Did Venom really start black metal?

[Boiorix]

There's a significant amount of Autopsy influence in A Blaze In The Northern Sky. Ask Fenriz.

You're long on assertion and short on specifics. How about pointing to a song or a riff with an obvious Autopsy influence. You might do the same with the 'Venom' influence you keep claiming for the Norwegian scene.

On what basis is it "not operating at the same level," because they didn't completely alter the way that Black Metal sounded in the 80s?

In a sense, yes. But mainly because, while the Norwegian bands were developing a more sophisticated aesthetic similar to more advanced musical forms (classical music and ambient), the Greek bands were banging out a slightly higher grade of rock 'n roll. There's nothing wrong with that, it just doesn't reach the level of abstraction that truly great music aspires to.

Your personal opinion on Deathcrush is irrelevant here.

And yours isn't?

You're dismissing Deathcrush as a key evolutionary step in Black Metal. It's more than a "historical artifact."

How so? There's absolutely nothing in it that hadn't already been done (and done better) by Sodom or Bathory. To be an evolution of the genre, it would need to bring something new to the table.

 

[Boiorix]

Sure there's potential (look, this number is bigger than this one!); I just don't think you're illustrating the connection very well.

The problem isn't with my illustration, but with your obtuseness. I can't help that you're an idiot.

Based on...?

...the lack of a coherent aesthetic prior to the early 1990s. When we talk about 'genres' in music, we're essentially talking about groups of artists who share a basic aesthetic approach. Obviously, genres don't spring forth fully formed, so early artists tend to exhibit only some rather than all of the traits that define a genre in its mature state. This problem is exacerbated in black metal by the unusually long gap between its emergence in the early 1980s and its maturation as a coherent genre united by both ideal and aesthetic in the early 1990s.

To really understand black metal as a genre, you need to look at the whole of its history simultaneously. If you're trying to use the criteria of 1985 to define 'black metal' (i.e. Satanic lyrical content), you're missing the boat big time. But to look at what black metal implies today (or, for that matter, what it implied in 1995) also leads to error. A more nuanced view would be to understand that 'black metal' is defined by the intersection of ideal and aesthetic, and would trace its history through the development of both. From this perspective Venom is the very first step toward black metal, and Bathory, Hellhammer and Sodom are also part of that evolutionary tree. Mercyful Fate is not, and, at the other end, neither are Cradle of Filth, Arcturus or later Dimmu Borgir. In other words, this path is how the 'conventional wisdom' was arrived at in the first place, so hashing it out again and again for ego wanking is a waste of time.

But, I suppose, the n00bs will never learn if they don't get it broken down to the nuts and bolts every couple of months or so..

Garage bands playing covers of black metal songs while writing music inspired by those songs aren't involved in black metal?

And which 'covers' would those be, since none of the bands mentioned ever recorded covers by earlier black metal bands, nor does such a cover exist on the only live recording from any of the pre-black metal Scandinavian acts (Grim Reaping Norway - though the album does cover Slaughter's seminal death metal anthem, "Nocturnal Hell")? All of the bands in question were squarely death metal. They sound like death metal. Their songs deal with the same ideas as death metal. Their technique is drawn from death metal, and the bands they were influenced by were...death metal. I hate to break it to you, but the internet exists at this point, so it's not at all difficult to hear these recordings. The days when you could make bullshit claims about old demos with impunity have long since passed.

I think you're going to have to spell it out judging by other responses, what are the big changes made by Mayhem?

Ultimately, Mayhem was probably the least inventive of the Norse bands (or at least the band that remained most grounded in previous generations of metal). Their biggest impact was at the level of ideal: they kicked off the ideological arms race that pushed black metal towards ever greater expressions of conceptual (and aesthetic) extremism and sonic inaccessibility to normals, leading on the one hand to Graveland and the other to Ildjarn. Musically, while they weren't particularly innovative at the level of basic technique, they were instrumental, I think, in creating the idea that black metal could be made both extreme and inaccessible through production technique, but retain a kind of dark beauty through more attention to the articulation of melody and abstraction in structure.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

How's it compared to Under the Sign of the Black Mark? The more similar the better, because I love that album.

USBM>>>s/t

 

[Zephyrus]

Then what about The Return?

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Then what about The Return?

hammerheart>BFD>USBM>thereturn>s/t

 

[Zephyrus]

k

 

[Boiorix]

Though, in all seriousness, Under the Sign of the Black Mark is probably the most enduring Bathory release.

 

[thisisaformicatable]

The problem isn't with my illustration, but with your obtuseness. I can't help that you're an idiot.

You really shouldn't expect your ANUSite pet theory-of-the-month to be immediately obvious, especially when one has to figure out which parts of history we are using and which parts we are ignoring today.

...the lack of a coherent aesthetic prior to the early 1990s. When we talk about 'genres' in music, we're essentially talking about groups of artists who share a basic aesthetic approach. Obviously, genres don't spring forth fully formed, so early artists tend to exhibit only some rather than all of the traits that define a genre in its mature state. This problem is exacerbated in black metal by the unusually long gap between its emergence in the early 1980s and its maturation as a coherent genre united by both ideal and aesthetic in the early 1990s.

Yeah, I was more asking if this theory of [longer developmental period --> greater sound/thematic range] was based on anything other than the current case, or if you were just arbitrarily connecting correlation with causation.

And which 'covers' would those be...

Venom and Celtic Frost, since we're talking about Mayhem.

Ultimately, Mayhem was probably the least inventive of the Norse bands (or at least the band that remained most grounded in previous generations of metal). Their biggest impact was at the level of ideal: they kicked off the ideological arms race that pushed black metal towards ever greater expressions of conceptual (and aesthetic) extremism and sonic inaccessibility to normals, leading on the one hand to Graveland and the other to Ildjarn. Musically, while they weren't particularly innovative at the level of basic technique, they were instrumental, I think, in creating the idea that black metal could be made both extreme and inaccessible through production technique, but retain a kind of dark beauty through more attention to the articulation of melody and abstraction in structure.

Well, that's nice and vague. I was expecting some kind of glaring difference between Deathcrush and De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas to be illustrated, or an explanation of how Live in Leipzig is obviously half death metal and half black metal.

 

[Boiorix]

You really shouldn't expect your ANUSite pet theory-of-the-month to be immediately obvious, especially when one has to figure out which parts of history we are using and which parts we are ignoring today.

The only person ignoring (or rather, deliberately distorting) history here is you.

Yeah, I was more asking if this theory of [longer developmental period --> greater sound/thematic range] was based on anything other than the current case, or if you were just arbitrarily connecting correlation with causation.

Uh, if the question is about black metal (the 'current case'), then only the history of black metal is relevant.

That said, we see the same dynamic in the development of heavy metal, where the gap between initial development (with Sabbath) and the coalescing of the genre (with the NWOBHM) took place over the course of a similar length of time. As with 'black metal' in the 80s, 'heavy metal' in the 70s remains a highly amorphous concept (Sabbath, Pentagram and Judas Priest for sure, but do we include Deep Purple? Rainbow? The Scorpions?). The lack of a coherent genre in this period leaves lots of room for argument, arguments that you don't see with genres that quickly solidified (punk, thrash, hardcore etc.). The drawn out developmental stage leaves a lot more bands in that nebulous area where only some of the characteristics of the music in its mature form are present. Most genres mature quickly enough to avoid this confusion, black metal and heavy metal did not, so you see a lot more arguments about where bands fit within their histories, but an astute student understands that this can only be grasped by looking at the entire genre, rather than the genre at any one place and time.

In other news, when dealing with abstract concepts, there's no way to distinguish between correlation and causation - I hate to break it to you, but this ain't a lab.

Venom and Celtic Frost, since we're talking about Mayhem.

One small problem: we weren't talking about Mayhem, we were talking about Morbid, Amputation, Old Funderal, Phobia etc. You touted the relevance of those (all clearly death metal) bands to the history of black metal.

Well, that's nice and vague. I was expecting some kind of glaring difference between Deathcrush and De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas

What, you mean other than the radical differences in tempo, vocal style, riff construction and song structure? Deathcrush sounds like a tenth rate In the Sign of Evil knockoff, two-note rhythm music with tape deck production. De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas is like classical music as interpreted by a fan of USBM-era Bathory and classic-era Kreator. Beyond that, what's to say? Anyone with ears can tell that the former is totally derivative of its influences and the latter is a vastly creative expansion upon them.

 

[thisisaformicatable]

That said, we see the same dynamic in the development of heavy metal, where the gap between initial development (with Sabbath) and the coalescing of the genre (with the NWOBHM) took place over the course of a similar length of time. As with 'black metal' in the 80s, 'heavy metal' in the 70s remains a highly amorphous concept (Sabbath, Pentagram and Judas Priest for sure, but do we include Deep Purple? Rainbow? The Scorpions?). The lack of a coherent genre in this period leaves lots of room for argument, arguments that you don't see with genres that quickly solidified (punk, thrash, hardcore etc.). The drawn out developmental stage leaves a lot more bands in that nebulous area where only some of the characteristics of the music in its mature form are present. Most genres mature quickly enough to avoid this confusion, black metal and heavy metal did not, so you see a lot more arguments about where bands fit within their histories, but an astute student understands that this can only be grasped by looking at the entire genre, rather than the genre at any one place and time.

That's better. Two isn't a pattern, but your theory on this has passed from "probably making it up as he goes along" to "interesting."

In other news, when dealing with abstract concepts, there's no way to distinguish between correlation and causation - I hate to break it to you, but this ain't a lab.

When you say abstract concepts you're talking about time between releases and their content?

One small problem: we weren't talking about Mayhem, we were talking about Morbid, Amputation, Old Funderal, Phobia etc. You touted the relevance of those (all clearly death metal) bands to the history of black metal.

"NONE of these bands or their personnel were involved with black metal prior to 1991."

What, you mean other than the radical differences in tempo, vocal style, riff construction and song structure? Deathcrush sounds like a tenth rate In the Sign of Evil knockoff, two-note rhythm music with tape deck production. De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas is like classical music as interpreted by a fan of USBM-era Bathory and classic-era Kreator. Beyond that, what's to say? Anyone with ears can tell that the former is totally derivative of its influences and the latter is a vastly creative expansion upon them.

Fascinating. Talk about Live In Leipzig.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Talk about Live In Leipzig.

 

[Boiorix]

"NONE of these bands or their personnel were involved with black metal prior to 1991."

And which members of those bands WERE involved with black metal prior to 1991? Excluding Dead, who was a non-creative contributor to both Morbid and Mayhem? None of which changes the fact that Mayhem were the only black metal act in Norway prior to the early 90s, and their own material prior to 1990 or so remained so derivative of their influences as to be meaningless to the evolution of the genre. The bands you've cited were all death metal bands, so how can we talk about 'what was going on in Norway' prior to 1991 as being key to the evolution of black metal when what was going on was death metal? The mere presence of musicians who at some point in the future would be involved in black metal is in and of itself meaningless. Is Hawkwind now important to the history of heavy metal? Does the presence of Lee Dorian make Napalm Death a key landmark in doom history?

 

[Manic Ferocity]

If you think about it, thrash, death, and black metal in the late 80s were pretty interchangeable as far as sound goes, which makes this argument pretty retarded.

 

[Boiorix]

There was certainly more hybridization. That said, the differences are pretty obvious to anyone with even a modicum of aural sophistication.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Not necessarily. All of the late 80s bands had pretty strong elements of each of those genres. Take Hellhammer for example. They are just as much black metal as they are thrash and death metal. I honestly can't say they are just one of the three.

 

[zoidberg]

boiorix = wagontrain imo.

but he had an epic battle of words with the head mod, so awesome.

 

[thisisaformicatable]

And which members of those bands WERE involved with black metal prior to 1991?

If Mayhem is playing covers of black metal songs and playing music influenced by those songs that would later appear on Live In Leipzig (which I guess you consider a black/death album?) and DMDS in the late 1980s, are they not "involved" with black metal? And you really need to drop the "prior to 1991" part of your theory, Live In Leipzig was recorded in 1990.

The idea of sudden emergence of black metal in 1991 is absurd when these songs had been floating around for years, were not appreciably different from the other songs in the bands repertoire, and were not markedly different from what other bands in the scene were doing. What kind of "dormant period" sees the writing of "Freezing Moon" , "Pagan Fears" and "Buried By Time And Dust"?

 

[Boiorix]

The key tracks on Live In Leipzig and DMDS were mostly written in early 1990, and those written before 1990 sound like the band's earlier demo material - which is to say, like poorly played Sodom and Venom covers. Mayhem's contributions to the actual development of the genre (as opposed to merely aping their influences) begin here.

And, just a reminder, since you seem to struggle with basic concepts like simple honesty...

The big leap was made in 1990/91, first by Mayhem, who at this time developed in skeletal form what would be their signature sound up to the death of Euronymous.

Now where were we?

 

[thisisaformicatable]

The key tracks on Live In Leipzig and DMDS were mostly written in early 1990...

Source? The only Live In Leipzig track that doesn't appear on bootleg rehearsals from '88 is "Funeral Fog."

Now where were we?

I think you've outlined your "second wave black metal falling from the sky" theory well enough. It's nice, creative, but I can't see it gaining currency anytime soon. Especially with the "education by the sword" method, but it's just for shits anyway, right?

 

[Boiorix]

The only genuine Mayhem rehearsal tape from the period is the 'deathrehearsal' from '87 released by Maniac, but that contains only tracks from Pure Fucking Armageddon and Deathcrush. There are a lot of hoaxed 'bootlegs' floating around out there, but these are tracks culled from later recording sessions, alternate takes, stuff with the sound levels altered etc. Something about the visibility of the scene and the sound quality (or lack thereof) of the recordings has encouraged this sort of trickery (cf. the various 'live' Burzum tracks floating around out there).

I think you've outlined your "second wave black metal falling from the sky" theory well enough. It's nice, creative, but I can't see it gaining currency anytime soon.

Eh? It's pretty much conventional wisdom at this point. Mayhem fucked around as essentially a cover/tribute band for a few years, at which point Euronymous had developed as a musician and a songwriter to the point that he was able, around 1990, to move beyond his influences and flesh out a style that united several generations of previous metal. The new Mayhem material struck a chord with other musicians in the relatively isolated Norwegian scene, and DarkThrone, Burzum, Immortal etc. quickly followed suit, bringing to bear the lessons they learned playing death metal (structure) to the clarified aesthetic of black metal. And yeah, it did pretty much happen overnight (isn't that common knowledge at this point)?