Nice work, Magius. I think it's always good to challenge the conventional wisdom, but you've built a pretty airtight case proving that the conventional wisdom (heavy metal took a huge dip in mainstream popularity between the 80s and 90s) is correct in this case.
Remember, particularly in the context of this thread, this is not about how you or I were cool enough to be clued into the underground and were unaffected by the dip, or how there there were still lots of great bands making great records. It's about how the profile of heavy metal dropped in the *mainstream* of society. Zod's theory presents it as a numbers game: to produce 10 great bands, you require 1000 great guitarists, which requires 1,000,000 kids to be inspired to pick up a guitar, which requires 10,000,000 people listening to heavy metal, which requires mainstream popularity, major label support, and radio play. When that support evaporates and the 10,000,000 drops to 10,000, you and I upping that number to 10,002 isn't going to have any effect on the number of great bands produced.
And according to the theory, there is no real need to differentiate between "hard rock" and "heavy metal". Guitarists inspiring kids to pick up a guitar and play it loud and ostentatiously is the key requirement. That means "hard rock" may actually be *more* important than "heavy metal", since the hopes of banging hot chicks can be hugely inspirational.
Neil
I agree with your representative numbers, and I consider your point on inspiration to be a very important element. The hope of banging hot chicks is, while I recognize the tongue in cheek nature of your statement, definately a motivator. No doubt that hope inspired masses of teenage boys to pick up a guitar, and form Metal bands. However, most of those boys would be content if they achieved that goal at the cover band level playing local clubs.
What lack of mainstram support took from Metal was the concept of "The Dream." The slim possibility that they could actually make it. The opportunity that they could be the next Eddie Van Halen, Randy Rhodes, or KK Downing. The chance to be a star. The loss took from those kids the role models who's posters they put up on their walls and dreamed to emulate.
It took from them the visions of Learjets, and mansions, and limo's. Even barring that level of success it took from them the possibility of even making a living at something they loved to do. True, the greatest success wouldn't have happened for most of them. but the possibility provided the greatest inspiration of all, hope.
Playing sloppy seconds in clubs to get laid can motivate a kid to pick up an instrument, and become adequate at it. To aspire to be great, to experiment, to innovate, to practice for hours until your fingers bleed requires something more. It requires the possibility of a pay off for all the hard work and dedication. Because without that there is no goal. No point.
Pundits will claim that passion should be enough. However, they will do so as they live comfortably doing whatever it is they do. The concept of the starving artist may be charming for them. For the artists it just means they're hungry.
Some do choose to play Metal for the love of it. Some of them are even really talented. Here in Atlanta I love seeing Eclipsed by Sanity play, and I think they're by far the best local Metal talent in town. I've watched them since before they were out of high school, and have seen them develop and grow their skills. Val is an excellent young guitarist, and IMO has the possibility of become great.
Unfortunately, as it is now most of those who read this will never hear or see EbS, which is a loss to you. Equally as bad is the fact that, unless things change, eventually EbS will probably hang it up in order to have real lives and careers. Sad as it may be, they desreve to be able to make a living as much as anyone else.
The possibilty is slowly reemerging, and has reached a point where more and more musicians can actually eek out a living playing Traditional, Power, or Progressive Metal if they're lucky. But for at least ten years even that wasn't the case. The experience of Matt Barlow should attest to that quite clearly.
I don't know, maybe there is no lack of great new bands. Chances are that there's an EbS in every city, and even several in some of the larger cities. However, it doesn't matter whether there are no new great bands, or if there are but we never hear them. What the Hell's the difference?
Wikipedia is an acceptable reference in academic circles and has been demonstrated to be as accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
The problem with Wikipedia is (or maybe was) that almost anyone can (or could) edit or completely rewrite an entry and post it. The entry on Power Metal, for example, has been completely revamped several times. Origionally, it was pretty accurate, but completely rewriten by someone who clearly had no clue. The second contributer seemed to think that Power Metal was exclusively about Rhapsody, dragons, and elves. Fortuantely, the newest version has been revised to more closely reflect the first, although it lacks some of the original depth. It could be that the first author overwrote the second, or a completely different party altogether did it. there's no way to know since they don't accredit the authors.
It could be that they've revised their policies, and now vet submitted entries before they post them. However, they used to have instantaneous updates by anyone, and I've seen some dubious stuff there.
