What defines 'alternative' metal

[The Ozzman]

Same as any other context, haha, the fuck?

So it means family?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Percussive and vocal elements perhaps? Ive read your arguments about this, and it seems like you are basing pretty much everything on the riffing, which is definitely limiting your criteria.

Otherwise, your point is hard to refute. The ambiance and atmospheric aesthetic of black metal is indeed often a result of poor production values. Black metal seems to be a pretty open genre these days, and almost any band that has an open sense of atmosphere and loose song structure seems to be lumped into this category. Thus, the labeling starts to become a slippery slope as to how to draw the line between black metal and something else. There has to be something missing from your objective criteria of defining black metal, but im not trained enough in the theory of music to identify exactly what. Surely there is more to defining metal than its riffing, however.

It's not all riffing, but I'd say that it's the easily the single most important aspect. Keep in mind that even M-A, officially-speaking, claims to makes their judgment of inclusion based on "metal riffs" above all. There are certainly distinctive vocal styles in metal as well as ones not commonly found, and I think places like M-A inappropriately place too much emphasis on that. For example, when Soulfly was still rejected, their mods/admins would use "tuff guy/core vox" as an excuse even though the band's groove metal riffing already predominated. I don't think post-rock becomes metal just because you shriek over it, and I don't think thrash becomes non-metal just because you scream mallcore-style over it.

So is your point that Ham is definitively not metal, and that there is a trick that somehow proves your point?

I think the problem lies in the idea that bands tend not to be retrospectively labelled based on future classifications. Genre classification is thus more of a pseudo-science in comparison to something like the taxonomy of life (which allows for change based on new data - like DNA sequencing for instance).

It's simply to point out 1) a double-standard (since Ham is considered non-metal on M-A) and 2) to point out that, unlike death/power/more-or-less thrash metal, music significantly similar to black metal existed prior to black metal as a formal sound. I should note that my point isn't entirely limited to non-metal influence on black metal. I just listened to Diabolical Fullmoon Mysticism last night and forgot how much damn Into Glory Ride (or at least Hammerheart) there was on that album. I mean, the production, the vocals, the aesthetic, fine, pure black metal, but there is a shitton of what is basically trad metal to be found in there.

I agree that genres are invented and arbitrary, and that it's hard to draw very solid lines, but ultimately I'm fine with the inclusionary approach. I just don't like it when there are hundreds of "black metal" bands that are mostly built on post-punk, shoegaze, post-rock, noise, or other non-metal genres, and make the pass based purely on aesthetic, while "core" clearly built on thrash or death metal riffing is rejected because of the presence of breakdowns. What if every "folk/black" band was rejected for having acoustic bridges?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Even putting aside jazz metal, I've been under the impression most of my life that metal adopts VERY heavily from traditional jazz time signatures, having originally been rock doing the same thing.

Well sure, there will naturally be a link from the earliest kind of jazz and blues to the development of blues rock to hard rock to metal, but that's the influence of it on all of rock music. I'm talking more about the fusion-y stuff that's very popular in certain metal circles; it doesn't really have any central link to metal, it's just something that some early prog/thrash/death guys thought sounded cool so they copied it and planted it between metal riffs.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So it means family?

I don't even know tbh bae, I just follow.

 

[EternalMetal]

It's not all riffing, but I'd say that it's the easily the single most important aspect. Keep in mind that even M-A, officially-speaking, claims to makes their judgment of inclusion based on "metal riffs" above all. There are certainly distinctive vocal styles in metal as well as ones not commonly found, and I think places like M-A inappropriately place too much emphasis on that. For example, when Soulfly was still rejected, their mods/admins would use "tuff guy/core vox" as an excuse even though the band's groove metal riffing already predominated. I don't think post-rock becomes metal just because you shriek over it, and I don't think thrash becomes non-metal just because you scream mallcore-style over it.

I dont consider M-A to be gospel when it comes to genre inclusions/exclusions either. As you have alluded to, their classification system is biased when it comes to certain genres, and therefore I would take their criteria as more of a rough guideline than anything else. Though it may seem like they have double standards, they simply take a safe approach to classification while attempting to avoid the slippery slope of classifying everything that resembles metal as metal.

It's simply to point out 1) a double-standard (since Ham is considered non-metal on M-A) and 2) to point out that, unlike death/power/more-or-less thrash metal, music significantly similar to black metal existed prior to black metal as a formal sound. I should note that my point isn't entirely limited to non-metal influence on black metal. I just listened to Diabolical Fullmoon Mysticism last night and forgot how much damn Into Glory Ride (or at least Hammerheart) there was on that album. I mean, the production, the vocals, the aesthetic, fine, pure black metal, but there is a shitton of what is basically trad metal to be found in there.

I think herein lies the fault of classifying metal almost exclusively based on riffs. It's more about how the riffs are played rather than what riffs are played. Other factors that are not purely aesthetic being song structure, percussion, etc. Black metal is hard to define specifically though (especially given it's origins and history), ill give you that.

I agree that genres are invented and arbitrary, and that it's hard to draw very solid lines, but ultimately I'm fine with the inclusionary approach. I just don't like it when there are hundreds of "black metal" bands that are mostly built on post-punk, shoegaze, post-rock, noise, or other non-metal genres, and make the pass based purely on aesthetic, while "core" clearly built on thrash or death metal riffing is rejected because of the presence of breakdowns. What if every "folk/black" band was rejected for having acoustic bridges?

I think this is just the result of M-A drawing that safe arbitrary line. When it comes to specifics, im sure I can find a "post-black metal" band on M-A that I would consider less metal than a "core" band that they refused to add, but in the end they are probably both fringe bands that could go either way. I agree more than I disagree with what they are trying to do.

 

[The Butt]

Otherwise, your point is hard to refute. The ambiance and atmospheric aesthetic of black metal is indeed often a result of poor production values.

No it's not.

And "often"? Not at all. Have you people ever LISTENED to more than ten black metal bands? Black metal isn't all about lo-fi production anymore. Hell, even in its heyday the genre wasn't entirely focused on production.

Basically HB is talking out of his ass, as per the norm, and people would do well to disregard him, lest they lose brain cells.

 

[no country for old wainds]

it's funny that i kinda set him off by expressing my love of ved buens ende, given that i share HB's disdain for just about every other "fusion-y" band going and consider virtually all the post-BM/blackgaze/etc shit to be a scourge upon satan's black earth. i think VBE are an exception to HB's criticisms though myself, the integration in their case is much deeper to me than merely sprinkling BM clichés onto non-metal (or vice-versa).

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I dont consider M-A to be gospel when it comes to genre inclusions/exclusions either. As you have alluded to, their classification system is biased when it comes to certain genres, and therefore I would take their criteria as more of a rough guideline than anything else. Though it may seem like they have double standards, they simply take a safe approach to classification while attempting to avoid the slippery slope of classifying everything that resembles metal as metal.

I think herein lies the fault of classifying metal almost exclusively based on riffs. It's more about how the riffs are played rather than what riffs are played. Other factors that are not purely aesthetic being song structure, percussion, etc. Black metal is hard to define specifically though (especially given it's origins and history), ill give you that.

I think this is just the result of M-A drawing that safe arbitrary line. When it comes to specifics, im sure I can find a "post-black metal" band on M-A that I would consider less metal than a "core" band that they refused to add, but in the end they are probably both fringe bands that could go either way. I agree more than I disagree with what they are trying to do.

There isn't really much percussion I would call unique to metal anyways. Most of it was already established in hard rock and hardcore afaik, and black metal is probably the least percussion-focused type of metal anyways. Structure is more ambiguous; in classical and jazz it has its place as distinguishing sub-styles, but a lot of metal is rooted in verse/chorus conventions, just with quantity and type of riffs to distinguish it from hard rock.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

it's funny that i kinda set him off by expressing my love of ved buens ende, given that i share HB's disdain for just about every other "fusion-y" band going and consider virtually all the post-BM/blackgaze/etc shit to be a scourge upon satan's black earth. i think VBE are an exception to HB's criticisms though myself, the integration in their case is much deeper to me than merely sprinkling BM clichés onto non-metal (or vice-versa).

I actually like VBE (although almost entirely for their non-metal elements). I'll admit that they picked a sound that melds relatively well with black metal compared to most other prefixed black metal bands, and that in the narrow scope of black metal fandom that they are a "weird"/"experimental" band. It's not that they sprinkle one onto the other, it's more that there are clear, abrupt disruptions between their black metal parts and their weirder noise rock-y parts.

 

[EternalMetal]

No it's not.

And "often"? Not at all. Have you people ever LISTENED to more than ten black metal bands? Black metal isn't all about lo-fi production anymore. Hell, even in its heyday the genre wasn't entirely focused on production.

Yea, because I was speaking in absolutes...

Im all about lo-fi black metal myself, so im probably a bit biased, but the whole "wall of treble" business is what I consider to be prototypical black metal. In the context of the conversation, I was focusing more on the roots of what black metal is rather than what it has evolved into. And in no way did I mean to imply that BM ever relied completely on lo-fi production to simulate atmosphere (which is what HB may be thinking, but frankly idc). Do you think of 2015 thrash metal when trying to define what thrash is?

Ive listened to hundreds of black metal bands btw; im not sure why you felt the desire to label me as ignorant on the subject matter. Im pretty sure the points you wanted me to make have already been said.

There isn't really much percussion I would call unique to metal anyways. Most of it was already established in hard rock and hardcore afaik, and black metal is probably the least percussion-focused type of metal anyways. Structure is more ambiguous; in classical and jazz it has its place as distinguishing sub-styles, but a lot of metal is rooted in verse/chorus conventions, just with quantity and type of riffs to distinguish it from hard rock.

Personally I think these two aspects are definitive of BM. And chorus/verse has nothing to do with BM at all.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

In terms of percussion, I guess it depends. Sure, the drum-machine blast-beats-forever style is unique to black metal, but a lot of black metal doesn't do that. Like all that 6/4 mid-tempo trotting type stuff, maybe more associated with Viking-related stuffs. I consider Husker Du's Standing by the Sea to be the prototype of that kind of black metal. There's plenty of verse/chorus black metal too, as well as thrash and death metal that isn't verse/chorus, so without specifics I don't think structure plays that big of a part into genre-divisions, since most bands just write whatever the hell they feel like writing.

 

[Omni]

Provide sources plz.

(Not in terms of influence, I fully acknowledge that they are influential.)

I just decided to stick with The Velvet Underground since they actually influenced David Bowie and The Stooges and they're considered to be possibly the first alternative music group with a wide influence.

https://books.google.com/books?id=K...page&q=velvet underground alternative&f=false

http://altmusic.about.com/od/top10lists/tp/starteralbums.htm

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20131125-do-the-velvets-beat-the-beatles

[Youtube]iLQzaLr1enE [/youtube]


I would gladly hear from you how this is not clearly alternative music as it's clearly an attempt not to adhere to the mainstream conventions of rock music at the time and has a fully developed sound in line with what would be widely known as alternative music nowadays. This was released in 1967.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So are you saying that Burzum, for example, did adhere to the mainstream conventions of rock music at the time? Because if not, it logically follows that he would be alternative by your definition. Same goes for Black Sabbath tbqh.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Apparently that book you cited considers AC/DC to be alternative. lol.

 

[Omni]

You don't seem to be able to explain how it is not alternative music and have resorted to ad hominem in place of a rebuttal.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Uh, no, I very clearly used your argument to state what I've been saying from the beginning: a lot of black metal is alternative. My point on the book is not an ad hominem either, it's to say that they have an extremely loose definition of alternative such that one of the most conservative renowned rock bands is considered "alternative" just because they were influential.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'm saying that sure, if you want to apply "alternative" that broadly, be my guest. I really don't care much about labels as long as they're used consistently and with purpose.

 

[Omni]

They were critically and commercially panned when they first released their music. It wasn't until alternative music became popular that they became renowned.

I noticed that you didn't say anything about how their music sounds, probably because it's clearly alternative music in style.

As for black metal supposedly being alternative, you clearly ignored much of what I stated made The Velvet Underground an alternative band, as I stated multiple things that jointly made them clearly an alternative music group.

I would gladly hear from you how this is not clearly alternative music as it's clearly an attempt not to adhere to the mainstream conventions of rock music at the time and has a fully developed sound in line with what would be widely known as alternative music nowadays. This was released in 1967.

Burzum does not have a sound in line with what is considered alternative music. If you want to use my argument against me, use my argument instead of ignoring it.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I was talking about AC/DC there, not the Velvet Underground.

You're imagining things I never said. Musically, the VU was an alternative to most/all other rock music of their time. I accept that. But how is it possible for them to be "widely" in line with a genre that is defined by its diversity? You can still use that argument to call all sorts of stuff alternative. The book you cited also mentioned Throbbing Gristle; is all industrial music now alternative?

 

[Omni]

Oh, and AC/DC is mentioned in this book solely on the merit of their inclusion in a series during their early years that lumped them in with alternative and new wave artists, an inclusion which the author calls bizarre. He never tries to call them alternative music.