Why is Blue Cheer such an obscure band if they are the supposed pioneers of heavy metal?

I wouldn't consider 'Blue Cheer' or 'Ten Years After' obscure...in fact they're about as mainstream as you can get regarding classic rock music from the 60's/70's. Though I suppose this might depend on ones age, musical tastes, or just how broad ones knowledge regarding rock music actually is.

But you're correct about Blue Cheer being one of the first heavy metal pioneers...drop D tuning, dissonant heavily distorted chords...Blue Cheer had it all, long before Black Sabbath :) Also, being a heavy metal pioneering band from San Francisco in 1967 (the Summer of Love) may have had a lot to do with their lack of major success...as anyone knows, San Francisco was the International Hub for peace, love, and understanding during the late 60's. Perhaps had they haled from NYC or Detroit, things may have been different? We'll never know. Then by 1969 Blue Cheer had basically dropped their heavy sound of 67/68, and adopted a much more laid back approach. That's another major reason they're not recognized as heavy metal pioneers by many I suppose. Of their 6 studio albums released between 1968-71, only their first two (both released in '68) had that heavy sound.

*Edit - To the person above...For someone using a Motorhead album cover as an avatar, and calling a band like 'Blue Cheer' "talentless", and "horrid" is just plain funny!

Who do you think inspired bands like Hawkwind (who by the way featured Lemmy for several years) & Motorhead? Blue Cheer...that's who.

*2nd Edit - You're comparing apples to oranges my friend. Blue Cheer were primarily a late 60's band...a period in rock history that helped define what was to come during the 70's. Motorhead were hardly known outside of the UK until the latter part of the 70's. Blue Cheer's heyday was around 1968...while Motorhead's didn't come for another 12 years. A lot of things changed in the world of rock during those years. I hardly see how anyone...not even you...can possibly use the two bands in a comparative sense, other than stating the obvious...that they were/are both rock bands. Outside of that...saying that one is better that the other is purely subjective, and depends on the listener, and his/her tastes. You say "there's no comparison"...yet that's exactly what you've been trying to do, Lol.

Oh...and I really don't need a lesson on Lemmy...I am aware of his Hendrix connections...being a roadie ect. I was aware of this fact quite possibly before you were born...or even your parents for that matter. I own everything Lemmy has ever been involved with...I still have two original vinyl pressings of Sam Gopal's "Escalator" LP. So even though some on this page might be impressed with the fact that you seem to enjoy forcing your opinion on people..."Motorhead are the greatest" etc...if you think that "Motorhead have the chops"...then you really need to get out more. I've seen them live 8 times over the last 30 years...and they "bombed" on at least half of those occasions. Please don't lecture me on something you've only recently become partially aware of. Try that crap somewhere else pal :)

Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin were formed in the same year, however Led Zeppelin started releasing albums earlier. Even though they sold first, I don't believe they were what made metal prominent; that credit goes to Black Sabbath because the metal bands that came right after sounded more like Black Sabbath than Led Zeppelin. As one of the answers above says, Led Zeppelin was more of an influence on hard rock. I highly disagree that Deep Purple is metal, by the way; they're barely hard rock.

wellll... "good band" is stretching it a bit. They were an important band in the annals of heavy rock, and I like them to a point, but they were pretty bad really. And their songwriting was horrid, which is why they never made it bigger.

Ten Years After was a FAR more talented band than Blue Cheer

EDIT- @ Smiley-

Hey bro- first, I don't see the word 'talentless' anywhere in my answer. Second, I did not call them horrid, I called their songwriting horrid. Because- it was. They were (are) a fun band.

I'm very well aware of Lemmy's and Hawkwind's history, and of the influence that bands like BC, Iron Butterfly, etc had on the early scene. The fact is that Motorhead is a far superior band to Blue Cheer in every respect, and Lemmy is an excellent songwriter- something that is missed by many who simply associate Motorhead with their popular image. Lemmy's lyrics have wit, depth, and ingenuity, and he writes great rock songs- enough to fill 19 studio albums... They have always been a very tight band- I can't say the same for Blue Cheer, who sounded sloppy. I like BC for what they are, but there is no comparison- Motorhead is a FAR superior band in every way.

As I said, Blue Cheer was definitely influential- but so were the Sex Pistols. Doesn't mean that either band were tight, well-performing units. Blue Cheer didn't have the chops or the songwriting, which is the answer to this person's question.

And BTW- Lemmy is the undisputed King of Rock. (he used to score acid for Hendrix in London when he was his roadie!) The man has lived like none other. And, he's turning 65 this Xmas eve- and still kicking the CRAP out of every band that pretends to his throne!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemmy

"Rock and Roll ain't worth the name/

if it don't make you strut!"

My boys live:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlecTBevmzc

Because they inspired other bands who later wound up selling more records than Blue Cheer.

Blue Cheer didn't last long...Especially given the amount of acid they did...They leave behind a few good albums and a good "fuzz" version of "Summer Time" Blues...What more do you want? Iron Butterfly left behind alot less material and they are still revered as fathers of metal...

I like Blue Cheer, but I think Black Sabbath is the first Heavy Metal band. Sabbath has that dark element.

What Smiley said.

Woof !