Impure Metal: How Underground Heavy Metal Became Mainstream Heavy Music

[DBB]

Here below is another problem that I wanted to address before I retire for a bit. You have a script supplied by anus.com that you cannot deviate from and anything that contradicts it cannot be assimilated into your worldview. What I have written has contradicted your limited conceptual toolbox and created some painful cognitive dissidence in your mind, so you cannot help but attack and insult me in hopes of removing me from existence so you do not have to go through the painful and self-contradictory process of growth.


Here is one example:

"Thrash" refers to the skateboard subculture and the punk/speed metal hybrid musical form that emerged from it (D.R.I., C.O.C. etc.) and was only retroactively applied to speed metal when a few people began (improperly) associating the speed metal tag with bands like Helloween in the mid-80s.

Classic speed metal bands were Metallica, Megadeth, Testament, Slayer, Anthrax and Prong, but these were the largest and most commercial and many others existed concurrently. Thrash remained underground and lasted for less than a decade, thus it retained its primal trio of Cryptic Slaughter, the Dirty Rotten Imbeciles and Corrosion of Conformity, although it is academically interesting to mention offshoots like Suicidal Tendencies and Fearless Iranians From Hell, both of which were more punk rock and rock'n'roll than the core of the thrash genre. Although toward the end of the 1980s people began referring to bands like Destruction and Kreator as "thrash metal," it makes more sense to identify them as essentially speed metal bands which borrowed attributes from thrash and nascent death metal bands.

anus.com

The only problem with this small section from the reams of philosophical claptrap anus.com spits out about metal and which you have cribbed approximately 70% of your inspiration from in this thread is that numerous THRASH bands (not a "few people" as you claim) were using the term “thrash” well before the late 1980s:

Destruction "Thrash Attack" Infernal Overkill 1985

Tankard "Thrash ‘til Death" Zombie Attack 1986

Razor "Thrashdance" Evil Invaders 1985

Onslaught "Thrash Till The Death" The Force 1986

Cryptic Slaughter’s Convicted was not released until 1986 and it could be argued that most people into metal were probably not very aware of COC and DRI until they were signed to metal blade and released albums on the MB label in 1987, but that is something that I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I deal in facts on the ground--not some harebrained philosophical system that cannot stand up to scrutiny once you begin to look at what the people it allegedly embraces were actually saying. I think you need to be more eclectic in your thinking and not merely rip off and regurgitate what someone else has said--unless you are the individual who wrote that tedious, pretentious and laughable piece for anus.com.


”They're nihilists, Donny, nothing to be afraid of." The Big Lebowski

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

I am not “backpedaling” about anything.

Bullshit. You continued to try and defend the connections you drew for several posts, only falling back on the "Well, that's not what I meant" defense after it became clear that the arguments you had previously presented were inadequate.

You were making statements such as "Metallica wanted more money, and hired Bob Rock, therefore Avenged Sevenfold." and commenting on the influence the Swedish style of melodic death had on metalcore to expose my supposed ignorance of how music evolves over time without any reference to the material or arguments contained in the article. As I said before, I really didn’t want to lead people through my article by the nose pointing out what everything meant and beating people over the head with my viewpoints, and this approach/methodology accounts for some of the less than clear conclusions you mention above.

You're not fooling anyone. You chose a 'methodology' of vagueness because a more concrete approach would have undermined the conclusion you clearly wanted people to take away, namely that metal was somehow usurped because a handful of bands, editors and industry reps consciously conspired to pervert the meaning of 'metal,' and that, further, this directly led to the current wave of not-metal 'metal.' If you hadn't wanted people to draw that conclusion, you would have structured the article differently (in parallel rather than a linear sequence).

The reading of the evidence you present above is somewhat close to what I would draw from it, so you are certainly getting warmer but not quite there yet. I would not, as you implied before, go so far to say that metalcore as a musical form would never have existed if the redefinition of metal chronicled in the second section of the article had not occurred--but such a fast and loose use of the term has certainly enabled Terrorizer and lord knows who else to argue that bands like TBDM, Arch Enemy, etc are living embodiments of “classic metal values,” emptying these values of all meaning by not taking the past (or the present for that matter) into account and allowing others to present Wolf Eyes, Lightning Bolt and bands of this ilk as metal--that is another story though.

Then perhaps you shouldn't make those implications, no?

As I said before, you are free to walk away (you are having a great deal of trouble walking away from it though )from the article with whatever impressions you want. Obviously, I have struck an unsympathetic chord somewhere deep in side you and you are deeply disturbed by the manner in which I chronicle events/actions in the article and

Honestly, my reaction wasn't particularly negative until you responded to my innocuous initial post in a scornful and extremely defensive manner, I am far more put off by the attitude than by the content of the article itself (which, frankly, isn't at all incompatible with the psychosocial explanation I favor for the same events, they can frankly be seen as corollaries to one another, though primacy would be hard to judge).

If you sat down and wrote a similar article, I and many others would do the same about your take on the mess that is metal in the broadest sense of the term--probably quite a bit more in your case, since you have such a narrow base of taste.

Narrow base of taste? There's a lot more variation between Beethoven and Burzum (the only artists I've discussed positively in this thread) than between the various speed metal acts you favor.

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

Here below is another problem that I wanted to address before I retire for a bit. You have a script supplied by anus.com that you cannot deviate from and anything that contradicts it cannot be assimilated into your worldview.

Not at all. I have disagreed many times with Herr Prozak over the years, and probably will do so in the future. In this instance, I follow his analysis because it is fundamentally correct. The term "thrash" came out of skateboard culture and was first applied musically to refer to hybrid speed metal/punk "crossover" outfits in the early 80s (D.R.I. and C.O.C. both released early examples of this style in 1983, and both were around before that). My best guess is that the harsher sounding term "thrash," appealed to 'zine writers and the like, and it was quickly appropriated to refer to the much more numerous speed metal bands then dominating the underground. However, with nomenclature, primacy goes to the original usage. You see a similar scenario playing out in the late 80s/early 90s where in the press and even among bands, "grindcore" and "death metal" were used interchangably, even though these were clearly distinctly different forms with different expressive modes and different histories.

What I have written has contradicted your limited conceptual toolbox and created some painful cognitive dissidence

Cognitive dissonance (not to be a grammar nazi, it's a useful phrase and one you might want to use again in the future).

 

[DBB]

namely that metal was somehow usurped because a handful of bands, editors and industry reps consciously conspired to pervert the meaning of 'metal,' and that, further, this directly led to the current wave of not-metal 'metal.' If you hadn't wanted people to draw that conclusion, you would have structured the article differently (in parallel rather than a linear sequence).

I was not backpedaling from the arguments or implications presented in my article by any means. And I would not say that bands were part of a "conspiracy" either, the ones mentioned in the article knew which way the industry trade winds were blowing and adjusted their sails accordingly. Where you read “conspiracy,” I found and supported with evidence a concerted and coordinated industry effort to remake metal into a genre more palatable to mainstream tastes.

Anyway, you are still continuing to read things into my statements that are not there. I believed that you were attempting to say that I was claiming the bands discussed in the earlier part of the article were directly responsible for metalcore due to your vagueness. Here is the quote again for the sake of clarity:

The article tries to draw a line of cause and effect between the most obvious sell-outs of the late 80's/early 90's (in truth, speed metal as a genre had sold out long before in that the bands continued to make music in a style whose creative possibilities were exhausted) and the metalcore phenomenon of the first years of the new millennium.

I was not saying that the “sell-outs” were responsible for metalcore, but a combination of factors (which includes their actions) has had an effect on the way metal is packaged and presented in the modern day--it does not matter if it is metalcore. Early Man and Nightwish are not metalcore bands and are examples of this phenomenon presented in the article that are not considered metalcore by anyone. The statement above and a similiar one elsewhere makes it sound as if I was claiming that the activities of the “sell-outs” led to the metalcore explosion. That is not the case. It has allowed some journalists and some metalcore bands to present themselves as the standard bearers of traditional, classical metal in the modern day--when they are not by any stretch of the imagination. Now that we are on the same page, we can start running in circles once again when I come back--unless the message board jury declares a winner in the meantime or whatever happen with these interminable, electronic arguments that have no possible resolution.

Also, if you go back and read the posts you made after the first one that you have reproduced on other boards--your tone was insulting from the beginning and informed mine, so we are both to blame for the snide tenor of the debate up to this point.

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

Note: I was attempting a one sentence summary of a 45 page argument; it wasn't a comprehensive rebuttal of the piece. Your argument at this point has become a little difficult to follow in that you disavow making the connection with one hand while re-affirming it with the other.

The original question I raised, which you don't seem to actually have addressed, is that the implied connection between what happened with speed metal in the early 90's and what has happened with the explosion of 'metal'-that-isn't since 2000 is tenuous given that you basically ignored what transpired within the scene in the intervening years. For that matter, the point is equally undermined by the lack of any reference to the years prior to 1991, where much of the same behavior can be chronicled as well. Metal has always been handled this way by the media and the labels; the real question at any given time is always whether the bands will let them, which has more to do with psychosocial factors and the creative state of a "scene" than with the media or the labels.

Also, if you go back and read the posts you made after the first one that you have reproduced on other boards--your tone was insulting from the beginning and informed mine, so we are both to blame for the snide tenor of the debate up to this point.

My initial post was as neutral as one can be when disagreeing with an author. I certainly wasn't diplomatic after your insulting initial reply, but most of us tend to react negatively when provoked. I would certainly rather have civil discussion than the alternative.

 

[DBB]

I would certainly rather have civil discussion than the alternative.

Agreed. I will try to have more to say about the rest soon, but I think that the answer to your questions are contained in the article. I was not attempting to write a grand history of metal, only an examination of an event that has had a profound effect on traditional, classic, and thrash metal or heavy metal--not black or death metal. I consider the last two to be related yet distinct and different forms of music and both were/are subject to separate forces and listened to by different audiences for the most part. It would seem to me that even you would have to concede this point using psychosocial criteria...or perhaps not?

As for the overwhelming focus on 1991, I do make the point in the article that while this was a pivotal year, what transpired during the early 90s had much deeper roots and offer an example from the year 1988. As I said above, this was an article and there is only so much I can cover in 45 pages, it is always a question of breadth vs. depth, and I chose the latter and the former inevitably suffers because of this decision. Hopefully, at some point, I will be able to sit down and write a sweeping history of metal, so we would have even more to argue about than we already do.

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

I consider the last two to be related yet distinct and different forms of music and both were/are subject to separate forces and listened to by different audiences for the most part. It would seem to me that even you would have to concede this point using psychosocial criteria...or perhaps not?

Obviously, black and death metal represent different forms (just as speed metal and heavy metal are different), but I don't see the fanbases as being wildly different. There's a great deal of overlap between them. The only real outliers I see are fans of subgenres I think are only tenuously related to metal in any event (prog 'metal,' goth 'metal,' stoner and drone doom).

As for the overwhelming focus on 1991, I do make the point in the article that while this was a pivotal year, what transpired during the early 90s had much deeper roots and offer an example from the year 1988.

I don't see how you can really make 1991 the 'pivotal' year. It didn't represent any break with the past, and similar events occurred after it. It was certainly pivotal in the killing off of speed metal as a commercially viable venture, but that doesn't seem to be the main concern here. The truth is that the basic pattern of interaction between the media, the labels and the major bands had been set very early on, not long after the genre first crystallized. You see the same patterns with other 'underground' movements as well, including punk, hardcore, and goth. For this reason, I don't think you can really make a case for these interactions being the decisive element, and we need to look for social and psychological factors that make underground movements vulnerable to such subversion in the first place.

 

[DBB]

After thinking it over a bit, the main question/thesis/purpose of “Impure Metal” is pretty cut and dried.

The mainstream is recognizing the existence of heavy metal again, but it has almost little or nothing to do with what most metalheads would call heavy metal. (This is something I plan on devoting my attention to in a future article, but it lead me down the road that resulted in this article).


One example out of many: http://www.slate.com/id/2124692/fr/rss

The “underground” (the reason for the quotes should be apparent from the article) metal press and some bands are now also employing classic and traditional metal references in a manner that does not honor the values or sounds of heavy metal and the mainstream press is picking up on this trend and packaging all kinds of things as heavy metal as a result.

There are numerous examples of how the metal press skews definitions in my article.

I began to wonder why and how did this happen: I locate the primary reason for this phenomenon in the redefinition and repackaging of metal during the early 1990s. Without this event, the current fast and loose usage of “classic metal values,” incongruous references to heavy metal, etc. would have been impossible, so I devote a great deal of attention to this era. The main engine driving this redefinition is the industry, so labels, executives and journalists/PR men receive a great deal of attention. This event has certainly shaped how heavy metal is defined (black and death metal are another matter and I would be interested to read someone’s take on the commodification of these genres) over the course of the decade I devote passing attention to in the article--but I am primarily concerned with the effects in the here and now, which I think are more than apparent from the evidence I present.

The article is a historical examination of heavy metal that focuses on one problem/question. It was not designed to address every genre or every permutation of the music over the course of three-plus decades. Merely to hone in on a selected topic and attempt to treat it in a comprehensive manner as possible with the sources and resources I had at my disposal. Obviously, if after reading the full article you judged it to be “masturbatory” and deeply flawed, I am not going to be able to convince you to change your mind through exchanges on a message board. I can accept that and expected that many people would have problems with and reservations about my interpretations (metal is fragmentary and fractious by its very nature--so it is no surprise to me).

You are free to tell people that it is wrongheaded and not worth reading, and hopefully you will also be able to accept the fact that we disagree about these matters. Other individuals who read it (or the fifty or sixty people following this thread ) can decide who is correct and make their own decisions based on the article and your assessment of it--which has been fully aired. I would consider this an impasse--since you are not going to be satisfied with my responses because you are not satisfied with the article, and I do not believe that your questions and concerns are strong enough to undermine the article, so I am not going to retreat or retract what I have written--so I really do not feel compelled to carry on this debate in a systematic fashion and consider the matter closed for all intents and purposes because we are beginning to move in circles again. I don't want you to interpet this as a sign of disrespect or that I do not think your opinions are worthy of consideration (the length and frequency of my responses should serve as an indication of this), but I really do need to move on to other things for the next few days and stay off the computer as much as possible.

For this reason, I don't think you can really make a case for these interactions being the decisive element, and we need to look for social and psychological factors that make underground movements vulnerable to such subversion in the first place.

I think that this is the crux of the matter. We have two different and incompatible analytical frameworks and there is no way to converge on common ground. This is natural and I see no reason for this inability to come to terms about this as something that we have to continue driving into the ground. It certainly has been a spirited debate and I am sure someone out there has enjoyed it, but I can't see us coming to an agreement because of these different orientations and I really do think that we can talk about this until the cows come home.

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

The “underground” (the reason for the quotes should be apparent from the article) metal press and some bands are now also employing classic and traditional metal references in a manner that does not honor the values or sounds of heavy metal and the mainstream press is picking up on this trend and packaging all kinds of things as heavy metal as a result.

There are numerous examples of how the metal press skews definitions in my article.

I began to wonder why and how did this happen: I locate the primary reason for this phenomenon in the redefinition and repackaging of metal during the early 1990s.

How do you reach that conclusion when the press, metal and otherwise, spent the 80s telling us that Motley Crue, GnR, Bon Jovi, Van Halen etc. were metal, that Turbo was just an evolution of the classic Priest sound, that Ozzy's solo material was in the grand tradition of Black Sabbath and that Living Colour, Faith No More and Jane's Addiction were going to "revolutionize metal"? 1991 was just another example of what had gone on from the very beginning, starting with the association of Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and Uriah Heep with metal in the 70s (an association that some "metal" scribes like Martin Popoff continue to promulgate), not to mention the way that Jimi Hendrix was somehow written into the history of metal (to give coloured folk a place at the table?). I'm not disputing that the press and labels did use Metallica et al. to "redefine and repackage" metal for the mainstream, but this was not the first time it had been attempted, nor even the most successful. As a result, I have a hard time understanding why you view this as a unique, watershed event in the history of metal that suffices in and of itself to explain the subsequent history of 'metal' and the mainstream.

I think that this is the crux of the matter. We have two different and incompatible analytical frameworks and there is no way to converge on common ground.

I don't see our frameworks as fundamentally incompatible at all. What you describe is very real -- and a direct consequence of the psychosocial factors and basic structure of the industry that I outlined. You've documented something that is absolutely true, and decisive where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. It's just that it is part of a larger structural phenomenon that makes things like the events of 1991 essentially inevitable.

 

[Yippee38]

This was an interesting read. However, I don't think that this will kill metal. It will kill metal to those who are only interested in metal because it is somewhat hip now. Those of us who have been into metal, and haven't abandonded it, will continue to pursue "quality" metal. Have hope. The internet provides lots of opinions and can lead people in directions that traditional media cannot/will not.

Who the hell reads those rags anyway? I mean, if you're into an underground form of music, why would you read anything that remotely resembled mainstream media? That just doesn't make sense.

 

[Jim LotFP]

I mean, if you're into an underground form of music, why would you read anything that remotely resembled mainstream media? That just doesn't make sense.

Even with the marketing powers of the internet, when metal isn't "cool" anymore, the tours will be far less frequent, the album sales will plummet, CDs won't be carried by the stores and big online places anymore, bigger bands will break up by the dozen, and smaller labels will go bankrupt.

It won't matter one bit to anyone willing to order albums from obscure sources and digs for bands that nobody (as in, not one person) likes, but we should know that it happens and we should know why it happens. If we're smart we can even predict when it will happen.

 

[DBB]

This was an interesting read. However, I don't think that this will kill metal. Who the hell reads those rags anyway?

Thanks for reading and finding the article of interest.

I think that a lot more people read the magazines mentioned in the article than the Internet outlets, since the circulation numbers are in the tens of thousands. As for who reads them, I think a lot of young people do and that is what concerns me the most. Also, a lot of people into metal are just starved for any information and will pick them up and read them.

As for the killing aspect, I don't think so either. I got an email from someone in a traditional heavy metal band just as I was beginning the conclusion and they were very down and crestfallen about the entire ball of wax. This had an effect, as well as my utter disgust at the machinations of the metal media industry. The killing is a repeated act that will be done again and again, but never completely accomplished. But I do believe the way things are going all this bullshit is going to have a serious impact on the fortunes and future of heavy metal.

I haven't told Jim yet, but I do plan on writing a positive and upbeat piece about underground heavy metal bands and labels that are doing things right and survey them to see what they think the problems and solutions are. This project depends on the cooperation of subjects great and small and may not pan out, since I can imagine that I am now a persona non grata in many places.

The mainstream has an impact on the underground since both are operating within the larger world of metal and I think that people need to pay attention to what is being said in the mainstream and the "underground" that apes the mainstream in order to fight and survive in the even darker days that are approaching for heavy metal if the stormclouds on the horizon begin to roll in any closer (more on this in my next article, which will be a more detailed exploration of "The New Indie Order is Here" chapter in "Impure Metal").

Dreadful Thunder
The storms moving in
And Judgment day is calling
My soul has been healed
By the power of steel
And the sound of glory

I will send into the ground
All that are found
By the sign of the hammer falling
Yes Heathens will fall
I will strike down them all
Then you will know my calling

 

[Zealotry]

To have such a lengthy section devoted to Metallica's selling out, without once mentioning how the death of Cliff Burton fundamentally changed the band's outlook is almost criminal.

Also, is it really such a bad thing that PR machines and labels attempted to cross-pollenate metal with alternative? A lot of today's metal fans cut their teeth listening to stuff like Soundgarden and Alice In Chains in the early 90s. The ones who didn't tend to be the most obtrusive and regressively closed-minded in the scene. Similarly, a lot of the people involved in the post-punk [I hate the term 'grunge'] scene in the early 90s cut their teeth on 70s and 80s metal and punk to begin with. I think the extent to which extreme metal was able to grow and expand independently in the early 90s while alt-rock had its day in the sun is proof that the popularization of grunge had no real negative effect on metal from an artistic standpoint. It was when the mainstream began to court loud, angry, downtuned bands that had no background in either metal or punk that the genre really started to suffer.

 

[DBB]

Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment.

To have such a lengthy section devoted to Metallica's selling out, without once mentioning how the death of Cliff Burton fundamentally changed the band's outlook is almost criminal.

I do not think so. It would be an utterly counterfactual argument. I am a big Burton fan and believe that the albums he played on are superior to the albums that followed, but what would have happened if he lived is beyond the scope of this article or any other writer really. I have seen interminable debates about this topic on the Internet and there is just no way to prove or disprove what anyone argues. Hetfield and Ulrich would claim that they were carrying on in Burton’s spirit and honoring his memory in the first few years after his death, and I certainly have no hard-and-fast evidence to prove them incorrect.

If Hetfield had died in the accident, there would be more than enough evidence (some of which is in the article) to prove that Metallica would never have sold out based on the numerous comments he made before that unfortunate day.

Also, is it really such a bad thing that PR machines and labels attempted to cross-pollenate metal with alternative?

Yes…and it is happening again as I am typing these lines. There will be another article examining this topic in much more detail. If I did not convince you this time around--maybe next time.

Besides, as the article outlines, the music industry did not merely mix alternative and metal, it marketed alternative as heavy metal in order to blot the latter out of financial and promotional existence and sent heavy metal into a deep depression that had long-term and detrimental effects on the genre.

I think the extent to which extreme metal was able to grow and expand independently in the early 90s while alt-rock had its day in the sun is proof that the popularization of grunge had no real negative effect on metal from an artistic standpoint.

This is an article about heavy metal, not extreme metal. I do not use the term “extreme” to describe any of the metal I listen to--whenever I use the word “metal” in the article it should be read as a shorthand version of heavy metal. I consider traditional, true, classic, thrash, and old-school death metal to be heavy metal proper and within the confines of this article. Some people may take issue with this, but there is a significant contingent of metalheads out there who employ this definition. It was written from this collective perspective with a hope that others may find it of interest but with the knowledge that some would not.

This could be argued as being much too narrow of a view, but it keeps me happy and Ian Christe has wrote a history where heavy metal, metal, alternative, post-rock, and extreme are part of a seamless evolution of music where there are no breaks or interruptions for those who see it this way. I don’t see the history of heavy metal in that light, and there are numerous others out there who do not as well.

Metal in the broadest sense of the term is fractious and fragmented and I think that the article reflects one aspect of this turmoil--I just happen to think that heavy metal is the best form of metal and that the early 90s constitutes a clear break in the lineage and trajectory of heavy metal and that a lot of black and death metal does not have much to do with heavy metal.

 

[Jim LotFP]

This is an article about heavy metal, not extreme metal.

It's also about the commercial face of heavy metal, not the artistic side.

But the mainstream also appropriated elements of extreme metal in the 90s... remember Korn and Kittie had appearances at the Milwaukee Metalfest when that was, by default, THE event.

It's weird. 1994 was a good year attendance-wise for the death metal shows I went to. Packed houses. But more and more people were wearing these Korn shirts to the shows. Then, suddenly is seems in hindsight, first the crowds, and then the frequent shows, disappeared as nu metal started to go through the roof.

I consider traditional, true, classic, thrash, and old-school death metal to be heavy metal proper

I don't agree with this, but I'm curious as to where the separation points are for other types of heavy metal.

 

[DBB]

I don't agree with this, but I'm curious as to where the separation points are for other types of heavy metal.

I know.

The statement I made that yours is based upon is not as hardline as it may appear. I said “heavy metal proper” instead of simply “heavy metal” to try to give some indication that it is almost impossible to hermetically seal off subgenres and sub-sub genres--but this does not mean the absence of clear boundaries. I meant that this is heavy metal in the most restricted sense of the term possible, to me at least, there are other bands that could not be classified as falling within the genres named above that I would call heavy metal. Heavy metal is a sound but it is also a spirit and an orientation and some bands that most people would not call heavy metal would fall into my personal categorization. I don’t think it is just an arbitrary process though, since there are enough people out there who share these boundaries that it would resonate with them and provides, for example, me and you (despite our differences) with enough common ground to work together and recognize mutual points of reference.

Although I think that a lot of the fundamentals were in place by the early 1990s, heavy metal is still somewhat of a learning and growing experience, and I cannot say that everything is set in stone, since I am finding out more and more about it every day. To be honest, it would probably take a book length treatment of metal in the broadest sense of the term to fully flesh out what heavy metal means and where the divisions are found--which, if everything turns out as I envision it, I hope to drive myself crazy by attempting at some point in the future. For now, each article, review, or interview is going to be a small piece of this puzzle, and I think that some major components of what constitutes heavy metal emerged from my exploration in “Impure Metal” and hope to conduct more in the future.

I don’t know if that even made any sense or if I could have been more vague, but I think that a lot of people out there would think that we are both smearing-fecal-matter-on-the-walls nuts for even using the words "heavy metal," much less thinking that it is something different than metal employed as a universal designation--since heavy metal is a dead or dilapidated subgenre to many.



As you intimated above, when you reminded us that you “never gave a musical description for heavy metal in Scum,” it would take much more time and thought to even attempt what could turn out to be a fool’s errand, but there is something to the classification system that I employed above that is also acknowledged by some on the other side of the divide:

Is it the new Obituary? It’s not bad, but I was never a huge fan of the old school death metal bands. Obituary, Bolt Thrower, Gorefest and so on. I could listen to it but never really worshipped them or anything. This track “Insane” sounds good and has the right groove, but I look for something more in this style of music that I just can’t seem to find here. You know, the song is called “Insane” but it sounds very…sane.

Call and Response with Behemoth decibel April 2006

 

[Zealotry]

I do not think so. It would be an utterly counterfactual argument. I am a big Burton fan and believe that the albums he played on are superior to the albums that followed, but what would have happened if he lived is beyond the scope of this article or any other writer really. I have seen interminable debates about this topic on the Internet and there is just no way to prove or disprove what anyone argues. Hetfield and Ulrich would claim that they were carrying on in Burton’s spirit and honoring his memory in the first few years after his death, and I certainly have no hard-and-fast evidence to prove them incorrect.

If Hetfield had died in the accident, there would be more than enough evidence (some of which is in the article) to prove that Metallica would never have sold out based on the numerous comments he made before that unfortunate day.

Well, this is taken from some 'insider accounts', but to my knowledge, the decision to cash in and start playing by everyone else's rules came as a direct result of Cliff's death. They pretty much decided that life was too short to devote their lives to a form of music that may never have brought them any success.

Besides, as the article outlines, the music industry did not merely mix alternative and metal, it marketed alternative as heavy metal in order to blot the latter out of financial and promotional existence and sent heavy metal into a deep depression that had long-term and detrimental effects on the genre.

I fail to see how these detrimental effects have had any bearing on the genre beyond its perception in the mainstream. If that's the primary focus of your argument, then the article is generally pointless, since as you yourself noted, the perception of traditional and thrash metal in mainstream channels is less than favorable. If we're to look at music genres as being attendees at a party, heavy metal's the awkward nerdy kid who stands in the corner and doesn't try to dance. And you, yourself also pointed out that while metal was being pushed back underground, bands that played traditional metal effectively sprung up everywhere - in and out of the U.S.
Frankly, if the genre was so concerned about being misrepresented in the mainstream, there would've been a lot more bands doing what Metallica did. But obviously, since this didn't happen, not all that many bands cared about alienating the mainstream. To the masses and the mainstream press corps, heavy metal was no different from grunge because much like grunge, it was seen as having a limited shelf life. From the very beginning, when Iron Maiden and Judas Priest made their commercial breakthroughs, the people doing the marketing only cared about making money -in the now-. They had no concern about what would happen to the genre in 6-7 years when the 'next big thing' came along. So the backhanded remarks scorning metal that the editors of Hit Parader et al made should come as no surprise to anyone.
That's how the evolution of rock music is viewed by mainstream channels - your style is only worthwhile until something fresher comes along. And as technology makes it easier for music to reach wider audiences, and also facilitates the forming of new bands, this process becomes faster and faster. Put it this way: metal lasted about 7-8 years in the mainstream, from 1982 to 1989-90; then came grunge, which fizzled out after about 5-6 years [1991-1996] and was replaced by 'nu-metal' which was really only viable for 4-5 years [1997-2001], at which point this new wave of radio-friendly metal/core emerged, and is currently in its last gasps due to oversaturation and a lack of fresh ideas.
To the mainstream the sincerity of an artist and their devotion to the craft is irrelevant. And the art only suffers if the artist is concerned about making money.
The fact is, there were bands playing post-punk [aka: 'grunge'] well after the sound fell out of favor with the mainstream, just as there have always been bands playing heavy metal as the genre was forced back underground. That's proof positive that only sincere fans put any stock in artistic license.

 

[DBB]

I fail to see how these detrimental effects have had any bearing on the genre beyond its perception in the mainstream. If that's the primary focus of your argument, then the article is generally pointless, since as you yourself noted, the perception of traditional and thrash metal in mainstream channels is less than favorable.

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.

This acceptance of the mainstream as the absolute and final metric of success, sales and popularity warped and twisted the landscape and when the larger industry abandoned the genre, even the most hardy of underground bands, labels and magazines found it difficult to continue and folded. There was not much warning and what we look back on as something that people could adjust or adapt to was something that was not about abstract and rarefied art at that point--it became a matter of being able to put bread on the table and many people had to make the hard and painful decision to concede defeat due to the utter absence of any support from labels, magazines and fans who turned to alternative as the next thing or were caught up in the collapse that made it appear as if heavy metal disappeared.

And you, yourself also pointed out that while metal was being pushed back underground, bands that played traditional metal effectively sprung up everywhere - in and out of the U.S.

I think you are misreading the article here. I claim that heavy metal experienced a severe recession and that many bands broke up and that heavy metal was scarce during the 1990s. I don’t know how you walked away with the impression that underground bands were popping up everywhere during this decade. What I do say or strongly intimate is that around the turn of the century that the Internet and other factors began to create an environment where traditional and thrash metal bands could begin to eke out an existence again and make ends meet to do some shows and release albums.

This is why many bands from the 1980s have been reforming during the past five years or so and numerous traditional heavy metal bands have been formed as metalheads who have been separated by time and space have been able to electronically coalesce and create far-flung and tenuous networks of support that respect and cherish what the forward-looking and ground breaking would characterize as “close-minded” heavy metal.

Not that it is a paradise by any stretch of the imagination now. That is another point of the article: even now when magazines claim to be underground and supporting classic metal values what they are primarily focused on are servicing the bands major independent labels are pushing in interviews, ads, and reviews instead of bands playing underground heavy metal.

 

[neoclassical101]

Personally, I don't know how anyone could claim that they can tell what is or is not "false" metal. The only truth of whether or not it's REAL is in the heart of the artist. Regardless of style. Whether it be Korn, Avenged Sevenfold, Ted Nugent, Yngwie Malmsteen, Primal Fear, or Seven Witches.... I have seen the same posters saying that changing with the times makes it false and continuing to play a certain style after it's no longer relevant... They were of course refering to speed metal. Truth is, if someone changes style for any reason other than natural evolution of their artistry than they are indeed false, posers, whatever you want to call them.

I've seen bashing of artists because they may or may not have ripped someone off. NEWSFLASH MORONS....NOTHING IS ORIGINAL. IT'S ALL BEEN DONE. There are only 12 notes in Western Music Theroy and they have all been played in everyway. Why do you think metal guitarists learn classical (Malmsteen, Joe Stump, etc), jazz (Alex Skolnick, James Murphy, etc.), country (Zakk Wylde, Michael Lee Firkins, Ritchie Kotzen) to expand their horizons? You honestly believe that speed, prog, power, death, or any other hyphenated metal would have happened without Uli Roth, the Schenker brothers, Motorhead, Accept first? Everybody takes from what they hear growing up and adds to or expands upon those ideas....Listen to Blackmore...then Yngwie. Malsmteen was influeneced by Blackmore but took the neoclassical approach 10 lightyears beyond what Ritchie imagined. So Chuck was influened by Coroner? Big damn deal. Death and Control Denied stuff was far superior musically and commercially....this coming from a Coroner fan.

Would Metallica have done Load, Reload, and St. Anger if Cliff were still alive? How the hell can anyone claim they know? Cliff loves 70's rock and early punk...so it's hard to tell what they would have ended up doing. Fact is we'll never know. What we do know is that everything they have done since Bob Rock got involved blows.

In the 80's I was never a big fan of "hair metal" or "glam metal." I was busy with Metallica, Possessed, Coroner, Annhilator, Shok Paris,Pretty Maids, Zoetrope, Helloween, Overkill, Slayer, Megadeth, Motorhead, Manowar, Armored Saint, Anthrax, Savatage, Suicidal Tendencies. But wasn't about to question the authenticity of The Scorpions, Y&T, or the like. How many of you have the first Pantera albums...BEFORE Cowboys From Hell....When they looked like Poison... So tell me, when did they sell out? Those 2 recordings or the later stuff when they turned their back on glam? Hmmmm? How do YOU know what was in their hearts? Afterall Vinnie and Darrell were massive Kiss fans. Was Poison, Cinderella, Great White, and their ilk fake metal. NO!!! Why? They never claimed to be metal in the first place. They always referred to themselves as ROCK AND ROLL. Where is it written that metal musicians and fans can't be happy and party anyway?

Then there is the ballad bashers....Hmmmm.... Manowar has more piano and acoustic guitar than any glam band... Is anybody dumb enough to challenge Manowar's metal credibility?

Anyway...my very long winded point is the ONLY measure is what the artist does and what they believe in. If the artist is honest to themselves then it is 100% real. No matter how weak or loud. So please drop the prestense and listen to and enjoy the music.

 

[neoclassical101]

By the way Dave... I can tell you put a lot of time and thought in your article... But I have to tell you that I don't agree with a lot of what you say.