Jim LotFP said:
1. Are you saying that the term metal itself has no meaning? Or that it is somehow uncorruptable? Or no good if it isn't corrupted? What is your stance on the word "metal", or even better, "heavy metal"?
2. And do you really think that that music, which is created and listened to by choice, is analogous to racial stock, which can not be chosen by anyone? That anyone likes the no-bullshit original and unaltered version of an art form is the equivalent of a racist?
If I'm wrong or setting up a straw man argument, please, set the record straight.
Heavy metal was "killed" on purpose in the early 90s by those "in charge".
3. Remove the thought of nu metal as a movement. Break it down into individual bands. You have innovators, and scene leeches. This does happen in every genre, this copying instead of creating. The "fad" happens because enough musicians are copying others that labels can scoop up the bands by the dozen and market them en masse as the same thing, and the fans buy it. It's awful and horrible on any level, "underground" or mainstream.
What would be the point of this? "I play for five people and have sold 250 records, all for the sake of my underground image!"
If so, good for them. Doing it for the cause and not for whatever benefit to be gained from it.
Black metal existed before death metal did. Euronymous' "jogging suit metal" statements were just a marketing campaign for his own activities.
4. How do you keep from falling for every industry scam, every second-stringer presented as an innovator? How do you make conscious choices instead of letting others choose for you, if you're not keeping aware of what's going on behind the curtain?
The bottom line on nu metal is that it has absolutely no ties to heavy metal. Heavy metal has a pretty clear line of evolution from the 60s to the present. Nu metal represents a break in that history. It grew from other influences, got tagged with this nu metal label, and because musicians didn't know their asses from their elbows when it came to heavy metal (or just chose to pretend like they had no connection to "old" heavy metal") got popular, it became the new definition of metal. Or "loud music". Or "heavy rock." Or whatever promotional tag the labels could come up with to prevent people from saying the dreaded "m" word. This created a fanbase of millions who loved and followed this new version of heavy metal, who had absolutely no connection to or knowledge of the history and lineage of heavy metal.
It was a prefabricated rock revolution. An answer, presented by labels (where were the underground communities creating and following this music and releasing independent records before major labels got involved?) as a remedy to a musical environment those same labels had themselves created.
It also created a new avenue of watering down and selling out as people tired of actually creating real music decided to grab for the gold instead. (see Rob Flynn go from Vio-lence to declaring that Machine Head "doesn't want to be seen as a metal band"-)
You don't think that creates a bit of a problem with the people who realize heavy metal never "died"? Our identity was stolen by people who didn't know or didn't care about everything "metal" had meant for decades.
There are exceptions to the rule of course. Slipknot most definitely had its roots in heavy metal, and the members of the band would be quite vocal about it. That's why I always respected Slipknot as a band, even if I didn't want to listen to them, even when every other "true" "underground" metalhead threw them in with the Korns and the Limp Bizkits of the world. I don't know where Tool fits into this conversation but they brought King Crimson and Meshuggah on arena tours, and who the fuck else at the platinum selling level was doing that for legendary or niche bands?
And I'm told that some of these bands are now exhibiting more characteristics of "real" heavy metal. I'm not impressed and I don't care. I'd rather listen to bands that knew what the fuck they were doing from day one.
Heavy metal means something to me, and I have no respect for anybody that shits on it.
(edit: added "as a remedy" and "don't care" where I had left them out on original posting)
1. metal is a label...that is all. a band's label can't be corrupted. being dubbed metal doesn't mean that you must wear it on your shoulder with pride. its a way of organizing music, just like a person's name is to organizing him/her amongst everyone else. my name is joe...i knew another joe once who was a complete douchebag. i am not offended because his name is joe too, nor is the name, joe, corrupted.
2. when limit yourself to liking only the no-bullshit original and unaltered version of an art form, you are, in a sense, being racist. comparing it to racism is fare. when comparing music to racial stock, you must be referring to genres. humanity = music....genre = race
3. the only thing that is awful about it is the greed that fuels record labels' decisions to sign and promote bands. they take advantage of what the "biggest thing" is at that time. (the "biggest thing" at the time is what i was reffering to when i said that the fad is a constant) this is a completely seperate issue from the music itself, what you hear when you hit play. there is nothing wrong with randomly picking up an album because it was recommended to you by like-minded music fans.
and you're right, what would be the point of playing underground music for the sake of playing underground music? what is the point of playing any genre for the sake of playing any genre? the premise of the original argument in which i made that statement was concerning the integrity of music. when a band gets together and plays metal, do you think that they are getting together to forward the movement of metal, or because they love music? you say that it would be good if a band played underground music for the sake of being underground because? then you hold that this would be good...doing it for the cause and not the benefit to be gained. well, based on the premise of the original argument, the cause and the benefit are the same thing.
4. man, i'm sorry, but you should question whether or not others are making choices for you. i avoid having others make decisions for me by making up my own mind about the music i listen to and not letting the biases created by the wonder of whats going on behind the curtain fog my judgement. by letting the culture that surounds music be a part of your taste of music, you are not making your own choice.
let genres and media be a guide, not a path. you can't identify with a certain genre. you, jim, are not "metal." you don't stand for it, you enjoy it. this is how people become offended when they hear that opeth is on a record label with a bunch of nu-metal bands. this is how people automatically dismiss anything on mtv as crap, because it is on mtv.
pretend that you are listening to a song on the tv, you instantly love this song. but, you find out that its on mtv. you say, heh, whatever...you download it, and listen to it over and over. it is now your favorite song. you decide to do some research on the band only to find out that they were built by a record label, and don't write their own songs...and that there are even rumors that they play to a tape when the perform. do you still like that song?
your quotes...."You don't think that creates a bit of a problem with the people who realize heavy metal never "died"? Our identity was stolen by people who didn't know or didn't care about everything "metal" had meant for decades."
and
"Heavy metal means something to me, and I have no respect for anybody that shits on it."
my entire argument is based upon people that become angry because someone shit on their favorite genre.