep and the metal bands (whomever they may be), is Zeppelin is powerful loud blues rock intertwined with a plethora of other musical styles and modes with a clarity and precision, that all musicians strive to achieve and yet, very few do.

The "metal music" I've heard is mostly guitars, drums and erratic bass lines played at break neck speed and except for the vocals (usually screeched inaudibly), could be the same band.

Metal = dark and shadows.

That is to say, they do not have that distinctive colourful and instantly recognizable sound like Led Zeppelin has.

Zeppelin = light and shade.

Zep is the Hammer of the Gods and a Feather in the Wind simultaneously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Zeppelin isn't and never were metal.

They may have unintentionally inspired it to a point where every man and his dog tried to emulate them and that's where the connection begins and ends.

The difference between Zep and the metal bands (whomever they may be), is Zeppelin is powerful loud blues rock intertwined with a plethora of other musical styles and modes with a clarity and precision, that all musicians strive to achieve and yet, very few do.

The "metal music" I've heard is mostly guitars, drums and erratic bass lines played at break neck speed and except for the vocals (usually screeched inaudibly), could be the same band.

Metal = dark and shadows.

That is to say, they do not have that distinctive colourful and instantly recognizable sound like Led Zeppelin has.

Zeppelin = light and shade.

Zep is the Hammer of the Gods and a Feather in the Wind simultaneously.

The problem is, you define metal by today's standards. In the late 60s and early 70s, heavy metal was defined by bands like Zep, Sabbath, and Purple. The Hammer of the Gods was the lead in Led Zeppelin. Of course they played more than just heavy metal, as originally defined, but this was lost on most critics. As Page has said, it went right over their heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is, you define metal by today's standards. In the late 60s and early 70s, heavy metal was defined by bands like Zep, Sabbath, and Purple. The Hammer of the Gods was the lead in Led Zeppelin. Of course they played more than just heavy metal, as originally defined, but this was lost on most critics. As Page has said, it went right over their heads.

Defining metal by today's standards is not a problem. After all this discussion is taking place now, not decades ago, and it would be pointless to use the term in any meaning other than the current one. Now, did these bands actually see themselves in the beginning as "heavy metal" bands? Mind you, this is something you can actually check, and the answer is no, they didn't. The term came later, and was never something Led Zeppelin in particular aimed for. Just read the old interviews.

As for the theory that Led Zeppelin were avant-garde in the sense that they "intended" heavy metal, that doesn't make a lot of sense, now, does it? They did their music, come what may - and that's all. I pointed out earlier that heavy metal is merely one way of viewing and building upon the Zep legacy. How on earth is that wrong, if I may ask? They were never interested in a formula, nor do I think it's plausible that they "intended" to generate one.

If you say that a large part of what Led Zeppelin did wasn't metal, then why stubbornly insist on defining them as a metal or proto-metal band? That's exactly what I was saying: if you insist on viewing LZ as a metal band or pioneers of metal, a large part of what was essential to their music simply gets lost, because it's just not a useful label to understand Zeppelin's legacy. Did they influence metal? Well, yes, certainly - as did many other bands, and really, despite all the Zeppelin references you can find there, the basic styles of heavy metal are more derivative of things Sabbath, Purple and other bands did. I did give some examples - probably "hog-wash" to you.

Edited by Otto Masson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is, you define metal by today's standards. In the late 60s and early 70s, heavy metal was defined by bands like Zep, Sabbath, and Purple. The Hammer of the Gods was the lead in Led Zeppelin. Of course they played more than just heavy metal, as originally defined, but this was lost on most critics. As Page has said, it went right over their heads.

What else are we supposed to compare it too.

News Flash:

Heavy Metal DID NOT exist in the Seventies and was defined by no-one.

It was a phrase in the 1968 Steppenwolf song Born To Be Wild and Lester Bangs is attributed to coining the genre now used due to his liking of Lou Reed's 1975 album Metal Machine Music.

I was there, were you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metal is just a subset / subgenre of rock music...led zep sit in rock. they could make noise if they wanted to - and they did, but they ultimately were driven by a different melodic impetus...the bands in their time didn't think of themselves as defining a particular genre. they were just creative in what they did. however any one chooses to define metal - critic or fan - doesn't alter this fact. it's fair to call them a proto-metal band, not by intention, but by their influence. shakespeare was just a writer in his day, but he defined his own genre...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naming the band Led Zeppelin, even after a Keith Moon reference, implies intentionality. Of course, you can argue which came first, the chicken or the egg, but it's hard to dispute Led Zeppelin's influence on the genre. As far as being there, I was a child in the 70s and, as I came of age toward the end of the decade and early 80s, Zeppelin was definitively associated with heavy metal music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metal is just a subset / subgenre of rock music...led zep sit in rock. they could make noise if they wanted to - and they did, but they ultimately were driven by a different melodic impetus...the bands in their time didn't think of themselves as defining a particular genre. they were just creative in what they did. however any one chooses to define metal - critic or fan - doesn't alter this fact. it's fair to call them a proto-metal band, not by intention, but by their influence. shakespeare was just a writer in his day, but he defined his own genre...

So applying that logic, Led Zeppelin is a genre out there on their own, right?

Edited by Reggie29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of their songs influenced heavy-metal bands, but they're not Metal.Moreover as a lot of you pointed out,"metal" didn't mean anything in the 70's.

Led Zeppelin's music is too refined to be ever considered "Metal".For instance, I don't know any Metal band whose songs have been played by a symphonic orchestra.I don't think there is any symphonic versions of "Thunderstruck" or "TNT",anyway I don't want to listen to them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naming the band Led Zeppelin, even after a Keith Moon reference, implies intentionality. Of course, you can argue which came first, the chicken or the egg, but it's hard to dispute Led Zeppelin's influence on the genre. As far as being there, I was a child in the 70s and, as I came of age toward the end of the decade and early 80s, Zeppelin was definitively associated with heavy metal music.

The adage, "go down like a lead balloon" means that it would not go down very well or that it would be dismissed.

The Lead was changed to Led either by or on the advice of, Peter Grant so as to not be misinterpreted as lead (leed), as in read a book.

Led Zeppelin does refer to the metal Lead, not the genre.

lead.gif

Alchemy Symbol of Lead - Chemical Symbol Pb

Whether Zeppelin influenced musicians to play metal is a moot point and does not mean Zeppelin were in any way, shape or form a metal band.

The only association they had with metal were the people who decided that they were and bestowed Zeppelin with that odious distinction.

They are both the chicken and the egg, Heavy Rock innovators, not metal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, Led Zeppelin is Classic rock, hard rock with blues roots (so blues rock mb?). There is a lot of blues in it, just played heavilly, with some hard riffs that some call metal. For me, it is most definitelly no metal although yes, they INFLUENCED a lot of metal bands, so they can be mentioned as godfathers of metal or sthing, but not a metal band imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only association they had with metal were the people who decided that they were and bestowed Zeppelin with that odious distinction.

Why is it an "odious distinction?!" I think you're letting your personal bias color the debate. To discuss the history of heavy metal music and exclude Led Zeppelin would be inane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it an "odious distinction?!" I think you're letting your personal bias color the debate. To discuss the history of heavy metal music and exclude Led Zeppelin would be inane.

This will be my last response to you. You haven't answered a single argument made against you, certainly none of mine, and yet you accuse Reg of being biased? Amazing. You are free to like heavy metal all you want, but you see, some of us see Led Zeppelin as a lot more than just precursors of heavy metal, which we often may even find odious. That's allowed too, you know. However, everybody here has acknowledged that Led Zeppelin was important to many heavy metal musicians, so your last sentence is completely beside the point. If you want people to be interested in having a debate with you, you really should respond to the actual arguments being made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me I think I'd like to give them a class of their own. I like to think of it as "Rennaissance Rock".

RENNAISSANCE: A transitional movement between medieval and modern times: a movement or period of vigorous artistic and intellectual activity.

RENAISSANCE MAN: a person who has wide interests and is expert in several areas.

I think those definitions can fit into Led Zeppelin and alot of the bands that came out of the late 60's early 70's rock. Rock and Roll as my parents knew it certainly changed when I was a teenager and is now termed as classic.

CLASSIC:of recognized value; serving as a standard of excellence; noted because of special literary or historical associations.

What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me I think I'd like to give them a class of their own. I like to think of it as "Rennaissance Rock".

RENNAISSANCE: A transitional movement between medieval and modern times: a movement or period of vigorous artistic and intellectual activity.

RENAISSANCE MAN: a person who has wide interests and is expert in several areas.

I think those definitions can fit into Led Zeppelin and alot of the bands that came out of the late 60's early 70's rock. Rock and Roll as my parents knew it certainly changed when I was a teenager and is now termed as classic.

CLASSIC:of recognized value; serving as a standard of excellence; noted because of special literary or historical associations.

What do you think?

That's an interesting suggestion, but as much as I like both Led Zeppelin and the Renaissance - the Italian Renaissance in painting for instance is astonishing - I don't think this suggestion really works. I guess you could say that the Renaissance was a bridge between the Middle Ages and modernity, although that's debatable, but the crucial point here is that the Renaissance was a rediscovery of the classical legacy, of Greek and Roman Antiquity. That's actually what the term signifies: renaissance is simply rebirth in French, meaning the re-activation of cultural themes from ancient times - but in the drastically different setting of the late middle ages. The significance of the classical legacy was thus inevitably altered, and became something of a "revolutionary" force, a force of change.

That part of it does not translate too well with the role Led Zeppelin performed in rock history. The equivalent of the Renaissance there would have to be the British bands of the early 1960's, especially The Beatles: they revived rock at a time when a crisis had hit the scene in the US, where it had began in the 1950's. Even if both Jimmy and Jonesy were a part of that scene in a way right from the start, it was only later that they made their impact with Led Zeppelin as creative musicians in their own right - when you're a session player, after all, the initiative will be elsewhere. Robert and Bonzo started making music slightly later, and in any case were peripheral at the time. Led Zeppelin starts out when the rebirth was already secure - and in fact, when rock music was finally becoming an invincible force, so to speak. After the British invasion the scenes in the UK and the US were in close contact, with the influences now flying across the Atlantic very rapidly - in both directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will be my last response to you. You haven't answered a single argument made against you, certainly none of mine, and yet you accuse Reg of being biased? Amazing. You are free to like heavy metal all you want, but you see, some of us see Led Zeppelin as a lot more than just precursors of heavy metal, which we often may even find odious. That's allowed too, you know. However, everybody here has acknowledged that Led Zeppelin was important to many heavy metal musicians, so your last sentence is completely beside the point. If you want people to be interested in having a debate with you, you really should respond to the actual arguments being made.

I made an initial arguement and have been defending it ever since. You disagree? That's fine by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it an "odious distinction?!" I think you're letting your personal bias color the debate. To discuss the history of heavy metal music and exclude Led Zeppelin would be inane.

Simply because "metal" is a label that does not apply to Led Zeppelin.

You may not agree and that's fine with me.

As for your, "I think you're letting your personal bias colour the debate" comment, well that applies to you as much as anyone else.

The question is "Are Led Zeppelin Metal" and my answer is no and I have provided my reasoning that seems to be the general consensus throughout this thread, with you being the obvious exception.

Being an influence on "metal music" is a different question than the topic at hand and my answer would be yes, as unfortunate as that would be.

Since when did this discussion become "The History of Heavy Metal Music"?

The only inane thing about this thread are your rude comments (hogwash comes to mind), that highlight your inability to conduct yourself or contribute to the subject and your unwillingness to accept other points of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an interesting suggestion, but as much as I like both Led Zeppelin and the Renaissance - the Italian Renaissance in painting for instance is astonishing - I don't think this suggestion really works. I guess you could say that the Renaissance was a bridge between the Middle Ages and modernity, although that's debatable, but the crucial point here is that the Renaissance was a rediscovery of the classical legacy, of Greek and Roman Antiquity. That's actually what the term signifies: renaissance is simply rebirth in French, meaning the re-activation of cultural themes from ancient times - but in the drastically different setting of the late middle ages. The significance of the classical legacy was thus inevitably altered, and became something of a "revolutionary" force, a force of change.

That part of it does not translate too well with the role Led Zeppelin performed in rock history. The equivalent of the Renaissance there would have to be the British bands of the early 1960's, especially The Beatles: they revived rock at a time when a crisis had hit the scene in the US, where it had began in the 1950's. Even if both Jimmy and Jonesy were a part of that scene in a way right from the start, it was only later that they made their impact with Led Zeppelin as creative musicians in their own right - when you're a session player, after all, the initiative will be elsewhere. Robert and Bonzo started making music slightly later, and in any case were peripheral at the time. Led Zeppelin starts out when the rebirth was already secure - and in fact, when rock music was finally becoming an invincible force, so to speak. After the British invasion the scenes in the UK and the US were in close contact, with the influences now flying across the Atlantic very rapidly - in both directions.

I'm not suggesting Renaissance in the literal term but the essence of change between two eras of rock. I do agree that Led Zeppelin may have entered the scene after changes were already taking place, but they sure influenced the path that some of these changes took.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when did this discussion become "The History of Heavy Metal Music"?

The only inane thing about this thread are your rude comments (hogwash comes to mind), that highlight your inability to conduct yourself or contribute to the subject and your unwillingness to accept other points of view.

You can't answer the question, "Zeppelin, are they metal?" without reference to historical context.

As for me being rude, well take it as you may. I'm sorry you were offended by the word "hogwash." I presented my arguement with passion and called it like I saw it. It was never personal. But you and Otto insisted on making it otherwise and that's unfortunate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't answer the question, "Zeppelin, are they metal?" without reference to historical context.

As for me being rude, well take it as you may. I'm sorry you were offended by the word "hogwash." I presented my arguement with passion and called it like I saw it. It was never personal. But you and Otto insisted on making it otherwise and that's unfortunate.

Explain "historical context'.

Offended, me?

Hardly, it would take more than that.

I was using hogwash as an example of you being dismissive of Otto and I for having the audacity to disagree with the notion of the question you posed.

Otto, Whom BTW, has an excellent knowledge of music not exclusive to Led Zeppelin but all genres.

Hey, if you read exactly what he has to say you might actually learn something!

Hendrix, Cream, The Yardbirds (all line ups) and to a lesser extent The Beatles (Helter Skelter), could be thought of as forerunners to "metal" too, however, like Zeppelin they were not "metal".

Those four examples and there are others, were simply pioneers in loud music whereby the volume became part of the performance.

Jimmy Page was one of, if not the first to mike up amps and drums.

When The Beatles gave up touring in 1966, it was mostly because of girls screaming and drowning out their music.

If it had occurred to them to turn up the volume like they did in the studio the problem would've been solved.

So unless you can come up with conclusive evidence they were a metal band (considering metal was never played until the late seventies / early eighties almost at the end of Led Zeppelin as we knew them), my answer remains, a resounding no they weren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain "historical context'.

So unless you can come up with conclusive evidence they were a metal band (considering metal was never played until the late seventies / early eighties almost at the end of Led Zeppelin as we knew them), my answer remains, a resounding no they weren't.

I certainly appreciate your effort to get the debate back on track.

As for historical context, I referenced the wikipedia article on heavy metal music several posts ago. This is a good starting place to frame the discussion in my opinion. What is refuted in the article is that "metal was never played until the late seventies / early eighties," which is one of the points I've tried to get across. Of course, it all depends on how you define metal but the general consensus is that it began in the mid to late 60s, with bands you mentioned, and was epitomized in a new way by Led Zeppelin and subsequently Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, and others. The heavy metal sound would then be reinvented several more times by bands that moved further and further away from the blues, such as Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Metallica, etc.

As to providing conclusive evidence that Led Zeppelin were a metal band, I've already agreed that they weren't; that was an oversimplification made by critics of the era. Nevertheless, they were the first band to present the emerging blues-based heavy metal sound of the late 60s as a significant part of their musical repertiore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So applying that logic, Led Zeppelin is a genre out there on their own, right?

Sure. I think that can be inferred, depending on the listener. I think Stairway to Heaven is a genre of its own.

Anyway, all these arguments are all right in my opinion, and everyone has interesting observations...so why get offended? -- It all depends on how one chooses to define music. Whether or not they were metal or not metal, is something Page, Plant and Jones cared little about. They didn't care to be classified except to be called Light and Shade, which is a fair observation.

Also, Zep didn't invent rock music. They didn't exist in a vacuum. There were so many other great bands out there but Zep managed to stand out.

PS - Listen to Communication Breakdown medleys that Plant sang and you'll hear snatches of the Isley Brothers; Beatles; Buffalo Springfield (Blueberry Hill and Paris Theatre 1969)...in that sense, modern metal bands wouldn't do that...I think Zep borrowed some stuff and made it heavier. Whether Dazed and Confused constitutes heavy metal...well, traces of it exist but so what? You definitely hear things in Zep's music that appear in some modern bands...Metallica was enamoured with Achilles Last Stand and have publicly say so...btw Metallica isn't metal anymore...

BTW Bands that transcend simple definitions are the great ones - that's where Zep stands included. They influenced a lot of people. That's undeniable. But I've met metal bands who don't give a toss about Zep. There's no absolute.

So chill out everyone! Enjoy the music!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS - you can't really headbang to Zep's music generally. Plant used to toss his hair here and there, but apart from Communication breakdown and Wearing and Tearing.there really isn't anything too manic in the Zep repertoire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS - you can't really headbang to Zep's music generally. Plant used to toss his hair here and there, but apart from Communication breakdown and Wearing and Tearing.there really isn't anything too manic in the Zep repertoire.

I certainly can get my head into most of Zep's music and my hips as well! Thinking Misty Mountain Hop at the moment. Also, How Many More Times is considered one of the first real headbangers. It's all about the groove.

Edited by Dharmabum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Greeks think Zeppelin are metal: http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/news/greece-votes-on-the-100-best-metal-albums-ever/

And Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon is also metal, apparently. :)

Come on in to check out what our Greek counterparts consider to be the top 100 metal albums of all time.

Metal Hammer in Greece has published the following list of the top 100 metal albums of all time:

01. METALLICA – “Master of Puppets”

02. IRON MAIDEN – “The Number of the Beast”

03. JUDAS PRIEST – “Painkiller”

04. AC/DC – “Back in Black”

05. METALLICA – “Metallica” (a.k.a. Black Album)

06. QUEENSRŸCHE – “Operation: Mindcrime”

07. SLAYER – “Reign in Blood”

08. BLACK SABBATH – “Heaven and Hell”

09. BLACK SABBATH – “Paranoid”

10. IRON MAIDEN – “Seventh Son of a Seventh Son”

11. MOTÖRHEAD – “Ace of Spades”

12. IRON MAIDEN – “Powerslave”

13. BLACK SABBATH – “Black Sabbath”

14. LED ZEPPELIN – “[untitled] (a.k.a. “Led Zeppelin IV”)

15. GUNS N’ ROSES – “Appetite for Destruction”

16. MEGADETH – “Rust in Peace”

17. DIO – “Holy Diver”

18. METALLICA – “Ride the Lightning”

19. HELLOWEEN – “Keeper of the Seven Keys Part I”

20. METALLICA – “Kill ‘em All”

21. AC/DC – “Highway to Hell”

22. DEEP PURPLE – “Machine Head”

23. PARADISE LOST – “Draconian Times”

24. JUDAS PRIEST – “British Steel”

25. METALLICA – “…And Justice for All”

26. MANOWAR – “Hail to England”

27. OZZY OSBOURNE – “Blizzard of Ozz”

28. IRON MAIDEN – “Piece of Mind”

29. IRON MAIDEN – “Somewhere in Time”

30. RAINBOW – “Rising”

31. IRON MAIDEN – “Iron Maiden”

32. HELLOWEEN – “Keeper of the Seven Keys Part II”

33. DREAM THEATER – “Images and Words”

34. DEEP PURPLE – “In Rock”

35. EXODUS – “Bonded by Blood”

36. SYSTEM OF A DOWN – “Toxicity”

37. SAVATAGE – “Gutter Ballet”

38. OPETH – “Blackwater Park”

39. SEPULTURA – “Arise”

40. JUDAS PRIEST – “Sad Wings of Destiny”

41. JUDAS PRIEST – “Defenders of the Faith”

42. CANDLEMASS – “Epicus Doomicus Metallicus”

43. SLAYER – “Seasons in the Abyss”

44. OZZY OSBOURNE – “Diary of a Madman”

45. PANTERA – “Cowboys From Hell”

46. ACCEPT – “Restless and Wild”

47. NEVERMORE – “Dead Heart in a Dead World”

48. ANATHEMA – “Alternative 4″

49. WHITESNAKE – “1987″

50. PARADISE LOST – “Icon”

51. TOOL – “Lateralus”

52. GAMMA RAY – “Land of the Free”

53. MACHINE HEAD – “The Blackening”

54. CANDLEMASS – “Nightfall”

55. DREAM THEATER – “Metropolis Pt. 2: Scenes From a Memory”

56. PANTERA – “Vulgar Display of Power”

57. IRON MAIDEN – “Fear of the Dark”

58. NEVERMORE – “Dreaming Neon Black”

59. CRIMSON GLORY – “Transcendence”

60. LED ZEPPELIN – “Led Zeppelin II”

61. BLACK SABBATH – “Master of Reality”

62. MANOWAR – “Into Glory Ride”

63. BRUCE DICKINSON – “Accident of Birth”

64. KREATOR – “Extreme Aggression”

65. ACCEPT – “Balls to the Wall”

66. MÖTLEY CRÜE – “Shout at the Devil”

67. SEPULTURA – “Beneath the Remains”

68. DEATH – “Symbolic”

69. SAVATAGE – “Hall of the Mountain King”

70. AT THE GATES – “Slaughter of the Soul”

71. GUNS N’ ROSES – “Use Your Illusion II”

72. W.A.S.P. – “W.A.S.P.”

73. SLAYER – “South of Heaven”

74. ALICE COOPER – “Trash”

75. DEF LEPPARD – “Hysteria”

76. BLACK SABBATH – “Sabbath Bloody Sabbath”

77. BLIND GUARDIAN – “Nightfall in Middle-Earth”

78. TWISTED SISTER – “Stay Hungry”

79. SEPULTURA – “Chaos A.D.”

80. SLIPKNOT – “Slipknot”

81. PINK FLOYD – “The Dark Side Of The Moon”

82. W.A.S.P. – “The Crimson Idol”

83. BLIND GUARDIAN – “Imaginations from the Other Side”

84. MASTODON – “Blood Mountain”

85. TOOL – “Aenima”

86. MEGADETH – “Peace Sells, But Who’s Buying?”

87. SLIPKNOT – “Iowa”

88. SCORPIONS – “Taken by Force”

89. QUEENSRŸCHE – “Rage for Order”

90. FATES WARNING – “Parallels”

91. VAN HALEN – “Van Halen”

92. MOTORHEAD – “Overkill”

93. SLAYER – “Show no Mercy”

94. NIRVANA – “Nevermind”

95. DEATH – “Spiritual Healing”

96. SODOM – “Agent Orange”

97. SAXON – “Denim and Leather”

98. ROTTING CHRIST – “Theogonia”

99. DEATH – “Leprosy”

100. MANOWAR – “Sign of the Hammer”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...