WHy is that there are only very few AfAms in heavy metal music that is dominated by Caucasians
WHy is that there are only very few AfAms in heavy metal music that is dominated by Caucasians
I would venture to say there are some innate factors as well as obvious social factors of modern times.
heavy metal and classic rock music was started by the British
I've never thought about it. Don't think that it has ever really mattered to me, but now that you mention it, Freddie Murphy of Queen fame was from India originally via Zanzibar. He was a brilliant rock musician, artist, vocalist, etc., and it was probably natural that he should have found his way to the mecca of heavy metal rock music, England.
This is a really awesome Gary Moore composition - "Parisienne Walkways":
and since we mentioned Freddie Murphy, how about "We will rock you", I especially like the old classic version, this one is from the late eighties:
And Jethro Tull's "Locomotive Breath" classic:
Metal heads of African decent aren't all that uncommon where Africans are in the same social environment as Caucasians who also dig metal. Environment connection, not really related to melanin.
Non-caucasians have been responsible for a good deal of the music which is popular in America today. Jazz and blues, latin, etc. have achieved popularity far beyond their own cultures. Rock & Roll and many of the later developments have been developed from non-Europen music, but with some European roots also. It is not surprising that there are a few genres that have been primarily Caucasian though. I could mention Country and some folk music where that's generally true, but there are still exceptions -- for example, Charley Pride in country music.
It's totally a cultural thing. Take a look at melodic death metal. Another term for which is Gothenburg metal. So called because of the huge number of melodic death metal groups to have come out of that region. Equally other Nordic regions have spawned no end of black metal groups. That's not a racial thing. It's completely to do with social and environmental factors.
Because heavy metal was invented by white people. Why are there so few white people who rap?
slash is half nigerian.
I was thinking about jazz and blues too, since rock has its origins blues...
I find myself asking, maybe it's because mainstream metal appeared in the 70, back there racims was still an issue so people the media of the time made it? well it doesn't look very right...
still i sincerelly cant recall any rock band with a non-caucasian* members, it's a shame tought - so many souls singers and blues/jazz musicians have such an unique talent, imagine bbking playing with slayer or ray charles singing with metallica, that would rock!
*(seriously, the definition seems ridiculous to me)
There are a LOT of white rappers...
1) It's Freddie Mercury of Queen who was born in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Although he was of British origin. I think his father just worked on the island of Zanzibar.
2) Queen is not metal and it annoys me that everyone tends to call Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Queen, AC/DC and every other hard rock band metal. Those are hard rock bands - not metal bands. They may have laid a foundation for the genre, but they themselves were not metal. They were before metal.
3) England is certainly not the mecca of heavy metal. There were three pioneering metal bands from there - Venom, Black Sabbath, and Iron Maiden. Pretty much the rest of the pioneering metal bands came from the Scandinavian countries and from the United States. The big four of thrash metal (Megadeth, Slayer, Metallica, Anthrax) were from the United States (and all of those except Anthrax were from California). Meanwhile death metal came from the United States (Death is considered to be the first death metal band) although developed mostly in Sweden and (arguably) black metal came from Sweden. The arguably comes from if you want to argue that Bathory or Venom were the first black metal bands. But at any rate, England produces very little metal today and the vast majority of it is coming out of Finland, Norway, Sweden, and the United States. There is also a decent amount coming out of Canada and South America...
^ Very informative post, thanks dude.
I went to an Arch Enemy supported by Mutiny Withing, Exodus and Arsis baaaack in January and believe me, while many of the people were white, there was no lack of black people or mexicans, all dressed up metal-like for the concert and giving everyone the horns. Although I did notice a few young kids dressed up as emo or mall goth who certainly weren't enjoying the show, it probably wasn't as 'dark' as they would have liked.
I am sorry that you had to bear through a Mutiny Within set. I can feel your pain. Well actually, I cannot. I have never actually had to stand through a Mutiny Within set. But Arch Enemy is incredible and so is Exodus. Exodus has some serious pits. I think I've seen them three times. I think that Rob Dukes, their current frontman, is the most entertaining since Paul Baloff. I saw him fight with a security guard last time I saw them. I have never seen Arsis... I actually don't know if I've ever even listened to them. But unfortunately, I have heard a couple of Mutiny Within songs and they were terrible.
And where I live, Southern California, USA, it is mostly "white" people and Hispanic people at the shows. I've seen very few "black" people and very few Asians. But most of our demographics are Hispanic so that makes since and the rest of the heavy metal community is basically filled with white people. Although, a few times at a show, there was this HUGE (probably 350 pound) black guy dominating the pits. At an Amon Amarth show, it took 5 or 6 of us to knock him down and essentially everybody in the pit to get him back up...
P.S. And I just realized that someone else made the same mistake as Deanhill's...
Guns 'n Roses is HARD ROCK - not heavy metal.
While I agree that Queen was not metal, the other bands you listed were considered metal at the time and into the 80s at least. They were also not "before" metal, Queen and AC/DC were certainly formed after metal was a genre, and the others were, at the least, formed as metal was forming (1968 is as early as those bands go, metal was formed in the later years of the 60s, and one of the definitive metal bands, Black Sabbath, also forming in 1968).
Like it or not, from a modern perspective, these bands were considered heavy metal, historically.
Queen was formed in 1971 really wasn't fully developed yet. Sabbath was making music and Maiden was a few years ago (along with Priest) but "metal" wasn't really around. Nobody called it metal for quite a few years (and nobody really knows where it originated from; many bands considered themselves to be the first band the term "metal" was used on. Alice Cooper typically takes credit).
And I don't care if people considered Queen to be metal because they simply are not metal. It's like saying, "Well historically people considered the world to be flat!" You're entitled to your opinion but that doesn't make it any less wrong...
Metal has certain characteristics and if you do not have those characteristics then you're not metal. It's as simple as that. Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Queen, etc. are all not metal. Rather the masses who probably never even listened to metal wanted to call it metal or not doesn't really matter. It just simply wasn't metal. The real reason people considered it metal was because they were unfamiliar with this new hard rock sound and they wanted to demonize it by calling it metal...
Mutiny Within was just... good. Just that, pleasant music, but I wouldn't buy their albums. I've actually got a little bit into Arsis and I jotted down Exodus on my to-check-out list. And Arch Enemy was awesome indeed, both AE and Exodus know how to liven up the crowd into a frenzy and they both stand a step above other music in terms of harmony and rythm imho.
I also don't completely agree with the premise of the current discussion of weather GnR or Led Zeppelin were or were not metal. While I'll agree that most of their stuff is hard rock and not metal, just take into account that there are bands that create various kinds of music eg. Metallica which creates both metal and rock.
I generally like Metallica, but I prefer their thrash days instead of their rock days.
Well in my opinion Mutiny Within is some crappy core band with terrible clean vocals mixed in with the occasional crappy cookie monster vocals all with some breakdown and other crappy core elements. They're metalcore - not heavy metal at any rate. Metalcore has some elements of metal mixed with some elements of hardcore. Although Mutiny Within does have an occasional decent keyboard melody. But their singer just whines the entire time. He barely ever sings. He just has some whiny and irritating voice. Actually, if they fired that singer and got a decent singer that didn't sound so whiny and used vocals with more power or learned to properly growl (one or the other) then they would be decent...
Well you can disagree; you're entitled to your opinion. But, as I said, that doesn't make you any less wrong. Heavy metal has certain elements and if a band doesn't have those elements then they're not metal. It's a simple fact. Even if they have an occasional metal element it still doesn't mean that they're metal. A band would be classified as metal if their primary music had elements of metal. GnR or Zeppelin might have had an occasional (although very occasional because their music just isn't metal) heavy section but that makes them a metal band about as much as "Mama Said" makes Metallica a southern rock band. Of course I am not undermining the music of Zeppelin and Guns 'N Roses. Both bands made incredible music and contributed heavily to what would become metal, but they just weren't metal. And that's not an insult to them; it's just being honest about their genre.
The bolded part is the important point of contention here... simply, they were metal... they aren't now. Historical context is not the current context for defining metal; you're entirely right that metal has to conform to certain characteristics, but how tightly those characters had to fit has been a moving target... it's changed through the years. Hell, I remember back when I was a headbanger that simply having keyboards in your band would exempt a band from really being considered metal... that's clearly changed since the 80s
Historically, GnR, Zeppelin, AC/DC, etc. were classified as metal... they were also classified as rock. Clearly, they don't fall into the definition of the genre today, however. (I'm quite certain Queen never fit into the genre, however)
But the difference is what actual metalheads call metal what the mass actually calls metal when they're just categorizing all that music into one evil satanic genre. I very rarely hear anyone in the metal community call those bands metal. However, I all too frequently hear people say, "You like all that satanic heavy metal music like black sabbath and led zeppelin?" Well yes, I like both bands... but only one of them is a metal band...
So there's no doubt in my mind that many considered and still consider them and call them heavy metal. But it's never someone who's educated in what metal actually is...
I can see there being some sort of argument that Led Zeppelin was metal, and I could tolerate someone trying to argue that GnR was metal (although factually I cannot accept either) but for someone to argue that Queen was metal (as was originally done in this topic) or other bands that I hear people call metal like Rush is just ridiculous...
As ridculous as you find it, they were. Yeah, I'm talking about metalheads, headbangers, etc. who referred to them as such. You're still only thinking in a modern context; the discussion involves more than just current acceptance of the classification.
I don't have a huge knowledge about Led Zeppelin songs, so I can't judge if they're metal or not, but the ones I heard were actually more hard rock than metal. And most Black Sabbath songs I've heard were much more metal then hard rock.
I'm confused with Metallica however, because well, they've got a few albums of the nice metal, much thrash, but they also have albums where there's little to no metal.
Afaceinthematrix, how would you classify them? As objectively as possible? I think their last album was a huge improvement from St. Anger, which, for me, was rock and we can't forget about their awesome first 3 albums.
So what's Metal? A latter day heavy and excessive style of guitar music? Don't let Chuck Berry and Jimi Hendrix let you hear say that. But really, sheep like stay in their herds. Hip Hop was dominated by blacks for the longest time. All it really takes is one really interesting black kid doing metal (ala reverse Eminem) and hey presto, a generation of new black metal bands. Black Metal. haha. I think it's been done.
I think some forgot about Living Color and Suicidal Tendencies..
To me there is no color to Metal, its who ever is a rebel at heart. It can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people.
The one thing I have seen is going to festivals and seen a great mix of young and old all enjoying the same music.
I think the world would be a better place if we all could be color blind regarding skin tone!