skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
If everyone thought that metal had reached it's highest form and anything done on top of that would be worse (which is what purist/elitist ideas seem to imply), nothing new would ever come out. And metal may die out, or at the least become very stale.
Elitism as a philosophy is the belief that those who are 'elite', by some given criteria, are those whose thoughts and opinions are deserving of more weight in that they are more knowledgeable and are more conducive to achieving the best result. I think it's pretty obvious that there are qualitative differences between metal bands, so everyone at some level is elitist. Elitism in metal does not imply necessarily that the genre has reached its highest form and that everything else would be worse. Nonetheless, I suppose that that statement is true and would imagine that that statement would find a fair amount of agreement. How many people actually think that metal is today at its creative and artistic zenith? I would imagine not many. That doesn't imply that nobody should create any new music, however. If anything, it implies that somebody should try to prove that belief wrong.
I didn't want to confine the idea to just mixing different styles of music, but rather introducing new ideas/sounds or even rearranging existing elements within the music. Such as something simple like using different effects (wah pedal, flanger, etc...) or not just using the verse chorus bridge format.
This is something that is widely, widely touted by those who are frequently referred to pejoratively as 'elitist'. See ANUS's review of the new Beherit album for an example.
Also, I think the purpose of trying new things is apparent: Either to express one's own inner vision (which may deviate from contemporary peers) or simply because he/she is bored with the status quo. And as always, not everything is going to be good simply because it's different, but that shouldn't preclude anyone from trying.
Sure, maybe people shouldn't be precluded from experimenting for experiment's sake, but that doesn't mean that I want to hear it, nor that I think it was a worthwhile attempt and not a waste of time. Experimentation should be driven by a larger purpose and foundation and reason for its implementation; I would imagine experimentation combined with compositional/ideological meaning has a much higher success rate and signal/noise ratio than unguided experimentation.