Impure Metal: How Underground Heavy Metal Became Mainstream Heavy Music

[DBB]

I knew that this question was merely a device to send us running around
in circles again, a springboard to allow you to repeat what you have
said in a different form, and an excuse to provide examples from your own
experience why the article is flawed, so I did not feel compelled to
provide a lengthy answer when a long-ass post was going to follow from me
and time right now is a precious resource that I do not have much of
right now.

But if you insist.....

You can learn a lot about songwriting and dynamics
by listening to The Beatles or some old Motown records. And I don't
think that makes me any less 'real' in my love for Hard Rock and Heavy
Metal in its many forms.

Whether one enjoys different genres or styles of music here is hardly
the point, we've been over this already.

People are very complex beings. Mr. Bastard, and if someone enjoys and
listens to Louis Armstrong, Woody Guthrie, Leadbelly, Duke Ellington,
CCR, Danko Jones, The Supersuckers or whatever other artists you care to
insert here and is very passionate about heavy metal and believes that
it is a concrete thing that you can describe as something living and
breathing, something that can come from the heart or come from a business
calculation, something that can be an authentic expression of an
artistic impulse or a move dictated by what constitutes good business sense
given the current state of the market--in other words from pure and
impure or true and false motivations--it makes them metal, regardless of
what else they may choose listen to.

One problem we have here, Mr. Bastard, is that you believe that by
focusing on metal and arguing that it has an inherent, innate integrity and
authenticity (one of the reasons why it has remained a viable genre
despite all the opprobrium heaped upon it over the years from up high) I
am saying that you can listen to nothing else or that there is something
fundamentally flawed about every other form of music. This is not the
case, and I make this argument nor intimate that this is the case
anywhere. We have already gone over this ground in the other thread, so I am
not going to repeat myself. You can continue to harp on the illusionary
point that I say listening to other genres is somehow false or impure
(which I do not), but I am done discussing it because it is something
that is self-evident to me.*

This avenue of attack is really beginning to border on the ridiculous
and something you need to let go--it has gone beyond being repetitive
and is becoming a worrisome conviction that you cannot let go of despite
me undermining it numerous different ways. It does not matter what
other kinds of music you listen to, what matters is how you define heavy
metal and if you believe it actually exists. I would say that you just
want me to throw up my hands and say metal is just another form of music
no different from any other, but given your conflicted and confused
comments in the other thread it appears that this is not the case. Yet
this is one of the mains impressions I get, and can safely inform you that
it is not going to happen. King Fowley is a HUGE No Doubt and Gwen
Stefani fan, and by the logic you accuse me of employing, I would call him
false or impure because of this (I do not like anything
Stefani-realted). That this is not the case from my article should be more than
apparent and to make such a claim would be asinine and utterly
wrongheaded--yet you persist in claiming this is how I think and operate. You are
dead wrong, Mr. Bastard, but no matter what I say, I will not be able to
disabuse you of this specious point you have stuck in your head, so it
is time to move on and let you make it again in your next post, since I
doubt that you will "get it" at this point. It is just a bad and
nonexistent hook to hang me on.

*This should in no way be read as an endorsement or interpreted as
an endorsement of Sacred Reich's 31 Flavors," which is an
atrocity and a song that should have never been committed to tape.

Another problem that is related to the one above is that you want to
chop off and extract the sound of heavy metal and discuss it separately
from the spirit of heavy metal. This is a good message board debating
tactic, since it allows you to hammer at only one aspect of the article,
forces me assume a defensive posture while making me appear
narrow-minded and myopic--but this is not the case. You want to abstract music,
and more specifically heavy metal from the surrounding environment (which
is absolutely baffling in a day and age when "journalists" openly
and often argue that music is primarily a business and that it is
perfectly fine for "artists" to act with industry projections at the
front of their mind), and I believe that the two cannot be severed from one
another. In both articles, what is true and false or pure and impure
has to do with BOTH the music and the mentality and the two cannot
be separated. That you have not commented on a single business or
industry aspect at any length in your posts can only lead me to conclude
that you have somehow missed this point that should be obvious to anyone
reading, so I will give you an example from the article that touches on
both to clarify this point.

I mention metalcore in the article, but do not go at it hammer and
tongs to declare it true and false or pure and impure. There are plenty of
people in the media doing this already, it is the designated whipping
boy in magazines like Metal Maniacs, Terrorizer (although
they have adopted a different tack for some reason. But it will
resurface again) and all the bands currently making a push to be
commercially successful (ranging from Opeth to Avenged Sevenfold) continually
are slagging the subgenre. It is really a red herring or a straw man to
these people, and we will be treated to the incongruous development of
Trivium claiming to play old-fashioned metal or thrash while making a
concerted effort to eliminate their metalcore elements and sever the
past from the present--but I am beginning to stray from the point.

I do call metalcore "tepid and twisted" for some of the same
reasons you harbor a grudge against Machine Head and could not resist taking
a few subtle shots here and there based on the mascara-wearing style
associated with the genre, but do not really go after metalcore and do
not declare it to be an inherently false or impure form of music. For
example, I do not rake Avenged Sevenfold over the coals for playing
metalcore, but for being a metalcore band who has suddenly decided to become
"classic" heavy metal and talk shit about the subgenre they were
comfortable with before because this is the way the industry winds are
blowing. I have opinions on the whole metalcore phenomenon (it is not
entirely monolithic though), but it would take a complex and intricate
lengthy article to work it all out, so I'm letting it go for the time
being.

But a better example would be Arch Enemy. AE produced a
metalcore-saturated album designed to break them in the American market (Anthems of
Rebellion) and then turned directly around and made Doomsday
Machine--a headspinning rapid "return to roots" album accompanied
with all the talk about how metalcore sucks, is fake and that AE is
true classic metal unlike all the bands in America.

I do not take them to task for playing metalcore because what I really
find repugnant is how the band will play whatever they think will make
them the most money and garner them the most publicity and then turn
around and argue that they are true metallers in a hypocritical fashion
that is at the expense of others and an entire country of metal bands.

That AE's actions and words are duplicitous and contrived is beyond
discussion to me. In other words they are assuming a role that does not
reflect the reality of the situation--a false stance--and playing
variations of metal because of what industry insiders are whispering into
thier ears--impure motivations.

That you have failed to see that interconnections between what is false
and impure as defined in the article and how bands are reacting to the
market instead of artistic motivations is the real story here is really
beyond me at this point. You have inexplicably chosen to go on and on
about such unrelated matters like how listening to Motown is ok and
doesn't make you false or impure. Maybe the words are too harsh for you
and you cannot look beyond them to engage the articles as a whole, but
these words are synonyms for many other things and symbolic signifiers
of complex actions and ideas that touch on many other things than the
narrow point of attack that you have chosen to endlessly recycle on the
threads here.

In the end, it all boils down to whether or not you agree with one of
my favorite quotes (if not the) from the articles. I turn the
floor over to Gavin Ward:

I don't know if there's integrity in music now. It used to be
commercial music that had no integrity 'cause of major labels. Now,
independents are making musical moves on the bands, readjusting bands so they
work down a path, a marketing plan. They readjust those bands if the path
changes. They try to create styles, and if the style changes, they just
readjust and tell the band to change the style. We've stayed away from
that crap.

It is unfortunate that I have to reproduce this quote yet again, Mr.
Bastard, but either you have chosen to ignore it or do not agree with the
sentiments expressed by Ward. I just think that you have not thought it
through or are too hasty to rush to judgment to comprehend it, but if
you do not agree with the implications of this statement then you are
not going to agree with the main argument contained in either article no
matter how many words I type into a computer.

So what is the verdict? Yay or Nay?

Maybe that's what I don't 'get' about the articles. Mr. DBB, you're
obviously a person of some intelligence (not to mention a 'leftist
nutter', just like me ). Why don't you apply the views you obviously
have on life to music? Life is about change and constant development and
Heavy Metal did not materialize out of thin air.

The "intelligence" issue something you share in common with Laeth
MacLaurie. He was also a bit baffled that someone so apparently
"intelligent" could come to such conclusions.

The above statement is so wrong that it is staggering, and I could draw
upon historical after historical example divorced from music to
illustrate it. You want to sever the past from the present and the future in
order to argue that the combination of the latter two create all that we
need to go forward and we must not be constrained or restrained by what
happened before. To paraphrase Cicero, those who do not know the past
and incorporate it into their life will remain a child who can only
react to the moment at hand with no deeper meaning informed by the wisdom
that comes with a knowledge of the past. Life is not "about change and
constant development" as anyone who really takes a deep look at
anything in this world should know, it is about change AND continuity--the
past and the present interacting with one another to create a future
that contains elements of both. Again, if you want to just say that the
past is not worth preserving in a vibrant and living form that informs
and shapes the present and future, then there is no way that we are going
to come to any kind of agreement about anything.

As for the more specific idea of a leftist always being about change
and disregarding the past--it is not true most of the time (some
perhaps). In fact, if I wanted to make a longer post even longer I could write
at length about the intimate connections between Italian Futurism--an
artistic doctrine which militantly advocated constant movement and
change--and fascism, but that would be too much of a digression and detour.

I will be content to offer up this musical tidbit:

When Bob Dylan famously used an electric guitar at Newport in 1965, it
was about much more than acoustic vs. electric folk. There were
numerous people, Pete Seeger among them, who believed it was a capitulation to
commercial interests and they were right as the Cambridge folk scene
expired in the aftermath of this symbolic event that was fraught with
much more meaning than is normally attributed to it. Executives, industry
insiders, publicists acting as journalists all ripped at the folk
carcass in the new environment and what was formerly people bound together
by a sound and a spirit was turned into a commercial enterprise which
transformed a community into a commodity--not without a fight that made
it an incomplete victory.

Moreover, Pete Seeger has remained a potent political figure and active
in humanitarian and environmental causes and has continued to follow a
left-hand path. Dylan, on the other hand, has become a caricature and
the strong venal and mercenary streak that was apparent from the
beginning of his career has led to such fiascos for his adherents and fans
(not me, never got into him and he is a poor shade of Woody Guthrie) like
the flap over him shilling for Victoria's Secret.*

Whatever one may think of the politics of all this and opinion on other
matters related to them is up to them, what it reveals that what is
called left is not something inherently about change and development
divorced from the past and the examples are endless.

Also this brings to me one final matter that addresses one other point
you make over and over again, Mr. Bastard. Heavy Metal may not be
utterly unique and appeared out of "thin air," but is something very
special and a separate form/genre of music informed by the past, existing
in the present and sure to evolve in the future--but none of these
temporal threads can exist without the other--something that lends a
venerable vitality to the genre and allow room for tradition and exploration
at the same time.


*This incident and the lives of these two men are much more
complicated and cannot be condenced in a board post, so I would recommend
checking out The Mansion on the Hill: Dylan, Young, Geffen, Springsteen
and the Head-on Collision of Rock and Commerce by Fred Goodman. I do
not enjoy the work of any of the musical artists in the subtitle, but
it is a very informative and thought-provoking read even if the reader
is left wanting a bit more coherence.


P.S. There will be no quick response from me, since I've repeated myself
here at length once again and have to start limiting computer time to
concentrate on other matters since "multi-tasking" is not one of my
strong suits. And, as I've said before, I am confident enough in what
I've written to let it stand as its own defense--really more interested
in reading what others think than making my arguments over and over
again at this point.

Also, Mr. Bastard, I think you are an alright bloke despite our
differing opinions. And if this comes off as being a bit testy, I apologize, it is just because
it is becoming a bit tedious--nothing less and nothing more. If it
makes you comfortable or provides some kind of cathartic cleansing to air
assumptions that have nothing to do with the articles at hand, that is
fine, but it is not based on anything stated or contained in the
articles beyond the impressions you associate with the vocabulary I'm
using--something I tried to prove was not as rigid and deterministic in my
discussion of true metal.

 

[BenMech]

BTW, how old is everybody here?

28 in mid- August. (that would mean 1978)

First cassette tape I bought was And Justice For All before my 10th birthday in 88. Also got a Bon Jovi album and something else. Sue me.

First cd I bought was Weird Al's UHF soundtrack. (because my dad didn't object to having to hear it)

First metal album I bought was Queensryche's Promised Land in 94.

First extreme/death/black I bought was Amorphis's Tales From the Thousand Lakes, followed by C of F's Dusk and Her Embrace, followed by Emperor's Anthems to the Welkins at Dusk.

 

[Some Bastard]

Phew! You don't believe in short responses do you?

In a way this validates the point I was trying to make from the beginning: you're overdoing it! Who cares what Arch Enemy may or may not have done or said? Yeah, so they released a 'metalcore-saturated album designed to break them in the American market' and then claim supposedly return to 'true' Metal. So what? I've got tons of old Heavy Metal magazines here (yeah, I saved all those fuckers) and you wouldn't believe some of the things Heavy Metal people have said in interviews. So fuckin' what!!? Like you said, people are complex beings, and musicians can be weird interview partners. If I would make a big thing about everything they said in interviews I would probably live as a monk now

I've said it before: there is no such thing as 'true' Metal. It's a romanticized myth. Just like 'the spirit of Heavy Metal' you're constantly referring to. Heavy Metal is the wrong example anyway since its history is littered with examples of commercialism, even with its so-called 'extreme' variants. Oh, I see where Mr. Ward is coming from but you don't think there is a kind of marketing plan behind Bolt Thrower too? They may not call it that, but their albums are in the shops and have a very recognizable logo and artwork. That's marketing too!!! In fact, that is the very essence of marketing!! And should I take Bolt Thrower more seriously just because they have been doing the same thing over and over again for the last couple of years? Because their sound hasn't evolved at all and so in your view they have been 'sticking to their guns'? One could argue the point that in a way that's commercial too; having found your succes formula and sticking with it.

That's probably why I have not commented on a single business or industry aspect: because I don't believe in your way of looking at it. Have you ever been in a recording studio? Do you know what a producer does? Do you think it's nothing more than fiddling knobs at a console? Wrong, dude! A producer is there to smoothen the rough edges and point at possible faults or bum notes in the songs. And that's no different in Metal! And how or how much they let their songs be tampered with is up to the band. So if a Metal band wants to release something with 'integrity' they better find a producer that not only knows his engineering but understands Metal too (not many of those I can tell you). And if not they should at least try to produce and record the thing themselves or just stick to releasing their rehearsal tapes. That's integrity! No matter how 'underground' you may claim to be, or how noble and 'true' your intentions are, when your record is in the shops you're part of the game! And why not? Even the great classical composers wrote music on delivery you know :Smug:

As for the industry, I'm a booker at a music venue myself. I meet musicians all the time, also the ones with 'integrity'. And yeah, the Punk and Metal shows are usually the most fun to organize but without naming names it has learned me that all is relative, even that so-called 'integrity' you are so fond off. The amount of work is to be appreciated but collecting snippets of things people at certain moments in time have said in interviews and piecing them together is not much of a way to make a point, is it? Whether you like it or not, interviews are part of the marketing too, even when a band proudly states they don't do that shit. To think otherwise is naive. What musicians say in the dressing room or at the bar can often be a lot more interesting .

You want to sever the past from the present and the future in
order to argue that the combination of the latter two create all that we
need to go forward and we must not be constrained or restrained by what
happened before. To paraphrase Cicero, those who do not know the past
and incorporate it into their life will remain a child who can only
react to the moment at hand with no deeper meaning informed by the wisdom
that comes with a knowledge of the past.

I do not. Now you're the one who's misreading. And with all due respect, when it comes to Heavy Metal's past I think I know a bit more about it than you. That's the main reason I don't agree with you, remember?

Ah well, I think you're basically an OK person too. But when it comes to Heavy Metal we seem to come from different places. That's OK though. Personally I think if you really want music that fits your defenition of pure, rarified and untampered with you should leave Heavy Metal alone and stick to so-called Outsider music like Jandek or Kenneth Higney. Most of it is pretty unlistenable but you can be sure it's 'real'

 

[Some Bastard]

Oh yeah:

One problem we have here, Mr. Bastard, is that you believe that by focusing on metal and arguing that it has an inherent, innate integrity and authenticity (one of the reasons why it has remained a viable genre despite all the opprobrium heaped upon it over the years from up high) I am saying that you can listen to nothing else or that there is something
fundamentally flawed about every other form of music.

No, that is not the point I'm trying to make at all. What I'm saying is that in the end it's the music itself that should matter, not the genre flag that it may or may not fall under. If the music is good it really doesn't matter if one chooses to call it Heavy Metal, Metalcore, Rock'n'Roll, Chickenshit, PissflapRock or Dickweed-with-guitar or whatever. What's the point?

To quote Lemmy on his thoughts on Heavy Metal:
"Cunt metal? Spunk metal? Left-handed metal? Right-handed metal? Upwardly-mobile metal? This term "heavy metal" is only rock'n'roll anyway, because metal bands are the logical successors to Eddie Cochran and Buddy Holly"

The guy's got a point, and who am I to disagree with Lemmy?

Like I said, let the music do the talking

 

[BenMech]

This thread has completely derailed

 

[Some Bastard]

Yeah, it has

I also think this romanticizing the so-called spirit of Heavy Metal is partly the result of a gross misunderstanding that has its foundation in the 80's. There was a whole new wave of Heavy Metal going on but the popular media hardly paid any attention to it, concentrated on Disco and other Top 40 material instead. Understandably this caused some feelings of hostility among Heavy Metal's many followers. When the first fanzines started, just like Punk they were distrustful against anything they deemed 'too commercial'. When something was deemed 'too commercial' it usually meant it had a catchy chorus or a cheesy melody or anything else that was too close to the much hated 'popular' music. And so this became kind of Heavy Metal's battlecry.

And so reviewers of these fanzines wrote reviews that roughly went like "Priest's Screaming For Vengeance is an excellent record, except for Take These Chains which is a bit too commercial". Or "Anvil's Forged In Fire is an excellent platter. Too bad it has a commercial song like Never Deceive Me on it". Or "Metallica's Ride The Lightning is a great second album. Too bad it has a song like Escape on it, which is waaaaay to commercial".

When Metal became more extreme so did this 'too commercial' thing. It became a kind of tough guy thing to state that you thought Venom's "Black Metal" was 'too commercial'. It meant you were da man

Of course it was just a reaction to the times, but this is where it brought us today. People dividing music into commercial/non-commercial, like its some kind of sport.

Never mind the people who wrote for those fanzines were obviously fans, not journalists.
Never mind that image, make-believe, escapism and BIG logo's (i.e. marketing) have always been an integral part of the genre, making all these claims about 'integrity' somewhat laughable. Hey, if it's just the music that matters, why not leave the corpsepaint and the artwork at home?
Never mind that the differences between commercial/non-commercial are all relative, because these concepts keep changing with the times and they have a mutual influence on one another (if not a band like Therion wouldn't be covering Abba)

It's all an outgrowth of a big mistake. Like so many things in the weird and wonderful world of Rock music

 

[Jim LotFP]

Mr. Bastard, forgive me if I have already asked this, have you read the Scum article on the site? Many of your points (producers, interviews, image...) have already been addressed there and I know Burns is quite familiar with the piece as well.

 

[Some Bastard]

Mr. Bastard, forgive me if I have already asked this, have you read the Scum article on the site? Many of your points (producers, interviews, image...) have already been addressed there and I know Burns is quite familiar with the piece as well.

I have now

Although there are some points I can agree with reading this makes me wonder if you actually like Heavy Metal. Apparently you do, even though you're poopoo-ing just about everything about it

One thing I have always liked about Heavy Metal and its close cousin/important forerunner Hard Rock is its diversity. Of course this also meant there were bands I didn't like. But that was OK. The fact that I didn't like Virgin Steele or glam bands like Motley Crue didn't mean much, other than that it would be for the best if I didn't bother with their records. Of course I wasn't above the odd scathing remark as to why I didn't like a certain band, but that's just part of the fun of being a music geek.

I have not grown out of Heavy Metal, but I have grown out of those puerile tendencies of dividing everything into Real Metal or Non-Metal. What does it matter if Mandylion is 'questionable' in its Metal-content? It's a good record and that really should be the only thing that matters.

But then what does someone who calls Judas Priest and Iron Maiden 'glammy shit' know, right?

Lots of cool quotable shit though:

"When the heart burns, the heavy metal fades"

"The weather is not heavy metal. Trees are not heavy metal, even if they are trees in the Cold and Grim Northern Moonforest. Take your bizarre National Geographic special elsewhere"

"the Nietzsche ubermensch concept (itself a very heavy metal ideal)"

"Looking at the key Christian myth, Jesus Christ was a very heavy metal individual"

"Bonus tracks are unheavy metal, they are unintelligent, they are inhuman. They are evil and must die right now"

"Don't pick up an album called Love Metal and expect real heavy metal. Duh"

"Next up is the leather and spikes. Haha, that's so not heavy metal. Bottom line is the look came from two places: Gay clubs and biker bars. So, leather-wearing heavy metalheads are just flaming assgrabbers"

 

[Jim LotFP]

Forgive the abbreviated response, I've got to post-and-run!

Although there are some points I can agree with

Which points? (although maybe that is best answered in the Scum thread).

reading this makes me wonder if you actually like Heavy Metal.

Can something like Scum possibly be written by someone who doesn't like heavy metal?

Apparently you do, even though you're poopoo-ing just about everything about it

I remain confused that everyone doesn't closely and critically analyze their serious interests in some form.

What does it matter if Mandylion is 'questionable' in its Metal-content?

If you're just a listener, then it really doesn't matter. It becomes a matter of simply "yes" or "no".

But the people that would be reading Scum aren't just listeners. They'd consider themselves part of a greater community, have a passion for the subject, and likely claim not an inconsiderable amount of knowledge on the subject.

Shouldn't such a person be able to conduct their own little investigation, their own little experiment, and create a little internal report about the individual objects of their affection? Is that too much to assume from a person who spends much time and energy on this? (let alone people who deem it necessary to write about the subject...)

(CSI: METAL, investigating crimes against heavy metal and scientifically tearing apart the offenders... OK, I'd probably end up being that Caruso dork, the star of the offshoot of the real deal who sits there and (tries to) looks cool and delivers melodramatic quotes while everyone else does the real work... I nominate Jeff Wagner for Dr. Robbins, the guy who sticks his fingers in the corpses all day yet still manages to be pleasant demeanor... but what I want to know is who is qualified enough to be Grissom, and what sad hag gets to be Willows?)

(not as abbreviated as I thought but still more abbreviated than it could have been... the wife is LATE!)

 

[Some Bastard]

Which points? (although maybe that is best answered in the Scum thread).

Hey, you're the one that mentioned it here.

Heavy metal has many forms. It evolves. It mutates. The definition of the heavy metal sound is different now than it was in 1990, which is different than what it was in 1980. Heavy metal is not an established sound with a strict set of ingredients.

Exactly. And then you go on and on describing in great detail what is or isn't to be called Heavy Metal. And you accuse me of contradicting myself

Can something like Scum possibly be written by someone who doesn't like heavy metal?

If this is your way of expressing love I don't want to imagine how you treat the missus

I remain confused that everyone doesn't closely and critically analyze their serious interests in some form.

If you're just a listener, then it really doesn't matter. It becomes a matter of simply "yes" or "no".

But the people that would be reading Scum aren't just listeners. They'd consider themselves part of a greater community, have a passion for the subject, and likely claim not an inconsiderable amount of knowledge on the subject.

Shouldn't such a person be able to conduct their own little investigation, their own little experiment, and create a little internal report about the individual objects of their affection? Is that too much to assume from a person who spends much time and energy on this? (let alone people who deem it necessary to write about the subject...)

Genre-nitpicking is not the same as a critical analysis. I have plenty of passion for the subject, not to mention knowledge and as you can read in some of my other posts I did plenty of my own investigating.

I consider myself part of a greater community too. That does not mean that when I'm at a Metal festival I consider the people who go check out Machine Head or Killswitch Engage or other bands I don't care for to be part of a different community.

Your statements about 'authenticity' are bull. That is, if you really think that fake names, posed photos and leather signal a lack of authenticity. Because then I think you're in the wrong genre. Make-believe is and always has been an essential part of the genre and it always will. Even 'authenticity' and 'integrity' are usually just part of an image. Anthrax anybody? Stick to street buskers if you want authenticity. And then limit yourself to the ones that write their own material Furthermore the use of politics in your piece suggest a depth that is simply not there.

Apparently someone on another site has called you a 'failed musician'. I don't agree with that. I don't think you're a musician at all. You're very good at saying what musicians should or shouldn't do but I think you're completely ignorant about musical processes, recording processes or what makes a band work. If I'm wrong and you are or ever were a musician that would make it only sadder

Ah well, have it your way. The main difference between us is that I'm a music lover, which I think is a very humble thing to be. And you, on the other hand, are a finger-wagging elitist for who the music itself seems to take second place. Or at least that's how you come across to me

 

[DBB]

Apparently someone on another site has called you a
'failed musician'. I don't agree with that. I don't think you're a
musician at all. You're very good at saying what musicians should or
shouldn't do but I think you're completely ignorant about musical processes,
recording processes or what makes a band work.

Since you made similar statements about me, I will take a moment to
point out how weak and feeble of an argument this is. I would have expected
more than this old threadbare fallback position from you, Mr. Bastard (I
guess it was also only a matter of time until the "elitist" charge appeared,
but since it was Jim who finally drew it out of you, I'll let him
respond to that one). Of course, it is an indefensible charge that you
make here and one that cannot be countered if you have never been in a
band. I spent a few years being the resident non-musician in a band/party
house, so I do have some experience with seeing things from the inside
and becoming familiar with some matters (as well as participating in a
way, because it was taking place under the roof which I lived), but
that is neither here nor there as far as this issue is concerned.

You are correct about Jim not being a failed musician and me, I guess I
am a failure of sorts, but considering the standards by which success
is measured in this day and age--it is something that I accept with
equanimity. But I am wandering again...

I can't speak for Jim, but I imagine that the same holds true for him.
I may not be a musician or have the intimate "inside" knowledge that
you have of some aspects, Mr. Bastard, but over the course of the past
year and a half of writing about heavy metal numerous people in bands, who
have much more knowledge about matters related to metal music and being
in a band than you I might add, have agreed with the sentiments, ideas and opinions
expressed in the two articles. As a matter of fact, I will be sitting
down this evening and writing a lengthy response to someone from a band
who emailed me out of the blue because they were "moved" by the content
and arguments presented in the articles (in a postive way, there is little
doubt that some people view it in a negative light as well ).

I'm not going to drop any names for numerous reasons, the foremost
among them that it is crass to do such a thing and there is no need for me
to drag anyone else into this in order to stand on their shoulders, but
the fact that there are people in bands out there who have found the
two articles worthwhile and agree with the overall approach/argument
makes the old and decrepit variant of the "failed musician" attack
you trot out here a debating device that doesn't hold any water--and I am
sure that Jim could make the same argument about his work.

 

[Some Bastard]

Since you made similar statements about me, I will take a moment to
point out how weak and feeble of an argument this is. I would have expected
more than this old threadbare fallback position from you, Mr. Bastard (I
guess it was also only a matter of time until the "elitist" charge appeared,
but since it was Jim who finally drew it out of you, I'll let him
respond to that one). Of course, it is an indefensible charge that you
make here and one that cannot be countered if you have never been in a
band. I spent a few years being the resident non-musician in a band/party
house, so I do have some experience with seeing things from the inside
and becoming familiar with some matters (as well as participating in a
way, because it was taking place under the roof which I lived), but
that is neither here nor there as far as this issue is concerned.

You are correct about Jim not being a failed musician and me, I guess I
am a failure of sorts, but considering the standards by which success
is measured in this day and age--it is something that I accept with
equanimity. But I am wandering again...

I can't speak for Jim, but I imagine that the same holds true for him.
I may not be a musician or have the intimate "inside" knowledge that
you have of some aspects, Mr. Bastard, but over the course of the past
year and a half of writing about heavy metal numerous people in bands, who
have much more knowledge about matters related to metal music and being
in a band than you I might add, have agreed with the sentiments, ideas and opinions
expressed in the two articles.

More knowledge? Really You have obviously missed the fact that I, in fact, have played in bands. Still do actually. In fact, I just came out of the studio with my band.

You also seem to have forgotten that I work with bands for a living. And I also know plenty of Metal musicians who I'm sure will laugh their arse off when confronted with your article (actually I know two who did - no I'm not dropping names either )

More knowledge about matters related to metal music and being
in a band eh? I dare you! Bring it!

but the fact that there are people in bands out there who have found the
two articles worthwhile and agree with the overall approach/argument
makes the old and decrepit variant of the "failed musician" attack
you trot out here a debating device that doesn't hold any water--and I am
sure that Jim could make the same argument about his work.

I did not. Quite the opposite actually. I merely pointed out the fact that someone made such a comment. What I said is that it's pretty obvious he doesn't know shit about making music.And neither do you

 

[DBB]

More knowledge about matters related to metal music and being
in a band eh? I dare you! Bring it!

You need to go back and reread the post and take care to note what I was actually saying.

I wasn't speaking about myself--I do not feel the need to engage in a pissing contest.

But I can type anything and you misinterpet it and then misconstrue it, and I have boxes to pack, so carry on.

 

[Some Bastard]

That's what you guys always do;"I won't go into this now and by the way you're misreading"

You guys wouldn't know the 'spirit' of Heavy Metal if you tripped and impaled yourselves on it :Smug:

 

[Occam's Razor]

Have a break, man. What are you actually at? - It seems you are moving around in circles with your arguments. Also, I would say that Dave primarily tackles issues in the article related to the music business in the US. As similar as it is all over the world, I would say that you here in Europe should not arrogate the right to say that he has no clue at all. You may know about matters in your small country and our continent, but the things addressed in the articles are mainly concerning the American market which, as we know, is so attractive for bands: if you are big there, you get at acknowledged over here as well. Success seems to be only legitimate if you have it in the US, look at Lacuna Coil, Arch Enemy or In Flames talking about "expansion" of their base as if they were working in the economy.

...and on the one side, you talk about "it's just music", and then comes "the spirit of heavy metal"...you seem to not know what you want, maybe just a little quarrelling?

 

[Some Bastard]

Have a break, man. What are you actually at? - It seems you are moving around in circles with your arguments.

You've got a point there

Also, I would say that Dave primarily tackles issues in the article related to the music business in the US. As similar as it is all over the world, I would say that you here in Europe should not arrogate the right to say that he has no clue at all.

No clue about making music is what I said. Being some band's roomie doesn't make you more knowledgable about musical processes.

And this and other articles talk about Heavy Metal as a whole.

You may know about matters in your small country and our continent, but the things addressed in the articles are mainly concerning the American market which, as we know, is so attractive for bands: if you are big there, you get at acknowledged over here as well. Success seems to be only legitimate if you have it in the US, look at Lacuna Coil, Arch Enemy or In Flames talking about "expansion" of their base as if they were working in the economy.

You're absolutely spot on. THAT seems to be the real issue. The way certain bands 'talk'

...and on the one side, you talk about "it's just music", and then comes "the spirit of heavy metal"...you seem to not know what you want, maybe just a little quarrelling?

Mr. DBB was the one who coined the term 'spirit of Heavy Metal' (at least in this topic) so that was a bit of sarcasm :Smug:

 

[Jim LotFP]

Heavy metal has many forms. It evolves. It mutates. The definition of the heavy metal sound is different now than it was in 1990, which is different than what it was in 1980. Heavy metal is not an established sound with a strict set of ingredients.

Exactly. And then you go on and on describing in great detail what is or isn't to be called Heavy Metal. And you accuse me of contradicting myself

I was talking about simply the sound. Heavy metal isn't just the noise, and a piece like Scum would make no sense in any way if I thought that nothing mattered but the actual sound. But everything matters. If heavy metal is an actual thing, then it needs to be defined by things that don't change with the times but allow and encompass the evolution of the art. If heavy metal itself is transitory and its definitions blow with the wind, then it's completely worthless like all such meaningless fashion.

This also means that when we talk "true metal" and heavy metal as definable, we are NOT saying that it has to sound like Omen or Iron Maiden or anything of the sort.

Your statements about 'authenticity' are bull.

You say this so often. We get it. What I'm curious about, is if you don't recognize authenticity in music, in what areas do you value authenticity?

That is, if you really think that fake names, posed photos and leather signal a lack of authenticity.

If fake names do not signal a lack of authenticity, I'm beginning to wonder if our definitions of authenticity are even close to each other.

Make-believe is and always has been an essential part of the genre and it always will.

So is the pursuit of an impossible ideal in the face of overwhelming reality.

Anthrax anybody?

No thanks.

Furthermore the use of politics in your piece suggest a depth that is simply not there.

Now I think you're underestimating the depth of heavy metal.

Apparently someone on another site has called you a 'failed musician'. I don't agree with that. I don't think you're a musician at all.

You are correct. Any musical ambitions I may have are centered around the delivery of lyrics and anything I'd participate in would essentially sound like an early Napalm Death cover band. Who needs that? I know the kind of thing I'd be driven to create musically would not resemble the things I want to hear.

And I find that the implied notion that people that write about music should themselves make music is ridiculous. "You don't have to be a chef to know if the food tastes good" comparisons aside, I think a musician involved with labels and the bands being written about creates a definite conflict of interest.

You're very good at saying what musicians should or shouldn't do but I think you're completely ignorant about musical processes, recording processes or what makes a band work.

"Completely ignorant" isn't completely accurate and it isn't completely inaccurate. "Don't give a shit about it" isn't completely accurate and it isn't completely inaccurate. My concern is the final product, the music that enters my ears. When I started this writing thing, I thought that musical education would be a good thing to have so I could "know what I was talking about". I got out of that damned quick, the same way I ran from art education as a child when I started looking at brushstrokes and shit like that and ignoring the picture as a whole. I was reminded of this kind of thing just yesterday as I listened to the director's commentary of The Yards. That guy knows his cinema, and referenced all sorts of shit I'd never heard of going back to the 50s as influences for his scene framing, set dressing, and various tidbits. I admired his dedication to detail and the knowledge in his craft, but found it all completely irrelevant to my experiences watching the film he made. He obviously thinks his movie was good, and so do I, but there are obviously completely different perspectives and even if all of those technical details were crucial to making the movie this way, I really didn't care about them. It completely destroys my enjoyment and appreciation of an art form to look at it that way.

(I still wonder what went wrong in elementary school... for all I knew the kids in the band were born with instruments, it never occurred to me and I was never told that I could do that too, that it was something that you learned to do, and musical education in school amounted to singing songs as a group for forty-five minutes a week... at the same time, I was always told as a kid that touching my father's stereo or any of his records was a very bad thing to do... I know now that he was a ridiculously involved music listener but at the time, and due to living conditions while he was still with us he only listened on headphones, so I had no exposure to music beyond what happened to be on the radio... I was 15 or 16 when I discovered that there was music beyond that, and I didn't much care til I was 17 and out of high school. Late, late, late development, haha).

My writing and my perspectives about heavy metal deal in themes and meaning, not chords and keys. I'm comfortable with that and will leave the nuts-and-bolts technical details to those that appreciate them more than I do.

Ah well, have it your way. The main difference between us is that I'm a music lover, which I think is a very humble thing to be. And you, on the other hand, are a finger-wagging elitist for who the music itself seems to take second place.

That's pretty funny, calling me a finger-wagging elitist while you criticize my entire approach at the same time calling yourself humble.

That's OK though, for two reasons:

1) Your presence here is a positive. I enjoy challenge and debate over agreement and solidarity, and my entire style of writing is geared to supply that. What we're dealing with is entirely personal preference and an untested opinion is pretty worthless. Although from your statements I think you agree with a lot more around here than you admit to.

2) I don't consider "elitist" to be a perjorative term as it is commonly used. What, we should be pursuing a mediocre, average, or crappy ideal? Music is completely unnecessary to life (but enriches living immeasurably), is completely manmade with no natural existence or form. Why should anyone pursue anything less than their ideal of perfection? This isn't a basic life necessity, so what you do is set your own standard, brush aside those who set a lesser standard, and admire those that set a higher standard.

 

[Some Bastard]

I was talking about simply the sound. Heavy metal isn't just the noise, and a piece like Scum would make no sense in any way if I thought that nothing mattered but the actual sound. But everything matters. If heavy metal is an actual thing, then it needs to be defined by things that don't change with the times but allow and encompass the evolution of the art. If heavy metal itself is transitory and its definitions blow with the wind, then it's completely worthless like all such meaningless fashion.

Why does it 'need' to be defined? You're poopoo-ing Black Sabbath's Metal quotient while for other people they're the Big Inventors. Your colleague calls a rock'n'roll band like Motörhead Heavy Metal while Lemmy himself hates the term. Why the need for borders? In the end it's all subjective anyway. If Heavy Metal 'needs' anything it just needs to be made and if it's good it needs to be enjoyed.

You say this so often. We get it. What I'm curious about, is if you don't recognize authenticity in music, in what areas do you value authenticity?

If fake names do not signal a lack of authenticity, I'm beginning to wonder if our definitions of authenticity are even close to each other.

I don't say I don't value authenticity in music. I say the authenticity you're describing is an overly romanticized myth. No matter how 'authentic' or 'tr00' a band may claim to be, in the end they still want to sell some records. And to do so they package 'em in artwork, pose for photos and give interviews where they condemn the rest of the music industry for having sold out. You don't seem to realize that's all part of the game (no wonder, since a lot of those bands themselves don't realize it either). As for the fake names and all the other make-believe stuff, I see 'em all as part of the expression. Not to mention part of the fun. Is Bathory less authentic because the guy isn't called Quorthon? Are Immortal a bunch of fakers because of the corpsepaint? I think not! Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Hey, why not ditch band names alltogether and call 'em Dick, Peter & Rod or something?

Your piece reminds me of Edmund Wilson's essay on Horror literature somewhere in the 1940's, where he dismissed the writings of H.P. Lovecraft with all its supernatural shenanigans and sang the praises of Kafka and Conrad's Heart of Darkness instead. An interesting piece, but he was kind of missing the point. Like why people were drawn to these kind of stories in the first place. You seem to be roughly doing the same for Heavy Metal.

You are correct. Any musical ambitions I may have are centered around the delivery of lyrics and anything I'd participate in would essentially sound like an early Napalm Death cover band. Who needs that? I know the kind of thing I'd be driven to create musically would not resemble the things I want to hear.

And I find that the implied notion that people that write about music should themselves make music is ridiculous. "You don't have to be a chef to know if the food tastes good" comparisons aside, I think a musician involved with labels and the bands being written about creates a definite conflict of interest.

True, you don't have to make music to write about it. But you should know a thing or two about making music before telling musicians what they should or shouldn't do (like you do in your piece). Otherwise it's ridiculous.

That's pretty funny, calling me a finger-wagging elitist while you criticize my entire approach at the same time calling yourself humble.

That's OK though, for two reasons:

1) Your presence here is a positive. I enjoy challenge and debate over agreement and solidarity, and my entire style of writing is geared to supply that. What we're dealing with is entirely personal preference and an untested opinion is pretty worthless. Although from your statements I think you agree with a lot more around here than you admit to.

2) I don't consider "elitist" to be a perjorative term as it is commonly used. What, we should be pursuing a mediocre, average, or crappy ideal? Music is completely unnecessary to life (but enriches living immeasurably), is completely manmade with no natural existence or form. Why should anyone pursue anything less than their ideal of perfection? This isn't a basic life necessity, so what you do is set your own standard, brush aside those who set a lesser standard, and admire those that set a higher standard.

It is funny, isn't it?

I criticize your approach because it seems it just doesn't have to do with music all that much. Not really.

And yeah, I too have a pretty high standard when it comes to music (I hate mediocre crap) but I'm not a genre-snob. I just don't see the point. Like I said (several times now), let the music do the talking. But hey, if the supposed 'genre' is more important to you than the actual quality of the music be my guest (still, some young whippersnapper who dismisses key artists of the genre as 'glammy shit' is not going to tell me what is or isn't Heavy Metal )

 

[Europa Ascendent]

Well, the point is that numerous heavy metal bands, managers, labels, and PR agencies had set their sights on mainstream success in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s (not all) and the entire genre became integrated and bought into the mainstream and was now subject to the market forces of planned obsolescence that forms the core of the industry. The success and relative success of some traditional and thrash metal bands created an atmosphere where people began to think that the titillating promises of institutional and infrastructural support that were extended by a fickle mainstream industry that was less than comfortable with heavy metal was going to always be there as a brass ring. When the rug was pulled out from underneath the entire genre by the industry, it had a long lasting and detrimental effect on the health of the genre because many of the underground means of support (managers, promotional people, and independent label executives) had adopted a mainstream orientation and went along with what the larger music industry deemed to be profitable or popular.

And this was a positive effect, as it killed off the traditional and speed metal genres which were already creatively useless long before. It forced the underground to turn fully to black and death metal in the early 90's, which was great, since these genres creatively kick the shit out of what came before.

 

[Zealotry]

And this was a positive effect, as it killed off the traditional and speed metal genres which were already creatively useless long before. It forced the underground to turn fully to black and death metal in the early 90's, which was great, since these genres creatively kick the shit out of what came before.

Yah, Ildjarn is just sooooo much better than Fates Warning.

Don't you have a National Alliance rally to attend?