False Metal: The Financial and Farcical Return of Heavy Metal

[Occam's Razor]

I only know that ep and found the song "Apple Tree" rather annoying. It is for sure decent Zep-worship, but no sensation. I actually do not hear anything else at all but Zeppelin in there...at least if you do not translate "indie" with "second or third class", which it is.

Of course, if you have never heard of Zeppelin before, this is novelty, but I guess the minority of "innocent" fans will get drawn to the originals after having worn out Wolfmother.

 

[Zealotry]

It's nothing short of hilarious the kind of shit that's been mistaken for metal in the past 15 years.

Static-X, for instance... angry techno

 

[Occam's Razor]

Just read today in a German guitar magazine that Gary Moore does not want to be associated with his (literally quoted) "heavy metal past" anymore...Did I miss something here? - hard rock is the farthest I would go in naming some of Mr. Bluesman's work...

 

[BenMech]

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/37111/Show_No_Mercy

 

[DBB]

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/37111/Show_No_Mercy

Somone passed this along to me about an hour ago.

Metal Edge???

These people are strange and never cease to amaze.

The portion dealing with my article is such a gross oversimplification of his place in the narrative and such a wild misrepresentation of the content that it is not worthy of comment beyond noting how weak, feeble and true to hipster form the response is.

 

[Jim LotFP]

Yeah, that was kind of a brainless cheap shot that shows no knowledge of what False Metal was about.

 

[Some Bastard]

I think you're overdoing it somewhat

It's all very cool to talk about 'the sound and fury of the NWOBHM' but a lot of the stuff released back then wouldn't even be considered Metal if it were released today. A band like Raven covered The Sweet ferchrissakes!! Funny that you mention Holocaust too, since songs like 'Smokin' Valves', 'Mavrock' and 'Cryin' Shame' are more punk/rock'n'roll than anything else. And compared to contemporary Black Metal founding fathers Venom almost sound like a pub rock band.

Iron Maiden's biggest influences are bands like Jethro Tull, Wishbone Ash and early Genesis.

A lot of supposedly 'real' Metal bands have 'sold out' by releasing commercial pop/rock albums on major labels (Savatage, Loudness, Tygers Of Pan Tang, Raven) before returning to form again. Even two ex-Holocaust members started a band called Hologram. A sticker on the cover said 'Holocaust are now Hologram'. The music had nothing to do with Metal at all.

Listening to Opeth's latest album you hear they 'borrowed' a lot from King Crimson, a band that was never considered 'metal' until a couple of years ago (and then only by some critics)

Yes, the guys in Nirvana made fun of Heavy Metal, but then so did people like Sean Harris (Diamond Head) and Patrick Mameli (Pestilence). So fuckin' what?

Krist Novoselic of Nirvana has also said in an interview: "There are a lot of cool metal bands. It's a shame they're all the old ones"

Most contemporary Metal doesn't sound anything like the NWOBHM. That's because Metal has evolved and it could only have done so by picking up influences from other genres (Hardcore/Punk, Prog, Classical etc...).

In short, life isn't just black/white and Metal isn't something 'separate' from other music, it's a style if music that has influenced a lot of other music and also has been influenced by a lot of other music. All this purism and talk about 'hipsters' is a load of bollocks since one should let the music speak for itself. There has always been commercial press trying to jump on some bandwagon and if you've immersed yourself enough in the music you'll find out for yourself soon enough which magazines to ignore.

Let the music do the talking!!!

 

[Occam's Razor]

Iron Maiden's biggest influences are bands like Jethro Tull, Wishbone Ash and early Genesis.

What else could they be influenced by? - There was not much metal to draw from yet. Don't forget Thin Lizzy or UFO as Maiden's inspiration.

I think the thing about Dave's article that is misunderstood the most is: Dave does not attack the musicians and their music personally (Grohl), but their behavior in the media and that of journalists who blurry the facts and do not have their shit together as it should be - or their turncoat-attitude concerning the latest taste.

The Probot album has some decent music on it, but it is not Grohl as an outsider to metal who shows the long-haired how their music should be done properly - nor has it revolutionized anything (who does anyway?).

 

[Some Bastard]

What else could they be influenced by? - There was not much metal to draw from yet. Don't forget Thin Lizzy or UFO as Maiden's inspiration.

Yep, from a purist point of view both Hard Rock bands (as opposed to Metal)

I think the thing about Dave's article that is misunderstood the most is: Dave does not attack the musicians and their music personally (Grohl), but their behavior in the media and that of journalists who blurry the facts and do not have their shit together as it should be - or their turncoat-attitude concerning the latest taste.

The Probot album has some decent music on it, but it is not Grohl as an outsider to metal who shows the long-haired how their music should be done properly - nor has it revolutionized anything (who does anyway?).

Why is Grohl more of an outsider than, let's say, Zakk Wylde (a southern rocker who once covered Stevie Wonder's "I Wish"), Pantera (who used to play 'false metal') or some black metal kid who doesn't give a shit about the genre's history and whose only metal point of reference is the extreme stuff?

Lots of metal musicians have a turncoat attitude too. I've already mentioned Sean Harris and Patrick Mameli. I've heard no one about the reunited Gorefest yet, or the fact that for the last couple of years their singer was in a synth-pop band. Or that the supposedly 'true' Burzum makes ambient music now. I could go on and on....

Musical borders, purism and thinking in terms of outsider/insider are fun if you're 18, but that's not the reality. The reality is that lots of people making Metal now come from completely different musical areas and vice versa, and that has always been the case. For example, lots of the early death/thrash/black metal and grindcore bands were people with a Punk background (and Punk was frowned upon by Metalheads back then). At the same time indie-rockers Gomez have some Iron Maiden-fans in their line-up and The Flaming Lips cover "War Pigs". The reality is that Metal is not a restricted area and it never was.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Wylde and Pantera are not the first people I think about when it comes to metal, but I agree: Dickinson or Halford are turncoats, even though I have to say that at least Dickinson switched back to metal with "Accident..." when it still was not the most fashionable thing.

My naming Grohl an outsider means that he is not involved at all in what we call the metal scene and has never been because Probot was the first time he ever played metal. His hardcore background is actually more promient in the album, the components that go along with what is accepted by metalheads are more or less the general consensus: Motörhead, Venom and maybe King Diamond. Trouble is a surprise as well as Voivod. The majority of the participants share this hardcore background as well.

It does not matter where you are coming from when you play metal - it is the reasons for which you do it. The same goes for writers: I write a lot for a progressive- and fusion-zine, even though I was socialized by metal, which is my primary focus still - but I can write about these genres, because I love them as well and claim to understand what they are about.
I see that Dave goes a little too far when he shoots at Grohl several times for things he said in the past. Also, it is not that Probot hit big and kickstarted a trend. Maybe it has taken the fear off some indie people to overtly utter their fondness of metal, but anyway...

...but The Flaming Lips covering a metal song does not mean they are a band from another genre that plays metal, does it? - It´is more a matter of paying tribute to an influence of theirs, I think (if it has been done seriously). I believe that Grohl did this thing for the right reasons, be they nostalgia or digging up his roots. He does not need the money from such a project at all, needless to say.

But to come back to your initial statement: if we only let the music do the talking, what will be the use of forums like this, magazines and the wiseass-writers and -fans we are?

 

[Some Bastard]

But to come back to your initial statement: if we only let the music do the talking, what will be the use of forums like this, magazines and the wiseass-writers and -fans we are?

What bothers me about the article is the blatant purism and narrow-mindedness. Why is Ray van Horn criticized for encouraging people to explore other genres? Ridiculous! And anyway musicians do it all the time. Great bands and artists like Voivod and Devin Townsend could never make the music they've made if they didn't have an open mind.

I did the same thing in the late 80's/early 90's. When the extreme metal thing got old and just about every band was trying to be the next Morbid Angel or Obituary I turned my attention to bands that did something different/more adventurous with heavy music (King's X, Masters of Reality, Jane's Addiction). That had nothing to do with "bending to trends". There's just not much use "sticking to your guns" when the music is boring and when even imagination-less crap like Machine Head's "Burn My Eyes" is hailed as a masterpiece.

Now I'm 36 and I still listen to Metal (Mastodon, Slough Feg and Valkyrie are among my current favorites) but I can also appreciate non-metal music like Tom Waits and Sufjan Stevens. Does that make me less metal than some corpse-painted Norwegian dimwit who has never heard great albums like "Bonded By Blood", "Master Of Disguise" "Skeptics Apocalypse" or the first Metal Church album? Ha!

Furthermore I couldn't care less if Avenged Sevenfold and their ilk are considered Metal or not. They're CRAP and that's all the info you need

 

[Occam's Razor]

I totally agree with you in everything you say, only I guess Dave is not as narrow-minded as he comes across in this article. He should probably step up right here and say something to his defense...Dave?

...and yes, Tom Waits is great ("Bone Machine").

 

[Some Bastard]

...and yes, Tom Waits is great ("Bone Machine").

Stick to your guns, you hipster!

 

[Zealotry]

You shouldn't be playing music if you don't have any emotional investment in that music. Playing metal because it's the cool thing to do is no different than playing pop-punk because it's the cool thing to do.

It's not a matter of diversification or opposition to diversification at all. It's a matter of wanting the music to actually mean something.

Certainly artistic insincerity is not limited just to bands who come from the alterna-scene and start playing metal, but the concentration is probably highest among them.

 

[DBB]

I totally agree with you in everything you say, only I guess Dave is not as narrow-minded as he comes across in this article.

People just need to read closer.

Beacause this is a misreading of the article:

What bothers me about the article is the blatant purism and narrow-mindedness. Why is Ray van Horn criticized for encouraging people to explore other genres? Ridiculous!

Now I'm 36 and I still listen to Metal (Mastodon, Slough Feg and Valkyrie are among my current favorites) but I can also appreciate non-metal music like Tom Waits and Sufjan Stevens.

From "False Metal":

Although enjoying drone, ambient or post-rock is not a crime (calling it metal is another matter), when one couples Van Horn's championing of these "metal" artistes with comments in his blog, it becomes a cause for concern ....What is more disturbing is that Van Horn is not merely recommending that headbangers explore different genres-he is urging them to embrace other forms of music as insurance polices against the "inevitable" collapse of metal he and many others within the industry foresee.

 

[DBB]

A lot of supposedly 'real' Metal bands have 'sold out' by releasing commercial pop/rock albums on major labels (Savatage, Loudness, Tygers Of Pan Tang, Raven) before returning to form again.

The "glamming" of Raven was a case where executives held a contract over the band’s head and forced them to water down their sound. Whether this could be called "selling-out" depends on how each particular individual looks at things and is really something that could be discussed at length. Life’s a Bitch was chosen as the name of the "return to roots" album as an ironic title because metal had swung back around to harder-edged sound with the rising popularity of thrash--providing Raven with the aural space to wiggle out of the industry-enforced sanitized strains of Stay Hard and the The Pack is Back.

 

[DBB]

You shouldn't be playing music if you don't have any emotional investment in that music. Playing metal because it's the cool thing to do is no different than playing pop-punk because it's the cool thing to do.

It's not a matter of diversification or opposition to diversification at all. It's a matter of wanting the music to actually mean something.

Certainly artistic insincerity is not limited just to bands who come from the alterna-scene and start playing metal, but the concentration is probably highest among them.

This pretty much sums it up.

I appreciate the fact that you have found the article of enough interest to comment on, Mr. Bastard, but as the Van Horn post above proves you are painting me into a "narrow-minded" corner that is not present in the article.

I thought that the lengthy treatment of SLUG magazine in the article would be a clear indication that I do not believe that matters such as independent integrity and underground authenticity are the sole province of metal and metalheads...but I have seen no one comment on it, so I guess that it is being lost in the shuffle. I should note though that SLUG does review metal releases and features metal bands (not nearly as often as other genres), but is done by someone with a detailed knowledge of the genre and with the respect that is often absent in metal publications like Decibel and among some metal "journalists."

 

[Some Bastard]

....What is more disturbing is that Van Horn is not merely recommending that headbangers explore different genres-he is urging them to embrace other forms of music as insurance polices against the "inevitable" collapse of metal he and many others within the industry foresee.

Great bands and artists like Voivod and Devin Townsend could never make the music they've made if they didn't have an open mind.

I did the same thing in the late 80's/early 90's. When the extreme metal thing got old and just about every band was trying to be the next Morbid Angel or Obituary I turned my attention to bands that did something different/more adventurous with heavy music (King's X, Masters of Reality, Jane's Addiction). That had nothing to do with "bending to trends". There's just not much use "sticking to your guns" when the music is boring and when even imagination-less crap like Machine Head's "Burn My Eyes" is hailed as a masterpiece.

Industry or not, when Metal goes through one of its slumps (something that happens to every kind of music - not neccesarily because of 'the industry' but also a lack of creativity) I turn my attention somewhere else. When Slayer, Sepultura, Fear Factory and that overrated shite band Machine Head release mediocre or even downright crappy records should I still stick with 'em just to show how 'metal' I am? I think not! I do what feels right and look for music that's good. And I really couldn't care less if it's Metal or not. Insurance policies have nothing to do with it. Being a lover of good music has.

 

[DBB]

Musical borders, purism and thinking in terms of outsider/insider are fun if you're 18, but that's not the reality. .

I am a metal purist in the sense that I think that there are boundaries, definitions and folkways that have been imparted to the genre by people who create and play the music. If you read around, you will find that there are numerous people who have made sacrifices, overcome adversity, weathered life-crushing events in order to keep playing a form of music with little or no chance for financial or popular success. These people are dedicated to their art and believe in what they do and think that metal is is something special--not just a form of music interchangable with any other in the marketplace. To call this juvenile, childish and immature is an insult and a slap in the face to metal musicians who have decided that metal is an artform worth perserving and passing on to future genereations as a vibrant but traditional mode of expression.

The charge of being stuck in a teenage mindset is also a standard charge that would be leveled by someone who regards metal as nothing special and merely a phase to be passed through on the way to a more mature state of being--which is bullshit. I've seen similar charges countless times in the course of the research I've conducted and time and time again people who care and committed to metal are derided as immature while people who view at as a big joke and ridiculous are mature. I believe, however, that it is the other way around. Many music journalists are so shallow, superficial and not mature enough to take responsibility for their thoughts and ideas that they hide behind a screen of sarcasm and detachment which allows them to appear above it all and not invest themselves in any one thing or form a concrete identity beyond its all music and nothing else--remaining a child without a clear moral or intellectual compass.

 

[Some Bastard]

This pretty much sums it up.

I appreciate the fact that you have found the article of enough interest to comment on, Mr. Bastard, but as the Van Horn post above proves you are painting me into a "narrow-minded" corner that is not present in the article.

I thought that the lengthy treatment of SLUG magazine in the article would be a clear indication that I do believe that matters such as independent integrity and underground authenticity are the sole province of metal and metalheads...but I have seen no one comment on it, so I guess that it is being lost in the shuffle. I should note though that SLUG does review metal releases and features metal bands (not nearly as often as other genres), but is done by someone with a detailed knowledge of the genre and with the respect that is often absent in metal publications like Decibel and among some metal "journalists."

I'm sorry if I got you wrong on that, but I'm not always that wild about those 'independent' and 'underground' peeps too. I know a lot of those corpsepainted dudes but the majority of 'em doesn't have a 'detailed knowledge of the genre' at all. There was metal before Dark Funeral and Immortal you know, something which a lot of those 'true' metalheads are painfully unaware of.

But then the definitions of what is Metal change constantly, don't they? Seeing that your 'Fuel For The Fire'-list features an album by The Exploited. Think that Wattie's such a Metal-fan?

I don't read publications like Decibel so I can't comment on that. Nor would I want to.