Could be, can't remember where I've read it though. I think Mayhem was the greatest influence for the first second wave bands, but A Blaze in the Northern Sky while still having some death metal parts was the most important album for Norway, because that's when the scene exploded and by the time DMDS was released it was starting to cool, and new bands were forming inspired mostly by In the Nightside Eclipse.

Tormentor, Master's Hammer, Root, Mystifier, Sarcófago, Blasphemy, Rotting Christ and Varathron say Hi, among others. Just like the huge discussion that came with the USBM thread, 2nd wave black metal already existed before the norwegian scene.

What you call 'black metal nowadays' is only a small fraction of what black metal has been about, cause after Hellhammer and Bathory, the evolution from those starting points was inevitable and so it happened with the aforementioned bands that were doing black metal before and at the same time than Norwegians. Sure, the Norwegians became the most famous and imitated over time, but that doesn't change the fact that black metal has always been a very diverse genre which spawned and evolved in many different ways from very different locations.

(If you wanna read it, go here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=99453&start=200)

Btw, Snorre not only gave Euro several riffs, but he also helped to finish the songwriting of the album, some of the lyrics and he recorded most of the rhythmic guitars of DMDS. I would credit Snorre just like Euro in terms of what DMDS is (I believe the title track was written mostly by him).

I partialy agree that black metal wasn't just a thing of the nordic scene, I consider Sarcofago and Mystifier to be some of the earliest black metal bands. I think its safe to say that black metal pioneers started to play this kind of music (not the formation of the bands, but the moment when they started to sound like bm) around 87-88 being Sarcofago and Samael and so on, the early shapers of what would become black metal as a fully developed genre. Im also aware that even if many non-norweggian bands sounded evil and totally black metal, the pure sound, the genre defyning albums and the paradigm of what black metal is, came later, around 89-90 and it's directly related to the norweggian scene.
Sarcofago had a lot of death metal going on, even on INRI, which is both a cornerstone of black and death metal. BTW Rotting Christ played grindcore 'til 89 and then started getting the black metal sound around 90-91.

In short. Perceptions vary upon the observers. I find Gorgoroth being black metal as well Sodom in 1984' being black metal, although having in mind their distinctive sounds/styles. But I believe cutting genre ,,black metal" till arise of second wave would be questionable at least. Even having in mind diverse styles and sounds of early bands so those could not be put under the one umbrella.
As one guy here noted, people used to call bands like Slayer back those days black metal, Euronymous and his crew used to call early pioneers as black metal, I used to call and still calling 1983-1986 those extreme bands as bm... I would not say that even those bands do not share similar sound. Describing their style in terms of genres usually captures expressions like ,,some raw mix between speed, thrash, early death metal, with big dose of motorhead, hardcore influence, more melodic lines, with satanic imagery etc etc". This explanation implies that it is quite unique stuff, worthing to be called as a genre, or at least style. People used to call it bm, a lot of people still call it bm.
I don't argue with the most common paradigm of bm, shaped by Nordic scene, but I still consider bm being more broad in terms of sounding, regions and starting/playing years

Iceland's Flames of Hell merits mention.


Other songs worth listening to:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQWDcTAw7fA
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo9M23ysJqo
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fmCYM9adlM
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTu4akFP4hg

Great suggestion - added to the list

Any thoughts on BM firsts for France? A search brings up the band Skullface http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Skullface/20101, but it seems there might be some doubt over their recording in 1983.

Ixion would be next in line (1886-87) http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Ixion/37062, however the only clip I found on Youtube is for a demo that isn't properly linked in the archives http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUKMDJcaVkM

Eulogy is absolutely correct.

This discussion can be solved by simple observations. The fact of the matter is that Venom brought the basic elements to the table, the super-aggressive song writing within a metal context, together with the intense satanic elements and imagery.

What happened after that are variations on a theme. Broadly speaking if you have fast, aggressive metal with satanic themes and images, that's black metal. That's how the history of music sees it, will see it and that's how it is.

What we had after that are developments and variations, which achieved a very particular creative output in Norway/Europe. But those variations do not change the core elements which were created by Venom and then developed by Slayer, Sepultura, etc, etc. And which stay the same to this day.

An obsession with categorizing genres and sub-sub-sub-genres concerning yourself with minor variations is not a very interesting/healthy way for looking at creative output. Writing music this way tends to lead to copies and hence mediocrity, plus it shows much more a problem with obsession and intolerance to variation from the person who is examining the music than it demonstrates what the music itself is. Certainly musicians feel uncomfortable with being put in sub-categories all the time, as it displays a tendency of the critic to label everything they are trying to communicate as this and that. It rules out creativity and becomes an exercise in looking at meaningless variations and putting little stamps on them.

When a band creates a whole new genre, that's another story. It is a different process and the core elements do clearly change.

Thrash, black and death metal were still developing and were to a degree interchangable terms from around 83 to 87. So bands like Bathory, early Sodom, or Possessed are thrash, black and death metal at the same time. And this is not a problem.

You have to remember that not only peripheric songwritting elements changed in the early 90s, creating the second wave.

There were also developments in studio production and the technology of recording that helped define and allow bands to have the black metal sound that some people say is the "real one" nowadays.

This is one of the reasons why when you hear a second wave black metal band covering a first wave black metal band it sounds as if it belongs to the band covering it. The songwritting is the same, the riffs are the same, but the distortion/pedals/producer/studio/etc are already the result of this process of development and maturation. People learned how to play better and producers also developed their techniques.

I insist that I am not denying that there are differences between the first black metal bands and the second wave in terms of songwritting. But they are, like I said, minor. The core is with Venom, basically, and it has been since they invented this combination of sound/lyrics/images/clothes.

The genre is not named after their album by accident.

Venom is definitely not the blueprint of black metal in terms of songwriting, if that's what you want to imply. As I already said they were basically a cartoonish evil version of Motörhead.

Listen to Bathory's first album again and tell me (despite what Quorthon might have said) it doesn't have Venom prints all over it. Venom begat ==> Bathory/Bulldozer/Sabbat etc.. begat ==> 2nd Wave BM

So? What's your point? I did not say that they are not connected.

In fact Bathory was directly influenced by Motörhead which is why I'd be careful before writing Quorthon's claim that he did not care about Venom off as a lie just because they had similarities.

My point is that if a band first coined the term that the genre is known as, had an album and song of the same name and made seminal music that resonated throughout the BM First Wave, then it's hard to say they weren't the blueprint (even if the building formed a different shape in the end)

My point is that if a band first coined the term that the genre is known as, had an album and song of the same name and made seminal music that resonated throughout the BM First Wave, then it's hard to say they weren't the blueprint (even if the building formed a different shape in the end)

Most of norwegians of the 2nd wave bands recognize Venom has a black metal band. Are they wrong?

I'm of the opinion that Venom is proto-black and the black metal tag has been pasted on them for the undeniable and huge influence they had on the development of the style - moreso, they are the forefathers of extreme metal as a whole I would say - , not cause they actually 'play' a more recognizable way of black metal.

Now, Mystifier, Sarcófago, HH, Samael, Tormentor and Master's Hammer, among others are black metal thru and thru.

Again, I never said that Venom was not influential on black metal and cannot be characterized as a black metal band under certain aspects. The only thing I am trying to make clear is that their songwriting is as far from the typical second wave black metal that everyone recognizes as such as any other early 80s speed metal/NWOBHM act.

Let's just take a look at some examples. Let's compare Venom's In League With Satan to Gorgoroth's Bergtrollets Hevn, a track that is almost a stereotypical representation of second wave black metal in terms of songwriting.

In League With Satan
intro, verse, bridge, chorus, verse, bridge, chorus, "solo"+verse/bridge, verse, bridge, chorus, outro
This is just the classic rock formula. Has been in use since loooong before Venom.
The riffs are a mix of rock'n'roll, heavy metal and punk rock, aka what Motörhead has been doing since forever.

Bergtrollets Hevn
riff A (intro), riff B (chorus?), riff C (verse?), riff D (bridge?), riff B, interlude:{riff E, riff F, riff G, riff F, riff E}, riff A (outro) (in short: ABCDBEFGFEA)
As typical for classic death and black metal around 1990 the layout does not follow a certain pattern but riffs come freely as they seem appropriate to the composer.
Regarding technique all the typical black metal elements are there: Monophone melodies, melodies made from variations of two-note-chords, simple powerchord based ominous riffs - and all of it played in an almost constant stream of tremolo picking. Chords with more than two notes are powerchord based and exclusively used as punctuation.

Another song for which almost the same can be said is Mayhem's Funeral Fog. These songs are what I consider typical black metal songs. That does not mean that black metal necessarily has to make use of these techniques, but they are the most idiosyncratic superficial characteristics of black metal songwriting.

Venom has very little to do with that.

Slovakia - Nemrael (1990)

I think this is part of the reason that Burzum's remake album failed. Along with the unnecessary speeding up/slowing down of some parts.

Yes they are.

What else is black metal if not a cartoonish (you have to be really, really dumb to take satanic rock seriously) evil version of speed-up heavy metal with harsh vocals? The core elements are there.

You are obsessing over minute variations and not looking at the big picture. Like I said, the core elements ARE there with Venom. Brutal ugly music, harsh vocals, satanic youth culture images/lyrics. It's all there.

If you obsess with slight variations you will, like you did below, get lost in them. You can compare the songwritting of Burzum, Dimmu Borgir and Satyricon and they are not the same. You will find as many variations between those three as you found btw Venom and Gorgoroth.

But they still are black metal.

"Brutal, ugly music, harsh vocals" yeah that's pretty much any extreme form of metal you are describing there. You manage to be even more superficial than my analysis of technical aspects of the genre. Satanic imagery is also hardly limited to black metal, but more importantly, it is not a songwriting technique. Remember that I clearly stated that my concern was similarities in songwriting, based on objective criteria. If they hold no importance to you then we have no basis for discussing this matter (like "civil" people).

Disclaimer: Post edited several times.

It is. And you have to understand that black metal is not only the cold, eerie sound of early darkthrone, with badly recorded music, harsh vocals, badly played and with cold, repetitive riffs.

Black Metal goes from Darkthrones to Burzum to Nachtsmystium to Behmoth to Cradle of Filth to Marduk to Enslaved to Gorgoroth to Bathory to Celtic Frost to Sarcófago to Possessed to Venom. It's an incredibly diverse genre, and in many times the genres of death and black metal cross. There's a very, very clear follow up from Venom to Mayhem, which is very direct, very clear and very strong. It is completely undeniable that Venom and the Black Metal scene are absolutely interlinked and they are the basis of everything.

And not only venom invented thrash and black metal directly (also giving the direct link to death metal, of course) they also evolved on their own, producing epic/progressive stuff like at war with satan, to dark and eerie tracks like (the album) Possessed. Impressive band that covered nearly everything.

Of course the Scandinavian took all of the early bands (Venom, Slayer, Hellhammer, Celtic Frost, Sarcófago, Bathory) and made it their own, transformed it into their very own brand. But, like I said, Black Metal is not only Scandinavia. It is a lot of bands from different places with different sounds.

You're stretching the definition of black metal to include just about every band with any element in common with it. It isn't an incredibly diverse genre, not any more than death metal is, for example. A certain group of people always seems eager to label every possible band linked to the development of black metal as such, so I wonder why Slayer isn't considered death metal if Venom is really black metal.

Venom also pioneered the common black metal hallmarks of rotten production, satanic imagery, leather and spikes, mythical stage names
Fenriz breaks it down here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-5urh814s

Very good points.

Ilwhyan I wouldn't say that I include "just about every band with any element in common with it". I stand by the elements I pointed out and the ones our colleague above underlined. They are enough for us to have the boundaries of the genre.

What I sense here, and amongst the most conservative fans, is that as soon as genres overlap and are not strictly within a frame, people have a tendency to freak out or disregard the band. I think this is a very limited view of music genres/songwritting. What I am saying is not the "anything" goes. I am saying that genres are more nuanced than these strict definitions.

I think this obsession with categorizing every slight variation of genres comes from a human need to "organize" things and also to project one's identity in the music. The limits must be solid otherwise my identity is not, and that means I am "weak" because some concepts are "open" and therefore my ego is open as well, because I am black metal an black metal is me.....

And those who seem to be so strongly against the idea of a fairly strict definition always use the strawman argument that the more conservative fans are automatically making value judgments; i.e. if it's not "pure" black metal, it must not be worth listening to. Ilwhyan has already gone out of his way to explain that for him there's no intrinsic link between purity and quality.

I'm much the same way, myself. I have a much more strict definition of black metal than all of these guys who're counting Venom and Mercyful Fate and whatnot. I think black metal in its purist form wasn't created until the Scandinavian scene. That said, I absolutely love lots of hybrid bands, whether they be black/death, black/thrash, black/doom, black/folk or whatever.

Categorization doesn't necessarily imply ranking by quality.

I didn't make any "strawman" arguments, I presented some reasons on why people are obsessing with pigeon-holing things.

Strict definitions, usually, are a symptom of obsessions, and I believe it is quite counter-productive and uninteresting to obsess over what is in the end, something which is not that meaningful; how you strictly label a band within what you personally think should or should not be a genre.

"We are gonna play Scandinavian depressive black metal with blast beats and blackened death metal riffs here and there" said no meaningful, groundbreaking band ever.

If you start by pigeon-holing everything you wanna do and putting into categories every element you will "use", you are bound to be mediocre and repeat other ideas. Bands that actually coined genres didn't set out to create within obsessive sub-sub-sub-categories/definitions of genres, they were creating in a broader fashion, not thinking of belonging strictly to one genre or another and that's why they managed to come up with something new.

This type of thinking doesn't look at the core elements the pioneers bring, and disassociates the thread of evolution from one musician to the other. Venom is still around, playing Black Metal, in Black/extreme metal festivals, etc, so they are actually contemporaries to the bands that followed them.

Like I said, the only reason this happens is because the fans are obsessed with their identity and they see it as a part of the genre. Like I said, the links between any Black Metal band, absolutely any, and Venom, Bathory, Possessed, etc, are absolutely direct and clear. And many times, most of the times, those elements are not even linked: they are exactly the same.

As for what is and what isn't Black Metal, history has decided that for us. And for sure, Venom, Bathory, Celtic Frost and other 80s bands are firmly registered in music history (books, criticism, documentaries, the view of musicians, etc) as the first wave of Black Metal. And since that's what they are, this shouldn't be much of a surprise.

While this discussion about what is and isn't BM is all quite interesting, just want to pull it back to the main topic for a bit.

What is also interesting is what you find when you start digging in the Archives. The first BM band from Czech Republic is also called 666 http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/666/12816 sharing the same name as the first BM band from Norway. Wonder if they were aware of each other? Maybe one ripped off the other? Or perhaps it's just pure coincidence? Anyone know more about this similarity?

I doubt they aware of each other, 666 is an extremely generic name

Black Prophecies is the oldest italian black metal band, as they started playing in 1988.

Indeed. Retrospectively, that v/a comp has a very confusing title.

What about Bulldozer or Mortuary Drape though?

Song from 666, Czech Republic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8pPPLsJvAg
Sounds like a more punk oriented Venom.

Anyone know more about this first entrant from the Netherlands? http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Choronzon/59739

Couldn't find any links to their listed demos/albums, any pointers in the right direction would be appreciated!

Of all at least four Indonesian black metal bands that emerged in 1996-1997 (Dry, Sacrilegious, Hellgods, Ritual Orchestra), Dry are the first from the first, as that they formed in 1990 (actually, as a death metal/grindcore band, but in 1994-1995 they changed into black metal (remembers me a bit to Darkthrone)).
http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Dry/9184

Cool - I'll add them to the list. Know anything about Khasarath? http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Khasarath/3540297923

Well you're right, but Black Prophecies played only Black Metal, Bulldozer also played Speed/Thrash, could it be considered black metal anyway?

Hmm, a little bit... But they play black/death metal, could they be considered too?

http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Conrad/3540332110
First black metal band in Barbados, formed in 2009.