Heavy metal is currently a comfortable market for two groups to find a place of belonging: Pseudo-rebellious musicians seeking affirmation, and complete idiots. Heavy metal is not a comfortable place for creative musicians to express themselves in uncompromising and disagreeable ways.
That is what we have allowed heavy metal to become. I do not like that.
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.
Heavy metal's subgenres have dedicated fans and dedicated detractors. Those who like one subgenre can be called "gay" by lovers of other subgenres. Fans of certain sounds will call other sounds "noise." Certain styles of heavy metal being included in certain heavy metal festivals are considered to be breaking the mood. Heavy metal is not a brotherhood.
Some fans and artists in heavy metal wear leather. Lots of it. Bracers with spikes, jackets, pants, boots. Mad medieval bikers! Some look like fetish models. Some dress up like Vikings. Some wear makeup. Some wear jeans and band T-shirts. Some wear old denim vests with old German thrash band patches on them. Some always look like they just got out of bed and threw on whatever was on the floor nearby. Some wear wifebeaters and oversized shorts. Some even wear suits. Heavy metal is not a fashion and it is certainly not a uniform.
Musicians change styles all the time according to their own wishes. Albums are re-released with different formats and bonus tracks all the time, requiring people to either buy essentially the same album twice or illegally download in order to hear all of the available songs. Heavy metal is not about the fans.
Record companies stipulate deadlines for albums all the time. They can have veto power over songs, running order and length of albums, and even replacement members. Fans are quick to download unauthorized free songs. Heavy metal is not about the musicians.
Musicians purposefully dress certain ways. Musicians spend money on photo shoots. They negotiate contracts for recording, for live appearances. They dress up their albums with artwork and make an effort to make it more appealing to potential consumers. Heavy metal is not just about the music.
So what is heavy metal if it's not about a specific sound or a unified movement?
The first theories of a definition of heavy metal can be found by looking at the popularity of heavy metal against a political backdrop. In the mid-90s, the lowest point of heavy metal in terms of popularity, it remained healthiest in the more restrictive cultures, and went off of the mainstream radar in more open societies.
In Japan, a rigid society awash in strict tradition and standards of expected behavior, heavy metal flourished. I have no idea how it fared compared to 'regular' music, but there were a good number of American and European artists able to make a living solely through selling albums in Japan. We could even go so far to say that the reason there are any number of veteran heavy metal bands still in the scene at all is because Japan allowed them to survive economically. Heavy metal fans worldwide recognize the debt owed to the Japanese fans by completely ignoring Japanese release dates when coming up with 'best of the year' lists.
Rumors and whispers of the popularity of heavy metal in Russia and Latin America reached the main heavy metal territories bit by bit as musicians played there and described the massive crowds that came to see them. These areas are not as culturally oppressive as they are economically depressed, and all the freedom in the world does no good to those who have little money to enjoy its fruits.
Europe, to generalize a diverse cultural landscape (they're doing it to themselves for real anyway ), kept a baseline heavy metal scene for much of the 90s. Questionably heavy metal albums such as Wildhoney and Mandylion had great success in the lean years, leading the way for albums like Enthrone Darkness Triumphant and Glory to the Brave to enjoy their success. While the oppressiveness of the culture varies from nation to nation, the popularity of heavy metal tends to be greater wherever there is a more hard-line government. Germany has banned certain heavy metal albums and cover art outright, and will arrest you for expressing the wrong thought or making the wrong hand gesture, and that's the heart of heavy metal in Europe. France will fine you for expressing certain 'incorrect' views, and they have a strong heavy metal following.
In the United States, the 80s were dominated politically by the Reagan administration, which was then replaced by the administration of Reagan's Vice-President. "Greed" was "good." The building of the military industrial complex and the encouragement given to big business and patriotism left a lot of room for disenfranchisement. Heavy metal was huge.
Yet look at the 90s. The US rolled over Iraq in the first Gulf War. War might not have been a thing of the past, but it was nothing America thought it had to be afraid of any longer. The Soviet Bloc was smashed, the Russians were now our friends, and to the average American, situations like the breakdown of Yugoslavia were considered minor, local corrections made as the world was coming together.
The conservative regime ended as Bill Clinton was elected. He was a more personable everyman than had been in power for many years, and he brought a reputation for liking women, pot, and McDonald's into the White House. America was going to be more relaxed and laid back.
This is when heavy metal died in the US. It was pushed off of the mainstream map completely. The mainstream moved away from music of individual power and into the worlds of grunge (later morphing into alternative rock and then nu-heavy metal) and rap.
In the new millennium, the US had a new conservative administration, renewed threats of enemies who we are told can vaporize large amounts of people, and renewed economic uncertainty. The individual is again in an environment where they feel they are not so much in control of their own life.
Heavy metal begins to flourish again.
Those are the conditions where more people may be receptive to heavy metal's message. It points us in the direction to look for the meaning of heavy metal. The continued existence of heavy metal over a thirty-five year period suggests that it is important, it is its own entity, and it therefore needs to be clearly identified. The point of a definition of heavy metal is to separate and differentiate it from other musical forms. You can't know what heavy metal is if you can't identify what it is not.
Heavy metal obviously has the most confusion with rock (specifically prog, grunge, gothic, and hard rock) and it has great similarities with jazz and rap.
Rap began as a black urban voice in the same way as heavy metal began as a voice out of the white industrial areas of England. It was the same expression from a different point of view. Neither remained restricted to its original message or conditions, nor could they. But early rap was connected thematically to the spirit of what heavy metal is, yet disconnected in that rap was about the injustice of exclusion and anger at not being invisibly part of the majority.
These days, rap perpetuates class stereotypes (not racial stereotypes, as white and Hispanic rappers do not differ appreciably in this regard), celebrating minority oppression and sexism, glamorizing poverty, and resisting the idea of rising above and separating an individual from the circumstances of their birth. Rappers don't want to separate themselves from the ghetto, they want to bring it with them wherever they go. Not very heavy metal at all.
Jazz shares similarities with heavy metal on the same levels that progressive rock does. The spotlight is on the individual performer as a talent rather than as a personality. There is a willingness from performers to exist within their own milieus (clubs, record companies, hierarchies of who is to be respected and who is not) without expectations of mainstream popularity or financial success. There is a fan base that will track down and relish out of print and unavailable music made by people who were obscure even when they were current. The similarities are strong. I do not think there are many people that have difficulty separating jazz and heavy metal, even with heavy metal musicians that use jazz as an inspiration. Progressive rock and heavy metal can get difficult to differentiate, especially when progressive rock gets harder and heavy metal gets lighter. The line is drawn largely the same way hard rock and heavy metal is separated, and we'll get to that shortly.
Grunge created a mess of definition perhaps even more confusing than figuring out if Appetite for Destruction or In Rock or Slippery When Wet were heavy metal or rock. Grunge certainly was a declaration of alienation expressed musically through guitar-led music, but it is indeed different than heavy metal. Through grunge and its shared leanings with alternative rock, the exceptional performer was erased off of the popular landscape. No amazing guitar solos, no impossibly complex drumming, no singing ability that by itself cuts through the crowd and commands attention. Focus on personality and the swagger of the musician prevailed, and success came from how genuine one appeared and how well the musician related to the audience.
Grunge is nothing but a white hippie version of rap. They have got guitars, but they do not use them to their maximum potential. They talk alienation and loneliness, but they want a hug. Through the point of view of grunge, the guitar solo disappears, Black Sabbath remains legendary (because of the personality of Ozzy Osbourne, make no mistake) while Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, and Ronnie James Dio become historical mistakes who sang funny songs about unimportant things while wearing tights. It becomes difficult to disassociate oneself from rap on a philosophical or thematic basis if one is willing to see both the ghetto and suburbia as inescapable hellholes. Grunge and rap are largely the same thing in this regard, and that fact was not lost on a large number of people. Enter the era of white men rapping over thick, heavy guitar riffs. Nu heavy metal exists because a new school of rock and the new school of rap combined to bring insecure and confused white youth worldwide right back to where they were in England twenty-five years previous. How very pointless.
Old style rock and roll is certainly separate and distinct from heavy metal. Nobody is going to claim Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley are heavy metal icons. Many rock musicians may have gotten meaner, but their focus was still in line with pop music: falling in love, dancing and having a good time, and sometimes even being socially aware with the idea of bringing everyone together. That is not heavy metal.
It is in the late 60s that we find the first of the trouble separating rock and what would be known as heavy metal. There is no sweeping generalization applicable enough to point to what specific sounds are rock and what specific sounds are heavy metal. It needs to be examined on an individual artist basis, taking into account a musician's relationship with the predominant trends around them, their focus on the individual performer and their performance instead of the marketing and personality, and what message they are putting forward with their lyrics. Are we together, or are we separate?
In light of just these arguments, I think the definition of heavy metal becomes clear.
Heavy metal is a declaration of individuality in the face of dominant conformity. It is not (necessarily) a statement of rebellion, not even a state of rebellion. It is simply an expression of being something else. It is a desire to rise above and be separate from the world according to that otherness. It is harsh authenticity in an environment of watered down presentation. Heavy metal is nihilistic in that the fight is more important, and nobler, than the victory.
That is what we have allowed heavy metal to become. I do not like that.
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.
Heavy metal's subgenres have dedicated fans and dedicated detractors. Those who like one subgenre can be called "gay" by lovers of other subgenres. Fans of certain sounds will call other sounds "noise." Certain styles of heavy metal being included in certain heavy metal festivals are considered to be breaking the mood. Heavy metal is not a brotherhood.
Some fans and artists in heavy metal wear leather. Lots of it. Bracers with spikes, jackets, pants, boots. Mad medieval bikers! Some look like fetish models. Some dress up like Vikings. Some wear makeup. Some wear jeans and band T-shirts. Some wear old denim vests with old German thrash band patches on them. Some always look like they just got out of bed and threw on whatever was on the floor nearby. Some wear wifebeaters and oversized shorts. Some even wear suits. Heavy metal is not a fashion and it is certainly not a uniform.
Musicians change styles all the time according to their own wishes. Albums are re-released with different formats and bonus tracks all the time, requiring people to either buy essentially the same album twice or illegally download in order to hear all of the available songs. Heavy metal is not about the fans.
Record companies stipulate deadlines for albums all the time. They can have veto power over songs, running order and length of albums, and even replacement members. Fans are quick to download unauthorized free songs. Heavy metal is not about the musicians.
Musicians purposefully dress certain ways. Musicians spend money on photo shoots. They negotiate contracts for recording, for live appearances. They dress up their albums with artwork and make an effort to make it more appealing to potential consumers. Heavy metal is not just about the music.
So what is heavy metal if it's not about a specific sound or a unified movement?
The first theories of a definition of heavy metal can be found by looking at the popularity of heavy metal against a political backdrop. In the mid-90s, the lowest point of heavy metal in terms of popularity, it remained healthiest in the more restrictive cultures, and went off of the mainstream radar in more open societies.
In Japan, a rigid society awash in strict tradition and standards of expected behavior, heavy metal flourished. I have no idea how it fared compared to 'regular' music, but there were a good number of American and European artists able to make a living solely through selling albums in Japan. We could even go so far to say that the reason there are any number of veteran heavy metal bands still in the scene at all is because Japan allowed them to survive economically. Heavy metal fans worldwide recognize the debt owed to the Japanese fans by completely ignoring Japanese release dates when coming up with 'best of the year' lists.
Rumors and whispers of the popularity of heavy metal in Russia and Latin America reached the main heavy metal territories bit by bit as musicians played there and described the massive crowds that came to see them. These areas are not as culturally oppressive as they are economically depressed, and all the freedom in the world does no good to those who have little money to enjoy its fruits.
Europe, to generalize a diverse cultural landscape (they're doing it to themselves for real anyway ), kept a baseline heavy metal scene for much of the 90s. Questionably heavy metal albums such as Wildhoney and Mandylion had great success in the lean years, leading the way for albums like Enthrone Darkness Triumphant and Glory to the Brave to enjoy their success. While the oppressiveness of the culture varies from nation to nation, the popularity of heavy metal tends to be greater wherever there is a more hard-line government. Germany has banned certain heavy metal albums and cover art outright, and will arrest you for expressing the wrong thought or making the wrong hand gesture, and that's the heart of heavy metal in Europe. France will fine you for expressing certain 'incorrect' views, and they have a strong heavy metal following.
In the United States, the 80s were dominated politically by the Reagan administration, which was then replaced by the administration of Reagan's Vice-President. "Greed" was "good." The building of the military industrial complex and the encouragement given to big business and patriotism left a lot of room for disenfranchisement. Heavy metal was huge.
Yet look at the 90s. The US rolled over Iraq in the first Gulf War. War might not have been a thing of the past, but it was nothing America thought it had to be afraid of any longer. The Soviet Bloc was smashed, the Russians were now our friends, and to the average American, situations like the breakdown of Yugoslavia were considered minor, local corrections made as the world was coming together.
The conservative regime ended as Bill Clinton was elected. He was a more personable everyman than had been in power for many years, and he brought a reputation for liking women, pot, and McDonald's into the White House. America was going to be more relaxed and laid back.
This is when heavy metal died in the US. It was pushed off of the mainstream map completely. The mainstream moved away from music of individual power and into the worlds of grunge (later morphing into alternative rock and then nu-heavy metal) and rap.
In the new millennium, the US had a new conservative administration, renewed threats of enemies who we are told can vaporize large amounts of people, and renewed economic uncertainty. The individual is again in an environment where they feel they are not so much in control of their own life.
Heavy metal begins to flourish again.
Those are the conditions where more people may be receptive to heavy metal's message. It points us in the direction to look for the meaning of heavy metal. The continued existence of heavy metal over a thirty-five year period suggests that it is important, it is its own entity, and it therefore needs to be clearly identified. The point of a definition of heavy metal is to separate and differentiate it from other musical forms. You can't know what heavy metal is if you can't identify what it is not.
Heavy metal obviously has the most confusion with rock (specifically prog, grunge, gothic, and hard rock) and it has great similarities with jazz and rap.
Rap began as a black urban voice in the same way as heavy metal began as a voice out of the white industrial areas of England. It was the same expression from a different point of view. Neither remained restricted to its original message or conditions, nor could they. But early rap was connected thematically to the spirit of what heavy metal is, yet disconnected in that rap was about the injustice of exclusion and anger at not being invisibly part of the majority.
These days, rap perpetuates class stereotypes (not racial stereotypes, as white and Hispanic rappers do not differ appreciably in this regard), celebrating minority oppression and sexism, glamorizing poverty, and resisting the idea of rising above and separating an individual from the circumstances of their birth. Rappers don't want to separate themselves from the ghetto, they want to bring it with them wherever they go. Not very heavy metal at all.
Jazz shares similarities with heavy metal on the same levels that progressive rock does. The spotlight is on the individual performer as a talent rather than as a personality. There is a willingness from performers to exist within their own milieus (clubs, record companies, hierarchies of who is to be respected and who is not) without expectations of mainstream popularity or financial success. There is a fan base that will track down and relish out of print and unavailable music made by people who were obscure even when they were current. The similarities are strong. I do not think there are many people that have difficulty separating jazz and heavy metal, even with heavy metal musicians that use jazz as an inspiration. Progressive rock and heavy metal can get difficult to differentiate, especially when progressive rock gets harder and heavy metal gets lighter. The line is drawn largely the same way hard rock and heavy metal is separated, and we'll get to that shortly.
Grunge created a mess of definition perhaps even more confusing than figuring out if Appetite for Destruction or In Rock or Slippery When Wet were heavy metal or rock. Grunge certainly was a declaration of alienation expressed musically through guitar-led music, but it is indeed different than heavy metal. Through grunge and its shared leanings with alternative rock, the exceptional performer was erased off of the popular landscape. No amazing guitar solos, no impossibly complex drumming, no singing ability that by itself cuts through the crowd and commands attention. Focus on personality and the swagger of the musician prevailed, and success came from how genuine one appeared and how well the musician related to the audience.
Grunge is nothing but a white hippie version of rap. They have got guitars, but they do not use them to their maximum potential. They talk alienation and loneliness, but they want a hug. Through the point of view of grunge, the guitar solo disappears, Black Sabbath remains legendary (because of the personality of Ozzy Osbourne, make no mistake) while Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, and Ronnie James Dio become historical mistakes who sang funny songs about unimportant things while wearing tights. It becomes difficult to disassociate oneself from rap on a philosophical or thematic basis if one is willing to see both the ghetto and suburbia as inescapable hellholes. Grunge and rap are largely the same thing in this regard, and that fact was not lost on a large number of people. Enter the era of white men rapping over thick, heavy guitar riffs. Nu heavy metal exists because a new school of rock and the new school of rap combined to bring insecure and confused white youth worldwide right back to where they were in England twenty-five years previous. How very pointless.
Old style rock and roll is certainly separate and distinct from heavy metal. Nobody is going to claim Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley are heavy metal icons. Many rock musicians may have gotten meaner, but their focus was still in line with pop music: falling in love, dancing and having a good time, and sometimes even being socially aware with the idea of bringing everyone together. That is not heavy metal.
It is in the late 60s that we find the first of the trouble separating rock and what would be known as heavy metal. There is no sweeping generalization applicable enough to point to what specific sounds are rock and what specific sounds are heavy metal. It needs to be examined on an individual artist basis, taking into account a musician's relationship with the predominant trends around them, their focus on the individual performer and their performance instead of the marketing and personality, and what message they are putting forward with their lyrics. Are we together, or are we separate?
In light of just these arguments, I think the definition of heavy metal becomes clear.
Heavy metal is a declaration of individuality in the face of dominant conformity. It is not (necessarily) a statement of rebellion, not even a state of rebellion. It is simply an expression of being something else. It is a desire to rise above and be separate from the world according to that otherness. It is harsh authenticity in an environment of watered down presentation. Heavy metal is nihilistic in that the fight is more important, and nobler, than the victory.
