WITCHCRAFT IS NOT METAL
Wednesday, January 9th, 2008 at 2:54pm by Vince Neilstein
No, not the art of sorcery and spell-casting, which are in fact pretty damn metal — but the rock band from Sweden. What’s the deal with this band getting all sorts of metal press lately in mags like Revolver? Listen to the track “Walk Between the Lines” on their MySpace page and try to argue this band is metal, I dare you. Really they’re two parts Doors, one part modern-indie-jangly guitar rock, and maybe one part Sabbath.
Not that this is a bad thing; I mean, I love The Doors. But metal? Someone please explain this one to me. Maybe all you need to do these days to be metal is to look metal. Either their publicist deserves a giant bonus or my ears are broken.
-VN
PS: Here’s a band whose name also starts with “W” who are definitely metal.
there is a thin line between a certain metal look and hippie, don’t you think?
They sound NOTHING like The Doors. I think they have more in common sonically with Uriah Heep, Black Sabbath and Ronni James Dio’s band Elf.
I think their tourmates have largely been metal bands, so maybe they just get lumped in….
All the same….”The Alchemist” is a terrific album, however you classify it.
I know Down (or at least Kirk Windstein and Jimmy Bower) have been pimping the band in a lot of interviews, so that might have a little bit to do with it. I don’t really get it either, but they still sound pretty damn good.
That White Wizzard band is pretty cool. Very much like oldschool metal.
They’re going for an old school late 60s/ early 70 proto-metal vibe but somehow this comes off as genuwine and not derivative (ala Wolfmother) to me. Their first album is basically an homage to Pentagram.
They totally slay live. Walk Between the Lines is my least favorite off the new album. See Hey Doctor or If Crimson Was Your Color.
Their first two albums were mostly Sabbath and Pentagram flavored, but The Alchemist is a little harder to nail down. Probably not ‘metal’ by today’s standards, no, but metal by the standards of the 70’s for sure.
I’d just call them a good ole fashioned rock n’ roll band.
But really, it doesn’t make much of a difference what you choose call it when you’re as good as they are.
Oh and @ attackmole: yeah, Phil digs them too–
http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=79007
Heard of Witchfinder General? Blitzkrieg? 70’s era Scorpions? Witchcraft is definitely early metal with some obvious good rock n roll like the song you mentioned.
Classic Rock all the way, definately not Metal at all. Sounds like Jethro Tull.
If Justin Timberlake moves to Sweden, grows long hair, a beard, and a pot belly, we gonna call him metal too?
I think the media has such a hard on for Swedish bands that it doesn’t matter what they play, metal mags will gush over it. Oh yeah, payola is a good reason to write and rave about a band as well. Also, Revlover magazine sucks ass. I can’t wait for my subscription to run out.
yeah, they were MUCH heavier before this record. L and I were actually pretty saddened by how wussy it is. They used to plagerize Sabbath, but now I’m asking how they got their amps to put out so little gain without just being clean….
I’m most confused by the ‘modern-jangly-indie guitar rock’ accusation, because that’s definitely not there. The Alchemist has a bit more folk and early progrock influences, but it is definitely still early metal. Just like Black Sabbath were still metal even though they made ‘Spirit Carvan’ and Led Zeppelin are metal even though they made ‘Going to California’.
Does it really matter? Good music is good music.
Are they any more or less metal than the countless female-fronted Goth bands from Holland, or the one-man BM band fiddling on his kvlt synthsizer in his bedroom wearing mommy’s make-up? There are so many sub-genres to metal these days, anyway (melodic death metal – surely an oxymoron?!) Metally-speaking, things were simpler in the 70’s, and perhaps that’s what Witchcraft are going for.
While I think witchcraft is a good classic rock band, I think the classification does matter.
When revolver magazine makes this band sound like an awesome metal band, it is misleading, and a misuse of the term metal. Revolver should say they aren’t metal but have metal roots, or are going after a vintage sound based on the classic rock roots of heavy metal.
I hate the misuse of genre classifications to further careers at the expense and credibility of the genre
Here’s an example. In 1998, the term “metal” was taboo. No one wanted to be associated with iron maiden. The flavor of the month was Nu Metal. I knew a kid in a Nu metal band called Factory 81. Anyway, they were a generic NU METAL band. They actually released 1 cd on some label, did a legit tour, sold some cds.
Anyway, when Factory 81 described their music, they called it “Rock”. Rock of all things! These guys didn’t even know what “rock” was. Maybe they heard an Aerosmith song on the radio once. They were all about drop C psudeo wigger nu metal. Shit, I don’t even think their guitar player could play an E minor pentatonic scale.
So back then, the nu metal bands called themselves Rock. Now, metal is a trendy commodity and you have everyone and their sister calling themselves metal to get more press, record sales, exposure, etc…..
Call it like it is. Is Behemoth metal? Very. Is Witchcraft metal, No – they’re a cool classic rock band. Is Neil Diamond metal, No, he’s simply the greatest performer of our time.
Why do all of you idiots insist on putting bands into certain labels? I bet if you asked them how they classify themselves they would not pick a certain name for the type of music they play. (regardless of how lame it is) Maybe if you were to buy a guitar, learn how to play, put a band together, and record some songs. You might understand what I’m trying to get accross. And then that way instead of nitpicking which box each band belongs in you might make a buck or two and be able to afford to move out of your parent’s basement.
make a buck or 2 playing music? Yeah right.