False Metal: The Financial and Farcical Return of Heavy Metal

[Some Bastard]

I make the claim nowhere in the article that this is the case. Not to beat a dead horse, but the treatment of Red Flag’s machinations in Salt Lake City and the section dealing with SLUG magazine (which focuses primarily on punk, hardcore and indie yet covers the entire spectrum of music) should be a clear indication that I think that these developments have implications beyond the borders of heavy metal.

OK, fair enough

I listen primarily (not exclusively, despite what you might think) to metal and this is an article focusing on metal--not a comprehensive treatment of music--you fail to recognize this and lash out at me for not including matters that I am not attempting to deal with.

And yes these things have happened before and are currently happening in other genres of music. That is why I intimated that this heavy metal case study has a wider relevance. In fact, this kind of bullshit has been going on since the inception of the modern music industry. Back in the 1960s when rock exploded in San Francisco and major labels descended on the city to sign everything and anything tangentially related MGM missed the boat. So the record company shifted its attention to Boston and picked a handful of bands and sunk copious amounts of money and promotional energies into creating the “Bosstown Sound” which was held up as the East Coast manifestation of what was going on out West. It was fake, fabricated and a corporate assembled movement which was artificial and premature and did not take (a scathing article appeared in Rolling Stone outing the machinations), but it cast a dark cloud over the Boston scene since legitimate, underground rock was being twisted into prefabricated forms in the city.

I think the relevant echoes of these profiting-at-any-cost plans are more than clear in my article.

And before someone out there makes the statement, I will address it myself. That these types of things have been going on for a very long time is not an argument against acting and does not make them right now.

Excuse me? How is your article 'acting' against anything? Personally I think the best way to 'act' is to not buy those cash-in records and corporate rock mags. And at least not to take them seriously. Avenged Sevenfold (or at least the smart producers behind them) are just doing what The Monkees, The Osmonds ('Crazy Horses') and Plastic Bertrand did before them and they (and all those other surrogate/novelty rockers) are mostly seen as a form of camp now. Nobody in their right mind will ever say they contributed something valid to music history.

This is the crux of the matter and why we will never be able to see eye to eye. You just want there to be some pure and rarified music out there that is completely separate from cultural, social, economic and political forces. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend all the above does not exist, but I cannot and wrote this piece. There are scads of journalists, publicists, executives and companies shaping metal and for me to sit back and say that I am above it all and don’t give a fuck became an option I could no longer exercise.

I seriously don't know what you're getting at, but maybe that's because I'm a European. Is it that bad in the US? Anyway, I think that there is plenty of pure and rarified music out there. I'm not a politically ignorant person (quite the opposite actually) so burying my head in the sand has nothing to do with it. On the business end of things you're probably right but as long as the music itself (you know: drums, guitars, the whole shebang) is good I can easily enjoy it without taking any cultural, social, economic and political forces into account. There is NO ONE, I repeat NO ONE shaping my Metal!!

It seems that this is your fallback answer for everything. Maybe you should do the same with the article I have written.

It seems that your fallback for everything is to speak in terms of 'slandering' and 'insinuations'. Maybe you should lighten up a bit

You know, the Metal I grew up with was mostly about Fun! Sure, the bands sang about Horror stuff, we were against disco and other top 40 shite, there was a lot of hostility and opression from people who didn't get it. But picking up the latest releases, going to concerts, hanging out at the local metal pub with your metal friends, discussing music, walking the streets dressed in denim, leather and spikes, that was Fun! It was a genuinely Good and (most importantly) Un-pretentious thing!

You know what's wrong with a lot of contemporary Metal? It's Grumpy and Negative! What the fuck happened? Who's responsible?
Was it Rob "let freedom ring with a shotgun blast" Flynn? Keith Caputo? Max Cavalera? Snotlip (or whatever the fuck they're called)? Those art dweebs Tool? All those shite nu-metal bands? Or is it whiny pieces like this, boohoo-ing about the seemingly o so deplorable state of Metal and pointing the finger at journalists, publicists, executives and companies who are.....well, doing what they have been doing since forever! :Smug:

I thought you were done with the narrow-minded puritans. But I knew that was just an attention-grabbing device.

You're right, I was. It's not an attention-grabbing device, it's just that I'm a smartass bastard (always have been) and sometimes I just have to react - I can't help it!

I'll end this post by recommending you some Powervice - just to show you how good we Dutchies have it

 

[Occam's Razor]

okay - now do shake hands and listen to Powervice together...

 

[BenMech]

I would agree with the points 'Some Bastard" makes, but all he/she says is toothless because he/she hasn't signed a real name to his/her writing. Too bad.

 

[Some Bastard]

I would agree with the points 'Some Bastard" makes, but all he/she says is toothless because he/she hasn't signed a real name to his/her writing. Too bad.

OK

This is me (evil huh?). The real name's Robbert, 36 years old and I live in the Netherlands. What else do you need? My social security number? My home phone number? Blood type? Would that make my point more valid?

 

[BenMech]

Ok, fine. I suspected you were one of the people specifically mentioned in Dave's article,such as Ray Van Horn, whom you pull back to often in previous replies.

 

[Some Bastard]

Nope, I'm just some bastard

 

[Jim LotFP]

Avenged Sevenfold (or at least the smart producers behind them) are just doing what The Monkees, The Osmonds ('Crazy Horses') and Plastic Bertrand did before them and they (and all those other surrogate/novelty rockers) are mostly seen as a form of camp now. Nobody in their right mind will ever say they contributed something valid to music history.

um. er.

I like the Monkees. Not to the point of owning any of the music. But to the point where I wish the dancing statues on the TV commercial here were singing the real lyrics to the song instead of whatever the ad jingle is. And to the point of using the Mickey Dolenz quote from the TV show "You do and I'll be sorry!" far too often. It beats quoting Monty Python too much.

And did you ever see any of those Ami Dolenz movies? (Witchboard II! Pumpkinhead II! w00t) Don't tell me any of the Monkees never made anything nice.

*hides and cries*

I seriously don't know what you're getting at, but maybe that's because I'm a European. Is it that bad in the US?

Yes, it is.

When did corporations become synonymous with capitalism, anyway? I strongly believe in one but not the other.

Anyway, I think that there is plenty of pure and rarified music out there.

I'm not sure any album with a record label logo, especially not one with connections to multinational corporations in any way, can be considered pure and rarified. Good, maybe. Maybe.

There is NO ONE, I repeat NO ONE shaping my Metal!!

Yes, there is.

I think your point is you are more aware than most of who is shaping your metal and you are using that information to your benefit instead of simply being a victim of the process.

I think articles like False Metal, far from being simpy whining or chasing an ideal that can never exist, are a tool to allow people to do the same for themselves.

You know what's wrong with a lot of contemporary Metal? It's Grumpy and Negative! What the fuck happened? Who's responsible? Was it Rob "let freedom ring with a shotgun blast" Flynn? Keith Caputo? Max Cavalera? Snotlip (or whatever the fuck they're called)? Those art dweebs Tool? All those shite nu-metal bands? Or is it whiny pieces like this, boohoo-ing about the seemingly o so deplorable state of Metal and pointing the finger at journalists, publicists, executives and companies who are.....well, doing what they have been doing since forever! :Smug:

People realized it wasn't all fun and games. People realized that in order for all that "fun" to happen, there was a lot of hard work involved. People realized that the major labels weren't there for them and they were going to be tossed out on their ear at first convenience. Yeah, Machine Head and Life of Agony may have woken people up when they were hyped as the next cool metal bands.

If you don't get serious about what you enjoy, you are always at the mercy of other people to satisfy you. Metal grew up, I guess, and took some responsibility for itself.

Once that step was taken, what would be the point of producing something to be enjoyed frivolously?

As for your "narrow-minded puritan" thing... I don't think anybody here is trying to create any sort of artistic straightjackets. People can do what they want, how they want, to whatever final result they want.

The point is to be honest with what you're doing and why you are doing it. To say "heavy metal" means something is not a directive that all bands must be heavy metal to be any good. But only bands that do things a certain way should be called heavy metal.

So to take a band like Green Carnation, for example. Metal? Ignoring A Quiet Offspring, I like the band very much. Even the acoustic stuff. Whether they are metal or not does not make me like them any more or less. Light of Day, Day of Darkness is an awesome album no matter what it's labeled in the marketing. Because of my interest in both Green Carnation as a band and heavy metal as a whole, I ask if the band is metal or not to make sure I am not disrespecting the band or heavy metal itself by incorrectly identifying them.

(man, I feel like I'm repeating things I said last week. Greater coherence will be mine once our home connection is up and running again. )

 

[Some Bastard]

I'm not sure any album with a record label logo, especially not one with connections to multinational corporations in any way, can be considered pure and rarified. Good, maybe. Maybe.

I see what you mean, but should that detract from my enjoying (let's say) the early Iron Maiden records (who were signed to EMI)? I think not. Lots of the early and influential Heavy Metal bands were on majors and that was never a problem because Heavy Metal was not Punk. There was some Punk I liked (Discharge, GBH) but I could never fully commit myself to it because the Punks I knew were always going on about politics and all these rules you had to apply before listening to music. So according to their logic the Heavy Metal bands I was enjoying were virtually fascists. That didn't bother me because Heavy Metal was never about rules and politics. But from what I understand it is now. Heavy Metal is the new Punk and 'true' Metal bands are basically the natural successors to bands like Crass and Conflict. Hmmm

um. er.
Yes, there is.

I think your point is you are more aware than most of who is shaping your metal and you are using that information to your benefit instead of simply being a victim of the process.

Yes, and that is something that can be learned through experience. Before the NWOBHM grabbed me I started out with Kiss you know. I still enjoy their early work for sentimental reasons of course (just like you and your Monkees), even though I know now that they're just a big money-grabbing machine. And I don't see a problem with that, even though I hate what they're doing now and I find all their countless imitators unlistenable.

um. er.
People realized it wasn't all fun and games. People realized that in order for all that "fun" to happen, there was a lot of hard work involved. People realized that the major labels weren't there for them and they were going to be tossed out on their ear at first convenience. Yeah, Machine Head and Life of Agony may have woken people up when they were hyped as the next cool metal bands.

If you don't get serious about what you enjoy, you are always at the mercy of other people to satisfy you. Metal grew up, I guess, and took some responsibility for itself.

Once that step was taken, what would be the point of producing something to be enjoyed frivolously?

That's not how I experienced it. I distinctly remember watching Headbanger's Ball, seeing all these new American Bands like Machine Head, Merauder, Manhole and Skinlab and thinking: "I don't like these new American Metal bands and the direction they're taking. They've got it all wrong" It wasn't so much the fabricated anger or the fact that they were constantly going on and on about how miserable they were and how they were going to dis some unspecified enemy (*yawn*). What bugged me the most was that they couldn't even write a decent tune about it! One endlessly repeated riff and some hip/angry slogan was enough! And on top of that it wasn't even really Heavy!! It was produced Heavy, which is not the same thing! Imagine my anger when some hipster skater dudes in trendy clothes (who never gave a shit about Metal before) reccommended me some really Heavy album that I would absolutely like: Machine Head - Burn My Eyes. ARRGH!! Heavy? This? What do you know!? Go listen to some Autopsy or Kreator, fuckface!!

Metal didn't grow up, it got Americanized. Machine Head and their ilk are the McDonalds of Metal.

um. er.
As for your "narrow-minded puritan" thing... I don't think anybody here is trying to create any sort of artistic straightjackets. People can do what they want, how they want, to whatever final result they want.

The point is to be honest with what you're doing and why you are doing it. To say "heavy metal" means something is not a directive that all bands must be heavy metal to be any good. But only bands that do things a certain way should be called heavy metal.

So to take a band like Green Carnation, for example. Metal? Ignoring A Quiet Offspring, I like the band very much. Even the acoustic stuff. Whether they are metal or not does not make me like them any more or less. Light of Day, Day of Darkness is an awesome album no matter what it's labeled in the marketing. Because of my interest in both Green Carnation as a band and heavy metal as a whole, I ask if the band is metal or not to make sure I am not disrespecting the band or heavy metal itself by incorrectly identifying them.

(man, I feel like I'm repeating things I said last week. Greater coherence will be mine once our home connection is up and running again. )

Pffft, it's just words you know. Bands like Bible Of The Devil and Fireball Ministry play genuine old school Heavy Metal and release their records on small labels, yet I discovered 'em on some stonerrock site. Meanings and genre terms change constantly. The first Metal Massacre compilations featured pop/rock bands like Ratt, Bitch and Black'n'Blue. And a couple of years from now bands like Novembers Doom will probably called Gothic or something. I'm not gonna keep up with that. What's the point (besides giving you an indication of what to expect musically?

I know Mr Burns finds what I'm going to say once again offensive and since I don't mean it like that I'm sorry, but I stand by my point that genre purism is fun when you're 18. The rules of what is or isn't Heavy Metal (or any kind of music for that matter) are not etched in stone.

 

[Jim LotFP]

Heavy Metal is the new Punk and 'true' Metal bands are basically the natural successors to bands like Crass and Conflict. Hmmm

I wonder if heavy metal would be healthier if this line of thinking took hold in the early 80s. Heavy metal and punk are so connected. I'll say punk has more of a direct influence on what we today call heavy metal than Black Sabbath or Judas Priest. I used to get all mad and "no no no" when I would read things like Max Cavalera saying he had no concept of punk and metal being different back when all he had to work with was a dubbed tape with a bunch of stuff with no image or lyrics to work with. But I am growing more convinced every day...

That's not how I experienced it. I distinctly remember watching Headbanger's Ball, seeing all these new American Bands like Machine Head, Merauder, Manhole and Skinlab and thinking: "I don't like these new American Metal bands and the direction they're taking. They've got it all wrong" It wasn't so much the fabricated anger or the fact that they were constantly going on and on about how miserable they were and how they were going to dis some unspecified enemy (*yawn*). What bugged me the most was that they couldn't even write a decent tune about it! One endlessly repeated riff and some hip/angry slogan was enough! And on top of that it wasn't even really Heavy!! It was produced Heavy, which is not the same thing! Imagine my anger when some hipster skater dudes in trendy clothes (who never gave a shit about Metal before) reccommended me some really Heavy album that I would absolutely like: Machine Head - Burn My Eyes. ARRGH!! Heavy? This? What do you know!? Go listen to some Autopsy or Kreator, fuckface!!

You sound like Dave Burns. I do think the above paragraph is in conflict with this one:

Pffft, it's just words you know. Bands like Bible Of The Devil and Fireball Ministry play genuine old school Heavy Metal and release their records on small labels, yet I discovered 'em on some stonerrock site. Meanings and genre terms change constantly. The first Metal Massacre compilations featured pop/rock bands like Ratt, Bitch and Black'n'Blue. And a couple of years from now bands like Novembers Doom will probably called Gothic or something. I'm not gonna keep up with that. What's the point (besides giving you an indication of what to expect musically?

I think the point is being able to articulate the ideas in the earlier paragraph. If meanings and genre terms change constantly and only kids should be too concerned with it... why so upset about Machine Head?

Metal didn't grow up, it got Americanized. Machine Head and their ilk are the McDonalds of Metal.

Yes! We all saw it at the time (even me, hehe) and rejected it. There just weren't many of "us" as compared to those eating up the new stuff. I still remember the huge amount of Korn shirts at a packed Carcass show in 94 (was it the same one where the crowd turned on Carcass and Walker got his bass snatched out of his hands?) and then not very many shows or people at shows right after that...

But yeah, I see this "Americanization" (isn't Roadrunner a Dutch company?) as part of the problem that forced metal to grow up.

Did Merauder really pretend to be metal? Century Media can call them whatever they like but when I saw them open for some band I actually cared about, there was a really funny moment. I may be screwing up the band he mentioned but the gist of it is correct.

Singer: "Who here remembers the Cro Mags?" *absolute silence from the crowd* "Oh, fuck..." haha.

But I'm rambling so I'll leave it here.

 

[Some Bastard]

I wonder if heavy metal would be healthier if this line of thinking took hold in the early 80s. Heavy metal and punk are so connected. I'll say punk has more of a direct influence on what we today call heavy metal than Black Sabbath or Judas Priest. I used to get all mad and "no no no" when I would read things like Max Cavalera saying he had no concept of punk and metal being different back when all he had to work with was a dubbed tape with a bunch of stuff with no image or lyrics to work with. But I am growing more convinced every day...

On a musical level there's definitely a connection. In terms of content/intention/philosophy I'm not so sure. Contrary to the Punk bands I mentioned Metal was, by its very nature not a highbrow or elitist thing. Sure, it could be considered a form of rebellion against all the stuff the popular media were shoving down everyone's throats, but other than that it was mostly about pure and simple escapism, with no pretensions whatsoever. And basically I still think it is. Sepultura can go on about Dante and Iced Earth may quote all the Shakespeare they like, when going to one of their shows most people will mainly go there to bang their heads, as opposed to discussing Chomski or Sartre and eating veggie food :Smug:

I think the point is being able to articulate the ideas in the earlier paragraph. If meanings and genre terms change constantly and only kids should be too concerned with it... why so upset about Machine Head?

I'm upset about Machine Head because that shite album of theirs is constantly hailed as some kind of masterpiece and it represents everything I hate about today's Metal. I think it's Metal at its most cynical; give 'em riffs and hip/angry slogans and don't worry about the rest. Any numbskull with some basic guitar playing skills could have come up with something like "Davidian" *insert retching noise here*

I am far more offended by the Machine Heads of this world than anything in This Is Spinal Tap or teenybopper bands like Avenged Sevenfold

 

[BenMech]

Say what you will, Bastard, but MH put on a decent live show, in any era. Plus, it's not like their band members weren't in bad 1980s thrash bands (Vio-Lence and Sacred Reich). Yes, I know the description bad thrash band is redundant.

 

[Some Bastard]

Say what you will, Bastard, but MH put on a decent live show, in any era. Plus, it's not like their band members weren't in bad 1980s thrash bands (Vio-Lence and Sacred Reich). Yes, I know the description bad thrash band is redundant.

How is that possible? Considering the fact they don't have decent songs

And what do I care if some of their members used to play good music? What has that got to do with anything?

See the album cover below? Know who the guy on the right is?

Yeah, that's Billy Joel in his early days. Does the fact that he used to be a hard rocker makes his later music less sucky? :Smug:

See? That's what I don't like about MH. It's not that they're not Metal enough, it's just that they're bad at it. But apparently the fact that they play second hand thrash riffs and Rob Flynn looks really angry with his forked beard and the press says they're good they just have to be good, right?

God, I'm ranting. MH always does that to me

 

[DBB]

That's not how I experienced it. I distinctly remember watching Headbanger's Ball, seeing all these new American Bands like Machine Head, Merauder, Manhole and Skinlab and thinking: "I don't like these new American Metal bands and the direction they're taking. They've got it all wrong" It wasn't so much the fabricated anger or the fact that they were constantly going on and on about how miserable they were and how they were going to dis some unspecified enemy (*yawn*). What bugged me the most was that they couldn't even write a decent tune about it! One endlessly repeated riff and some hip/angry slogan was enough! And on top of that it wasn't even really Heavy!! It was produced Heavy, which is not the same thing! Imagine my anger when some hipster skater dudes in trendy clothes (who never gave a shit about Metal before) reccommended me some really Heavy album that I would absolutely like: Machine Head - Burn My Eyes. ARRGH!! Heavy? This? What do you know!? Go listen to some Autopsy or Kreator, fuckface!!

You sound like Dave Burns. I do think the above paragraph is in conflict with this one

Indeed.

But it is a bit more intransigent and intolerant than I come across in the article. And there is definitely some confused and conflicted reasoning going on here, but I will leave that for others to ferret out and make of it what they will.

It is edifying though.

I know Mr Burns finds what I'm going to say once again offensive and since I don't mean it like that I'm sorry, but I stand by my point that genre purism is fun when you're 18. The rules of what is or isn't Heavy Metal (or any kind of music for that matter) are not etched in stone.

Not this time around. I’ve already had my say about this matter, so it signals to me that this debate has entered the stage where people begin running around in circles to end back up at the same point only to repeat variations on arguments with slightly different word--an impasse or a cul-de-sac.

 

[Some Bastard]

Indeed.

But it is a bit more intransigent and intolerant than I come across in the article. And there is definitely some confused and conflicted reasoning going on here, but I will leave that for others to ferret out and make of it what they will.

It is edifying though.

The big difference of course being that this is just my opinion. There is no such thing as the absolute truth. I hate Machine Head because they go against everything that I perceive to be Heavy Metal, and yet they seem to be regarded as the pinnacle of what is now seen as Metal. Not just by hardcore/skater kids but even by a large part of the regular Metal press and community. That saddens me. There was a time I could virtually buy anything blind when it came recommended in a proper Metal zine. That time is no more. That doesn't make MH and their ilk 'false' or 'improper' Metal. It just means Metal has partly evolved in a direction that I don't care for.

Now I could of course write an essay where I set up some borders of what is or isn't to be called Metal and throw some bigshot corporation conspiracies in the mix, but what would be the point in that?

Instead I look for music that I think is good. Some of it can be called Metal (Mastodon, Strapping Young Lad, Valkyrie, Slough Feg), some of it not (Tom Waits, The Mars Volta, Sufjan Stevens), some of it is sometimes referred to as Metal but really isn't (Sunn0)))), some of it's non-Metal made by people with a Metal background (Antimatter, Burzum, The Gathering) and then there is also music that (surprise!) most definitely is Metal but isn't called that! Personally I think bands like Bible Of The Devil and Fireball Ministry can be called nothing but Heavy Metal, but somehow they're stuck with the bloody silly stonerrock-tag

The article has some good points when it comes to criticizing the industry but in these confusing times I see no point in ressurrecting artificial borders. Purism has had its day and I think that's a good thing. I think it would be a much better article without it.

 

[BenMech]

Who thinks about MH anymore, if ever?

I don't.

 

[DBB]

Who thinks about MH anymore, if ever?

I don't know, they must be huge and influential over in the Netherlands or something. After Flynn's turn away from a Pantera-style sprinkled with some vestiges of his bay-area background on the first couple of albums and move towards a nu style they pretty much were on the skids over here in the States.

Not that I need to tell you this...hell, Roadrunner dropped them and Through The Ashes Of Empires was only eventually released over here because it was believed to be a successful return-to-roots album that gathered steam in Europe.

Maybe the epicenter of this was in the low countries?

Seems like a bit of quirky axe to grind, but I have seen people make similar statements about Pantera so it could be a proxy for the "cowboys from hell" in a European context.

What say you, Mr. Bastard?

 

[Occam's Razor]

I remember Flynn in 1996 saying to German Metal Hammer about "The More Things Change...":

"It's heavy, but not metal"

That speaks for itself doesn't it? Now of course, MH claim to have been metal ever since...

 

[Some Bastard]

What say you, Mr. Bastard?

"Meh" is what I say, mr DBB

Pantera made two albums that were lightweight fun (Cowboys and Vulgar), the rest of their post-Hair Metal output suffers from the same disease as MH; too much emphasis on riffs and posturing, not enough songs :Smug: Anyway, I never could care enough to buy any of their albums. What would I want with Vulgar Display Of Power when I already own Whiplash' Power and Pain, right?

And yeah, lots of Metalheads my age think Pantera and MH add something valid to Metal. Good for them. Luckily most of them share my disgust for Korn and Soulfly but there's a whole new generation growing up who enjoy bands like that. Now I understand how those older fans of Black Sabbath and Deep Purple felt (and their looks of wonder and mild disgust ) when this 16 year old was raving about Kreator and Possessed. It's just history repeating.

Still, I've noticed a lot of those younger people are genuinely interested in the older stuff. And that's why we still have bands like Valkyrie and Powervice. And bands who play even older styles of Hard Rock (but for some reason we are used to calling that Stoner Rock now - whatever :Smug: ). Call it "retro" or whatever, fact is Metal hasn't been 'pure' in a long time and it probably never will be again. It's like your colleague said:

I'll say punk has more of a direct influence on what we today call heavy metal than Black Sabbath or Judas Priest.

So how can there be such a thing as 'pure' or 'impure' Heavy Metal whan Heavy Metal itself has nothing to do with Heavy Metal anymore?

 

[Zealotry]

So, what does DBB think of this Dethklok thing? Seems like all good fun to me.

 

[BenMech]

You can't NOT love Dethklok. I've you've listened to interviews with Brendon Small, you know that he's doing this for the right reasons.