Why is the term "heavy rock" rarely used? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Physics??? This is rock and roll, baby!! LOL

eBay

Psychedelic Paul wrote:

verslibre wrote:

"Heavy Metal" + "Soft Rock" ÷ "Hard Rock" = Heavy Rock! LOL

That's a perfect mathematical summary!

That's the kind of maths you can't do on a pocket calculator.

Good thing my trusty abacus is nearby. Wink

eBay

verslibre wrote:

"Heavy Metal" + "Soft Rock" ÷ "Hard Rock" = Heavy Rock! LOL

That's a perfect mathematical summary!

That's the kind of maths you can't do on a pocket calculator.

Somebody call Rolling Stone!

eBay

Wait, Catcher! That's exactly it!

"Heavy Metal" + "Soft Rock" ÷ "Hard Rock" = Heavy Rock! LOL

Whew. Glad that's over.

eBay

I do too(sometimes at least). I'm glad to see I'm not the only one although we definitely seem to be in the minority. Definitely a grey area and I'm rather surprised that some of the other music people on here can't see it(or hear it). For example I've been listening to the early Van Halen albums lately(to honor the late great EVH) and for me I don't really hear hard rock. I hear something beyond it. Something almost metallish(actually it was at least metallish and in fact wikipedia classifies them as both heavy metal and hard rock). Someone on here implied that it can't be metal because it would have to be as heavy as Black Sabbath. That's nonsense. In that case everything in the eighties couldn't be metal if it's not as heavy as slayer and then iron maiden wouldn't be HM. Lot's of stuff that is considered metal was not as heavy as BS even in the eighties. Regardless, I'm not saying VH were metal but they came pretty close in the early days(imo)and were definitely heavier than standard hard rock. To call something like Queen's "stone cold crazy" just plain old hard rock is a bit off the mark too.

siLLy puPPY liked: Your Comment

Edited by siLLy puPPy - October 11 2020 at 17:45

https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy

siLLy puPPy wrote:

Personally i use it. It has a better ring than hard rock sometimes. I agree that it works for those crossover bands that range from hard rock to heavy metal. Sort of the grey area in between.

I do too(sometimes at least). I'm glad to see I'm not the only one although we definitely seem to be in the minority. Definitely a grey area and I'm rather surprised that some of the other music people on here can't see it(or hear it). For example I've been listening to the early Van Halen albums lately(to honor the late great EVH) and for me I don't really hear hard rock. I hear something beyond it. Something almost metallish(actually it was at least metallish and in fact wikipedia classifies them as both heavy metal and hard rock). Someone on here implied that it can't be metal because it would have to be as heavy as Black Sabbath. That's nonsense. In that case everything in the eighties couldn't be metal if it's not as heavy as slayer and then iron maiden wouldn't be HM. Lot's of stuff that is considered metal was not as heavy as BS even in the eighties. Regardless, I'm not saying VH were metal but they came pretty close in the early days(imo)and were definitely heavier than standard hard rock. To call something like Queen's "stone cold crazy" just plain old hard rock is a bit off the mark too.

Edited by AFlowerKingCrimson - October 11 2020 at 14:52

The debut by Montrose is one of the best hard rock records of the decade. Fo sho!

eBay

I am sure heavy rock has been used......Honestly I just don't find that term appealing, it does not roll well IMO. I have always heard, read and used Hard Rock. Like I said I'm good with that and don't see need to add that or change....Carry on!

Logan wrote:

Catcher10 wrote:

I've always had basically two groupings

Heavy Metal

Hard Rock

I don't think I've described a band as heavy rock, maybe ever.

I have used the term “heavy rock” occasionally, but more often it has been “hard rock”, “heavy metal”, and “heavy (heavy) duty (duty), heavy duty rock & roll”. That brings out the duty in my soul.

used the Heavy Rock genre very much back in the 70/80/90's, and that applied for bands like Rush, Triumph, but also a lot of hammond-organ driven bands (Atomic Rooster, for ex)

But the difference between Hard and Heavy was minute and the line between them not easily drawn, but generally Heavy was a bit proggier than Hard, in our buddies' circles, because it included some dramatics.

Post Reply	Page 12 3 >