After a controversial inaugural column, Slough Feg main man Mike Scalzi returns to address your concerns, and to ask for your insight in understanding extreme metal. Slough Feg’s new album The Animal Spirits comes out today on Profound Lore. – C.L.
. . .
BULLPEN BULLETINS #2
IS THERE POSSIBLE ACCOUNTING FOR TASTE?
. . .
. . .
Well, the last piece seems to have stirred things up well enough, so let’s try another. Be sure to keep the comments coming, because that’s sort of the point of this whole thing—–especially in regards to the subject of the current installments. Although I fully intend to continue wearing my heart on my sleeve (even if my remarks are off the cuff….), I greatly appreciate ALL of the comments from the last installment! Some of them were quite poignant—–my favorite comment was the one where someone says I’m “angrier than a kid that dropped his ice cream cone”. Indeed I am!! That’s exactly how I feel!! Like something that was once satisfying and delicious has melted into a pile of formless mush!! And I’m crying out loud!! (If I’m going to be miserable, at least let me enjoy it!! Isn’t that sort of the original premise for Heavy Metal?!)
I do not intend to respond tit-for-tat to all comments, but I will respond to one that that’s been made several times. As far as being “metaler-than-thou”, I’ve made no claims to this effect. I speak as a fan of MUSIC, specifically rock music, of which metal is a subgenre. So perhaps I am guilty of a “musicaler than thou” attitude. In fact I am definitely a MUSICAL SNOB!! How can one not be in today’s musical climate?!
What I was trying to say in the last piece was that subgenres tend to legitimize shitty music. I do not claim that every new band has to be something completely fresh and new to the ear—–but only that a lot of garbage passes for good music when it simply meets the minimum requirements for a particular genre. These “elements” of metal (be it heavy guitars, high-pitched vocals, fast drums, growling etc.) do not make for a good song or band by themselves. But it is often bands who possess nothing more than these surface level indicators of genre that get recognized and praised—–even in underground music, where loyalty to a given sound is all-important. The immediate effect of a song composed with such neglect to form, structure, and content is that it bores the listener (because it just doesn’t rock), like reading an essay consisting of a random series of corollary points with no central theme or statement.
There are current bands that don’t do this, though, and they aren’t all startlingly original or genre-defying. They’re just good. They write songs, and have memorable riffs, and at times even melodies done with honest articulation of an idea. Some examples are: The Lamp of Thoth, Blackholicus, DoomSword, Bible of the Devil, Harbinger, The Devil’s Blood (at least the first demo, which is all I have), Stinking Lizaveta (perhaps not really metal, but great!!), Dawn of Winter, and many more I’m sure that I haven’t heard, but would like to (any suggestions?)
. . .
. . .
But to the point of the current rant: If what I say is true, then why do people enjoy writing, playing, and listening to such music? Are “vague indicators and generalities” of heavy metal are enough for some people? Or is it is possible that I’m judging today’s music by yesterday’s standards? That is to say, perhaps the standards, values, criteria I use to judge current metal music are obsolete, or at least limited. Perhaps I am guilty of a heavy metal anachronism. Whether this is true or not, I may never know for sure, steeped as I am in my own taste-forming processes (as we all are, I suppose)—–but if I enlist the readers’ opinions, perhaps we can accomplish what has often been considered impossible: to account for taste. And so I ask you the question: Is there possible accounting for taste?
In order to avoid confusion, let’s call my set of musical values “traditional musical values”, namely: song structure, melody, catchiness (particular to Heavy Metal: memorability of riffs and vocal lines). This set of values is often represented in Folk, Country, Blues, Big Band, American Musicals, Jazz (sometimes), Classical, Rock, Heavy Metal, and Punk and Hardcore music. In heavy metal, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Metallica, Exodus, Venom, St. Vitus, and hardcore bands like Black Flag, Minor Threat, Dr. Know, Bad Brains, C.O.C., Misfits, (bands that perhaps helped to form my musical values) all possessed these values, i.e., they all wrote distinctly recognizable “songs”, distinguished by these “traditional musical values”. In the case of hardcore, there is not as much melody, but there are recognizable riffs and distinct song structures, and vocals with a varied, rhythmic quality, if not some sense of melody.
For an example of music that often lacks these values, let’s take what is, to me, the most obvious example (in “rock music”). Extreme metal: Black Metal, Death Metal, Grindcore, etc. I am no expert on these sounds, but I have heard much of it——-I’ve played shows with countless Death Metal and Grindcore bands, plenty of Black Metal bands, heard countless records and demos of these styles, and have gained little understanding of why people enjoy them. But enjoy them they clearly do. I believe I was even around playing shows at the apparent inception of some of these styles——in the mid-eighties (correct me if I’m wrong). I remembering playing shows with, and also hearing records/tapes by thrash bands that incorporated metal elements with heavy reliance on double bass drums, Satanic and gore lyrics, and extra-scratchy sounding vocals (scratchier than your average hard core screaming).
. . .
. . .
Now I am not seeking a sort of rigid heavy metal calculus by which to distinguish “true” or “false” metal here—-I always found that distinction pretty silly and childish. This is more an attempt to account for taste by categorizing sounds according to somewhat “objective” standards. The strange thing to me is that people who do like Black and Death Metal are often surprised that I actually love stuff like Venom and Agnostic Front, Black Flag, C.O.C., etc. They usually expect me, given my opinions on these matters, to be a big fan of Dream Theater, ELP, Yngwie Malmsteen, stuff like that—-but I can’t stand that stuff!! I’m not even into Rush!! I love grimy guitar sounds and guttural vocals—-yet I see a sharp distinction between something like Venom (supposedly one of the precursors to Black Metal), and what has been known as “Black Metal” for the last 15 or 20 years. I see this as more than a difference in degree (of extremity), but rather as a difference in kind (of music). Venom sounds like heavy metal to me. Black metal sounds more like industrial/noise music, and at times even like new age music. And maybe this is the problem: I’m judging extreme metal by antiquated Heavy Metal standards.
To make this distinction between degree and kind clearer, let’s look at a couple examples that don’t involve extreme metal. For instance: I don’t really like UFO. Never did. People have told me for years that they represent all the aspects of hard rock/metal that I like, i.e., they sound just like the stuff I love. True enough. I love the Scorpions, Thin Lizzy, Rainbow, i.e., seventies hard rock/metal. But for some reason, UFO never give me what these other bands give me. Not really sure why, they just don’t “do me”. I don’t like Phil Mogg’s voice, and although I can remember many of the riffs and melodies (i.e., they possess many “traditional music virtues”), they just don’t click with me. They don’t particularly annoy me, I just find them kinda boring, drab, and not-so-great. I see this as, if not a difference in degree, definitely not a difference in kind from these other bands. They bear great similarities to some of my favorites, and I can understand why people like them.
Another example: I don’t like Testament. I like early Metallica. I like early Exodus. Although I don’t think either of these are incredibly original, I love some of their early albums. I just don’t like Testament. They bore me to tears, and annoy me to an extent (mostly because they are so unoriginal, but not solely because of this). But I understand why some people like them. I hear some of the same things in their sound that I hear in other thrash bands, things that I can enjoy. I just don’t enjoy it when they do it, for whatever reason. But again, this is thrash metal, and Testament possess some traditional musical values. Obviously they’re closer to “extreme metal” than UFO, but there is no conundrum here, no bafflement, no “my god, what do you see in this stuff?!?!” on my part. Just another band that sounds painfully derivative in a way that bores me. But no mysteries here.
. . .
Scalzi laments yet another jukebox filled with UFO and Testament
. . .
Then there’s extreme metal. Death Metal, quite frankly, baffles me. People have told me everything from “you’re listening to it wrong” to, of course, “you just haven’t heard the good stuff yet”. Then they play me the “good stuff”, and it sounds just like the other stuff, but often with more technical guitar parts and cleaner-sounding drums, but still no real song quality or interesting “vibe” to me. I just don’t “get it”, and I want to get it. I have some very intelligent, articulate friends who love Black and Death Metal, many of them play in Black and Death Metal bands, and I’ve discussed these things with them, and we never seem to be able to “account” for our difference in taste. The first time I heard “death metal” or “grindcore” was, I think, in the early nineties when I listened to Bolt Thrower. I understood that people were intrigued by it because of its extremity. Sure, it was extreme (and of course, Bolt Thrower is a truly awesome name, in my opinion), but I didn’t understand how one could enjoy listening to it.
Soon after this, I was exposed to more and more of this type of music and begin to recognize it by the name “Death Metal” and the following signature sounds: vocals that sounded like the voice of a cartoon character (which can be a great thing indeed, but only if you could understand what it was saying, and not for an entire album with the same voice!) indecipherable guitar “riffs”, and drums that sounded anything but “brutal” – more like someone pattering on the top of Lincoln Logs can the way I did when I was seven years old trying to play along with The Monkees on TV. Now there obviously are some tremendously talented death metal drummers, no doubt. But that triggered clackety-clack double bass sound can sound so piddly and wimpy, it often defeats the purpose. Soon after hearing Bolt Thrower, I started to witness this kind of music live: vocals that sound like someone joking (and sometimes it is really funny, and I suppose for that reason entertaining—–but not for a whole album or a whole show—–and particularly not when the person doing it is taking it seriously!!!) and guitars that are usually indecipherable. In fact, often you can only tell the guy is soloing by looking at his fingers, because the same static is issuing from his amp that was when he was playing “riffs”. It’s all a big mystery to me, and sounds no more like metal than a lot of “noise” music does. The only difference I see is that the “lyrics” (if you read them) are often about gore, etc., and the guys in the band look like metalheads rather than indie nerds.
Black Metal I find a little more intriguing, but mostly for non-musical reasons. I kind of like the concept of Black Metal a little more—–Satan always makes things a little more interesting, I suppose, and sometimes Black Metal guys look cooler than Death Metal guys, and occasionally do interesting things (like kill each other). I find the vocals slightly more bearable at times because they have less in common with tough guy, Pantera-style vocals, which some Death Metal bands come dangerously close to. Actually, there are a few Black Metal albums that I find somewhat musically interesting, but the vocals always kill it for me. Sometimes I think I’d like some Black Metal if it was instrumental (Bathory, for example, perhaps the first “real Black Metal” band, I would appreciate and enjoy more without the vocals—-the music is riffy and sometimes catchy), since the vocals often sound like they’re totally unrelated to the rest of the music—–as if someone recorded a song and then sampled someone vomiting over top of it. There is a distinct difference between screaming in a rhythmic chant that integrates itself with the music, and a monotone substrate of screams over a seemingly unrelated body of riffage.
Even as background music, I find most Black Metal hard to take. In fact I tried listening to some Black Metal as I started this article, and I found it totally annoying and turned it off. Now is this whole kind of analysis ridiculous? Am I trying to impose form on chaos? Have I listened to it wrong? Do I lack the gene for Black Metal appreciation? Or have I made the mistake of taking it seriously? Is the whole point that extreme metal is supposed to sound terrible, and I just don’t get it?
. . .
. . .
The only possible conclusion I can come to is: I am judging extreme metal according to traditional Heavy Metal or traditional musical standards, and they simply don’t apply—i.e., it’s not about catchy songs, memorable riffs, vocal lines, inflections, etc. It’s either about something much more general, much more atmospheric (which is what they say about a lot of “ambient Black Metal”)—-and therefore any effort to break it down into its constituent elements misses the point, and/or it is enjoyed according to a completely different set of standards than Heavy Metal, Thrash Metal, etc. In fact I would not be surprised if someone who listened to a lot of industrial/noise or “new age music” would appreciate Death/Black Metal for reasons totally foreign to me as a metal fan. It seems to me that if you think of extreme metal as an extreme version of Heavy Metal, that is, as the next natural stage in metal evolution after Thrash Metal, that it still sounds ridiculous. If the people in the bands looked more punky and the band names were a little more artsy, perhaps it would not seem so mysterious. Is this the answer? Is extreme metal simply a different type of music altogether, not comparable to metal, but more to the likes of Throbbing Gristle, Einsturzende Neubauten, or even John Zorn?
Now don’t think for a second that the thought hasn’t crossed my mind, ages ago, that perhaps I’m just an old fart whose misunderstanding of “the kids’ music these days” is no different from the old hippie in 1983 who didn’t understand Iron Maiden or Black Flag, or for that matter the old school metalhead who didn’t understand thrash in the mid-eighties. I’ve thought about this for years, and of course, it’s quite possible that my whole problem with extreme metal is reducible to this generational phenomenon. But if it is, that doesn’t change anything. I still want to know what people see in it——and the fact that there are people older and more steeped in “old school” metal and punk than I am who love extreme metal makes me skeptical about this possibility.
So let’s hear from some of you who like Black and/or Death Metal, because this has been a great source of bafflement to me for years now. Can you give a coherent accounting for your taste? Or will any resulting discourse on this matter simply reinforce the old proverb: there’s no accounting for taste?
. . .
The only royalty I expect from using my Ice cream cone comment is a signed copy of ‘Animal Spirits’
Seriously though, excellent column, I thank you again sir, and hope that a new album isn’t the only thing that will persuade you to keep writing the bulletins.
I enjoyed reading your posts, but I have to say, you do sound like an old fart hating everything that doesn’t sound like it used to sound in his days. Ha, I mean no offense and hopefully you’ll see it this way. First, I think there is enough diversity in BM and DM for anyone to appreciate at least some music within these genres. Some BM bands rely heavily on melody (Watain, Arckanum) and others rely more on atmosphere, some don’t use screetchy vocals (see Primordial). I love pretty much all kind of BM but I understand how the absence of melody can be an obstacle, especially if you grew up to more catchy/melodic stuff. I guess it’s kinda like traditional painting vs. abstract painting. Some people will look at something by Rothko or Pollock and be like “what the fuck is that shit? give me a well-painted landscape instead”. Same thing for ambient music, the music of Tim Hecker or Yellow Swans give me emotions like no other but I see why other people would think it’s just boring noise. When things don’t match our codes, we reject them. But it’s not a problem. Not everyone has to like everything (I hate technical death metal and grindcore, but give me some old school shitty sounding DM and I’m happy), and the older we get the harder it is to accept things that are different from what we know.
Okay this post is kind of a mess, sorry, trying to make sense of my thoughts but English is not my language so hopefully others will be more eloquent.
I’m curious where a band such as Destroyer 666 would fit into this equation. Much of their music is based around an extreme metal sound with growled vocals, blast beats and plenty of riffs from the black metal textbook. Yet they also adhere, quite staunchly, to a broader songwriting aesthetic culled primarily from classic heavy metal. Verse, chorus, verse structures often with singalong parts during the chorus. More importantly their songs are distinct from one another and so their albums don’t feel like the same riff set just being arranged into different permutations song to song, a problem that plagues a lot of black and death metal. In short what is a classic metal band masquerading under an “extreme” metal sound.
Part of me wants to get all pugilistic over this and just throw down some massive tantrums defending my favorite extreme metal bands, but probably a much larger part of me just doesn’t have the energy to do so.
I think you’ve already hit on the most plausible explanation of your disdain for most ‘extreme’ metal, namely that you are using the standards by which you judge ‘traditional’ metal and applying them to genres in which the same standards often do not apply. That, I think, is where the element of personal taste really comes into play – in deciding which standards one chooses to apply when judging a particular band or album as either a) kick-ass, b) mortifyingly dull, or c) sounding like a boiled platter of cat rectums (recta?).
The original genesis of black metal, death metal, and most other ‘extreme’ metal genres, in my opinion, saw fans of what you’re calling ‘traditional’ heavy metal work at disaggregating that original style into some of its constituent parts, and then attempt to intensify them. So, as you’ve pointed out, I think for many bands in the mid-80s, extremity itself was the goal.
That pursuit of extremity tended to express itself by the intensification of any one of heavy metal’s original constituent pieces, like its speed (leading to grindcore), its chaotic potential (leading from thrash into early death metal – Possessed, Death, Morbid Angel, etc.), the ‘heaviness’ of particular guitar sounds (leading in many directions, of course, but in one way to doom, and in another to death metal, particularly the Swedish sound of the very late 80s and early 90s), or its affinity for the occult (leading, primarily, to black metal).
Along the way, I think you’re right that many of the ‘traditional’ signifiers of heavy metal – easily identifiable and memorable riffs, clear vocal melodies, a clear live sound – fell by the wayside. Whether or not one follows these genres down that rabbit-hole of experimentation, then, is where taste rears its fickle head.
I think, though, where you’ll really get people fired up is in defending particular extreme metal bands that DO include more of those traditional markings of heavy metal – the Lizzy/Priest/Maiden dual guitar fireworks pop up plenty of places, for example, and there are definitely death metal and black metal acts who privilege the song over the aesthetic, though they can be few and far between, and occasionally difficult to suss out of the murk.
To give but one example, take Enslaved. Obviously they’ve gone through a mindfuck of stylistic changes over the years, so much so that now they’re just as much Floydian progressive/psychedelic metal as they are black metal. Still, even on their earliest albums, despite the harsh vocals and general black metal aesthetic, they seemed (at least to my ears) possessed of an uncanny songwriting ability, writing tunes with catchy riffs, interesting rhythmic patterns, and thoughtfully-built song structures. Whether one hears that, though, may depend on one’s mindset when approaching the genre as a whole.
My love of these subgenres of extreme metal, though, doesn’t mean that I disregard the traditional styles – it just means that I use a different metric to judge Anthrax than I do to judge Anaal Nathrakh.
Insightful post, though, and ‘The Animal Spirits’ is just about twelve tons of fun.
I write about music for money, but I don’t play an instrument myself (I gave up the trumpet to be a writer), so as a musician you should feel free to discount everything I’m about to say. But I’ve talked about this with other music critics who like (or can at least appreciate) older metal but can’t get with death metal (though one dude in particular loved Opeth). My argument to him was that death metal is a qualitatively different thing, not necessarily in that it’s moved in the direction of noise music (that’s just bad production technique, I think, and I’ve got lots of problems with current metal production/engineering/mixing) but in that it is a genuinely new form of rock music simply because it has abandoned the blues.
Death metal guitarists (particularly those in technical death metal bands) don’t play blues-based riffs; they don’t play blues-based scales. Their compositions are repetitive in an entirely different way, more mechanistic and linked to classical music in that respect. The drums maintain rock time signatures, but some bands abandon even that, moving into time signatures more commonly identified with prog-rock or jazz fusion. There’s also much more focus on the use of dissonance. So if you’re coming to death metal expecting rock, you’re gonna be frustrated. If you listen to a lot of Bach and someone throws you an Elliott Carter string quartet, you’re gonna be frustrated, too.
I guess what I’m saying is, maybe you are listening to it wrong. Of course, there’s a ton of variation within the genre…some bands are much more dissonant and assaultive than others. I would be really surprised if you couldn’t get into Amon Amarth, for example, and shocked to my core if you liked Portal. But both bands get filed under “death metal.”
While discussions like this still rage, I worry whether metal will ever be able to move on. I listen to death metal and black metal because I find it incredibly empowering and epic and ideologically, it’s something I can identify with. All the values of writing good music are still present, you just don’t seem like you want to engage with it. And on that note, there is possible accounting for taste because you’ve just described what you like and what you don’t like.
I think you’re over stating the gap between trad. metal and modern kinds too. Pioneers of extreme metal weren’t thinking “Let’s invent a whole new kind of music,” I think it was more a case of building on what had come before and reinterpreting what metal sounded like to them. The inevitable variation that comes with an individuals interpretation of playing the kind of music they enjoy is the reason why metal has evolved and changed so much. Black Sabbath and NWOBHM et al melted people’s faces back then because it was the heaviest, most extreme thing anyone had heard.
Metal since has just built on this initial shock-factor if you will. For the better!
To account for taste, I would say that, as far as Death Metal goes, I enjoy those genres largely for the feel of the music. There are certainly bands that I listen to (not very heavily) that I enjoy to a certain extent based solely on their aesthetic; the rage and torment of the sound really speak to me, if the songwriting does not (and alarmingly often, it does not). Those are bands that I “like,” but would not say that I’m “into.” This sounds goofy and stupid, but it’s nevertheless true; these bands often suffer from the “static issuing from an amplifier” effect that you described above. I enjoy the vibe of these bands, but tend to not learn too much about them or their music.
Other Death Metal bands, which I would describe myself as being “into,” tend to follow something akin to the traditional songwriting structure, where you can tell that there is a verse, a chorus, and something like a bridge peppered into the song structure. I don’t feel it needs to be very strict, though; Opeth, Origin, Decrepit Birth, Meshuggah and Cephalic Carnage make me feel like there are riffs and parts to grab onto so that their return is powerful and moving.
I would assert, however, that the greater population of people that I know who would say they are “into” Death Metal and it’s associated microgenres are mostly interested in a vibe or stylistic aesthetic, where the thick, raging sound is what moves them. As with most styles of music, learning to divine differences and nuances between bands and songs comes down to immersion in the style of music; I had to do the same thing when I was in music school learning about 20th century “Classical” composers. The music was challenging to divine characteristics from until you had spent a LOT of time listening to it.
In it’s most simple terms, your taste in music and my taste in music are different. There’s as much use in questioning it as there is in questioning why I like certain foods that you might hate. There is also certainly no use in down playing it because you can’t understand others interest in it.
I have often thought on the “whys” and “wherefores” of my love for Extreme Metal. Ultimately, I attribute it simply to “energy”: The energy inherent and infused into these musical styles speaks to me. It doesn’t speak to everyone. I liken it to the idea of everything having a natural frequency, and certain types of music resonate with certain peoples’ natural frequencies. I’m not in tune with hip hop, Country or Pop music (in general, I do like some types of all these genres). The energy in those types of music don’t resonate with or within me. Therefore I don’t generally listen to them. Drop a copy of “Jane Doe” or “Folie Circulaire” in the CD player, though, and I’m lost in reverie…
A well thought out and well reasoned approach to the subject. Well done Mike!
An excellent and fair look metal. Could it be said that the truth (mind you, not TRUE or FALSE METAL) is always in the middle, containing shades of the left and right? I know you have are involved in academia, philosophy if I recall correctly… I’m sure many freshman students struggle “Is the answer Yes or No?’ The answer is both!
Would it be fair to say that the best music pulls from opposing extremes and acknowledges them, processing them creatively, while not becoming overly dependent on either hyper-traditional or ultra-progressive extremity?
Warning: Next time you run into Skolnick, he’s gonna get all Locrian on your ass…
Kidding. I always liked M.Shenkar’s playing with Scorps betting myself. “Loving You Sunday Morning” is just a couple shades removed from “I’m a Believer”.
And that’s my point. The musical spectrum has broadened from what it used to be, what used to be considered rock, or trad music, or popular. Back in the day Lynott could be just a couple shades removed from Springsteen or Van, Schon could jam with Santana and JL Hooker, then go do his Journey thing (OK, bad example). It was all part of the same rock, it just shined a little differently depending on how you looked at it in the light.
Now, as you say, you could reference Zorn, or Stockhausen, or Schoenberg…Radiohead blows through the bay in the mid 90s opening for U2, picks up a bunch of rare vinyl ala Mills College, Pauline Oliveros, and Ronald Buchla, gets all DJ shadow with a sampler, and just a tad few years later, a new language gets integrated into rock (OK computer, Kid A) and the spectrum gets broadened.
Some greying jazz head may not make the connection between say Blue Gene Tyranny and Wolves in the Throne room, but the kids got intuition, even if they don’t see the roots, or didn’t know that Gene used to jam with Iggy Pop in a jazz band, or that Page Hamilton and Thurston both played with Glenn Branca. The kids just get how it integrates today…the cultural flow or progression is seemless to them. Those of us who have witnessed or experienced the history, have to make some sense of it.
I love your attempt (to have fun trying) to account for taste. I think that musical structures should be also crossed with esthetical elements. I tried to analyse my personal taste in music (crossing many kinds from classical to folk, prog, metal, electronic) and i discovered that, with few exceptions, i always like music 1) that i find in some way OMINOUS (or sometimes maybe just dramatic) and/or 2) that have some kind of aggressivity that i call the BERSERK element. I can find one or both “ominous” and “berserk” elements in everything i like, considering the terms in a not too narrow way, obviously. Heavy metal (that i like) usually fits both.
Don’t know if I can help with your question: generally, I can understand enough your point about black/death, even if i like (90’s) death, absu and some more. Don’t know which are their standards i just find them beautiful
. But I have similar problems also with what people now call epic metal (Rhapsody of Fire), and especially with pagan/folk metal, which – to my standards – i hardly would call heavy metal. But Skyclad I find (grrreat) heavy metal until 1995. I think for me memorable – but also “cutting” – riffs is heavy metal, and strong voice, in a 70’s-80’s way (Halford, Dickinson, Midnight, Oliva…) or in any other “strong” (ominous+berserk??) way. I find Hedningarna, which have more or less the same “intents”, more satisfyng – to my standards – than everything people call nowadays “pagan metal”.
N.B. very funny reading about UFO and Testament, probably nice guys but i feel them boring as hell!
The criteria by which you judge music are the exact criteria by which I judge extreme metal as well, except I love it. It seems like you are not, in fact, listening properly if you cannot hear those characteristics in black and death metal. If you were saying, “yeah I can hear the melody and I can recognize the cleverness of the song structures, but it’s too frenetic for me,” that would be a different story altogether.
Anyway, since you seem dedicated to attempting to understand, I will offer a series of links that will hopefully help something click.
First, an excerpt from Richard Strauss’s “Also Sprach Zarathustra”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHbfpY9rlKE
Compare the epic, moving quality of Strauss’s melody to the intro track on Celtic Frost’s “To Mega Therion”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q_Alc9bSiE
One of Frost’s most famous riffs, the intro to “Circle of the Tyrants,” shares similar qualities to my ear, although this time in a much more extreme metal/hardcore context:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb45sbc9kfA
Incantation’s compositions on “Onward to Golgotha,” particularly the song “Christening the Afterbirth,” follow quite closely in Frost’s school of melody. Skip ahead to about 2:05 for an obvious example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85k1Ey4fPpc
If you’re truly dedicated, I would have you diagram the song out. Be very aware of each riff and see how it relates to the riffs around it. You will find that themes evolve into each other in very clever ways, and that, while dark and borderline atonal, there is a very strong melodic line tying this piece together.
So, great extreme metal composition is set apart by statement of powerful, epic melodic themes and clever variation and structuring. It can be difficult for the uninitiated to hear the subtlety beneath the pounding drums and vocals, but, if you’re into Dr. Know, Flag, COC, etc., your ear should have the know-how to navigate to the meat of the song.
I do think that your comparison of black metal to New Age music is apt, as repetitive melodies and textural composition are significant aspects of both styles. Or, to keep talking about composers featured on the 2001 soundtrack, I hear the work of Ligeti as a valid musical reference point for something like Burzum as well as something like Einsturzende Neubauten.
“sometimes Black Metal guys look cooler than Death Metal guys, and occasionally do interesting things (like kill each other).”
I’m eating lunch right now, and almost did a spit-take reading this. Hilarious stuff.
With the exception of pop music–the whole point of which is to be immediately accessible– I’d argue that whether it’s black metal, jazz, bluegrass, or old-school hip-hop, individual artists working within these genres are all going to sound the same at first to someone who is relatively unfamiliar with that genre and its conventions. I have fairly omnivorous tastes, but I’ve had to learn how to like every genre of music that I currently enjoy. That said, learning the conventions of a genre in order to be able to judge individual examples of it on their own terms isn’t always going to be worth the effort, and there has to be some sort of immediate connection to make that effort seem worthwhile (this is where taste comes in, I guess). I’m sure there are great, interesting artists doing house techno, but I’m never going to know, because I’m unlikely to put in the effort needed to understand that style of music. The buzzing, disorienting weirdness of black metal, on the other hand, was initially intriguing to me on some level, and, even though it all sounded the same to me at first, I was interested enough to listen further. Now, while I think black metal has a more limited sonic palette than, say, jazz, I’ve listened to enough of it that I’m able to hear and enjoy the considerable variations within the subgenre. I also really like psychedelic music and noise, and that aspect of my taste probably accounts for my original attraction to black metal.
I also really like some of the bands mentioned in the post above that are more traditional in their approach to songwriting. One of my favorite shows I’ve seen this year featured Valkyrie, Bible of the Devil, Earthride, and Apostle of Solitude, all of whom have much more in common with Thin Lizzy and Maiden than they do Throbbing Gristle (Valkyrie basically offers a doomier version of Iron Maiden’s guitar harmonies and signature gallop, and Bible of the Devil’s most memorable song, “Ol’ Girl,” would have fit right in on _Jailbreak_ or _Johnny the Fox_). My other favorite show that I’ve seen recently was by one-man drone band Expo 70. I wouldn’t judge Expo 70 and Valkyrie on the same terms, but I think they’re both unusually good at what they’re trying to do.
While I am a fan of all genres of metal, that does not mean that I enjoy all of the practioners of all of the mutations of metal. I am very picky when it comes to what I’ll play on my sound system. This stems from judgement calls I was faced with when I was in high school in the mid ’80s. There were band whose sound I greatly enjoyed, but vocals or lyrical content simply sucked. One band may have a great guitarist, but their drummer was rudundant or simply lazy. Another band may have great vocals but the bassist sounds as if he is playing a clothes-line over a steel drum. I can listen to and enjoy the musical skill of bands like Venom and Cardle of Filth as long as I ignore the lyrical content. I can appriciate the sounds of early works of Dream Theater and Dragonfroce while ignoring the “hair metal” elements of both bands.
When it comes to “extreme metal”, for me there must be a reason to listen to it. I’ve heard some band where the guitars were technically fast, but the end result was nothing more than a rhythmic static. I’ve heard some band where the drumes were technically fast, but the composition was redundant at best. AND the double-bass was tuned so tight that they sounded like an extra set of snare-drums. Yes, the execution of the music had energy, but as a whole, it was, for the lack of a better word, boring.
While I don’t agree with all of your column (94.2 % agreed), your column did make alot of sense
I guess I like black and death metal for all sorts of different reasons. But ultimately, it moves me or it takes me somewhere that I want to go. Even a band like Portal (I’m kind of apprehensive to know that Scalzi would say about them, but I’m guessing he would not like them at all) I find to be very moving, because they create an entire alternate universe within their music that I find to be exhilarating. In a similar vein, I love Deathspell Omega because they completely succeed at what they do; their lyrics, vocals, and music all come together perfectly to achieve their aims, and I find it to be so powerful as to be genuinely frightening, but I cannot stop listening (nor would I ever want to).
A lot of black metal is downright beautiful, and of course a lot of it isn’t. It’s a very broad genre; I’m marking myself as a non-purist here, but I love pretty much everything (not every band, of course, but every type) that has come out under the black metal label, from Mayhem and Emperor to Wolves in the Throne Room, Drudkh, and Xasthur. Maybe there’s no accounting for the vocals; I for the most part love black metal vocals (except maybe Mayhem’s early bad-trip-to-the-shitter vocals) but doubt I could ever explain to a non-fan why I enjoy them.
But on the flip side, I love the power of death metal, and actually a lot of it does have a good groove to it, a good hook (and a lot doesn’t — I already mentioned how much I love Portal). But damn, I was walking to work this morning listening to Bloodbath, and of course that is a super-group put together to capture this aspect of death metal, but damn that music is the ultimate in hooky, catchy death metal that you can just groove to all day and night long.
Anyway, maybe there is no accounting for taste. I’d say Scalzi does a fairly good job here keeping an open mind in this piece for someone with distaste for these genres of metal. But you just might not like it. I have my doubts that someone could find an intellectual reason to like a form of music that you don’t just like already. That’s cool. I’ll never like metalcore no matter what anyone tells me.
Eh, I’d give up. There isn’t any way to account for taste. As a music critic I’ll admit that criticism itself is bullshit whenever the critic claims objectivity. The highest purpose it can serve is to let people with similar taste know if they’d enjoy something. No one who likes Dimmu Borgir, for example, should read my reviews of black metal albums, because chances are I’ll hate what they love and vice-versa.
And death metal and grindcore are often quite catchy, at least to me. I don’t think it’s a different aesthetic from traditional stuff. You just don’t hear it, and I doubt that that will change.
yeah, I think you’re just stuck in a heavy metal narrative and trying to push black and death metal through it to make it fit and be able to understand/appreciate it but it’s just not going to work. There aren’t necessarily any criteria for listening to each (and I’m a bit skeptical of you creating a list of criteria for heavy metal!), but seems to me something you just ‘do’ and can be ‘cultured into’ if you’re malleable enough, and if you understand it you can partake in it. But overall your attempts I think miss the point, a bit like accusing Nietzsche of baseless assertions and implicitly presupposing foundationalism; you can have disdain for black metal for not having catchy vocal lines or something but in criticizing it for that you miss the fact that it isn’t what black metal aims for.
I totally agree with the BM assessment–most of it’s crap or total crap, seriously. I doubt you will listen to this as you get older. It does not age well, like thrash, speed or death metal (which has serious deficiencies itself) Plus, as you get older, you have less tolerance of/more understanding of the world (hopefully) and you see what infantile views these guys have (Watain’s silly frontman or fucking Gaahl). I’ve noticed some of its defenders here mention ‘diversity’ or ‘variation’–perhaps, but only so far as maybe having keyboards/different vocal style. Not justification enough for throwing blastbeat/dirty riffing/Anton LaVey lyrics into a blender and calling it music. I’ve seen more evil shit from Diamanda Galas.
someone already brought them up, but what is your opinion on celtic frost? i dont know if you remember when my band crucifist opened for slough feg a few years back (before either of our bands had releases on profound lore…) although we are ostensibly an “extreme” metal band we take our inspiration from an era when labels like “black” and “death” were still malleable – before they diverged down seperate paths, so i’m interested to hear what you think about that. personally i can visualize a clear line through the evolution of hard rock and metal down through the genres of modern black and death metal and i enjoy many bands all along the way, so i suppose i would have to agree with your sentiment that there is in fact, no accounting for taste.
I understand that an important aspect of Rock ‘n Roll is the need to rebel. Some folks just want to be more extreme than the last guy simply to show him that his way wasn’t necessarily correct. I’ve always felt that this isn’t really a valid reason to be attracted to art. Ideally, art should be able to stand on its own. I think it cheapens the art form if it’s merely a reaction to something. It can start out as that, but it needs to become something more. Death and Black Metal both started as a reaction but stumbled onto a wide open palette.
I laughed and laughed the first time I heard Obituary, which was my first exposure to Death Metal. I’ve since grown used to John Tardy’s exaggerated style, but I wouldn’t fault anyone for laughing about it. However, if you discount some of his more experimental vocal stylings, you’ll find one of the most brutal sounding voices in the history of either genre. And I believe this is one of the most attractive features present in these styles. Why is brutality so attractive to fans? To me, it’s because that brutality has tapped into a very primal place. We’ve all got a chaotic animal anxious to get out. But humans are more complex beings than animals. This brings us to the other main attribute of extreme metal; order. We have a desire to create order from chaos. It brings us contentment to know that we can rely on our structured society. We don’t completely agree on how society should be run, but it’s rare to find an anarchist. Do we really want this world to be Thunder-dome? Of course not. Although the idea of letting loose every now and then is extremely attractive. Metal brings a balance to these two desires. Extreme metal tips the scale towards chaos more so then the kind of metal you practice. Order from chaos is man’s way. Order in chaos is Heavy Metal’s way.
First, I think it’s great you’re at least trying to explore and understand these styles of music that don’t resonate with you. I don’t know that it necessarily has to do with your age itself, but more the time frame in which the values you seek in music became ingrained in you. I think that can happen at any time, really. For example, I didn’t really start to digest and fully understand death metal until my early 20s, and it also was not without trying. I just don’t think I was ready to accept it yet and hadn’t fully understood what I was hearing. Or perhaps it just took that long for me to acquire an appreciation for the music. Whatever it is, it somehow clicked with me, unconsciously I believe, and I grew from there to grindcore, black metal, drone, what have you. It was just an explosion of branching out, and I hope it never stops for me. But who knows?
I also think my appreciation of said styles also is a matter of feeling. Also being a music critic, I can’t even begin to compute how many hours of death, black, power, grind, and every other kind of new metal releases I hear per year and how much of it actually sticks with me. So much of it blends together and fails to stand out — even in a horribly bad way, which is not unappreciated by me — that I find myself struggling to find new albums that have a real impact on me. To me, it eventually comes down to how it makes me feel, if it gives me a rush (and not in the Vin Diesel car-smash sense, but in the intellectual stimulation sense, where my mind begins to race as the music plays), if the music sticks out so much, that I have to revisit it. Yes, I can get that same feeling from the other types of music I listen to (I’m certainly not stuck with just metal), but the majesty and the power isn’t the same. Even with grind, there’s that sense of violence that I do feel, but not in the way that I want to go harm someone’s property or face, but in more of a primal, identifying one’s frustrations kind of way and letting that seep out of me. It’s a release and a sort of reinvigoration.
As much as I love more traditional styles of heavy metal, I don’t get that same feeling from it. I do think in your Judas Priests, your Iron Maidens (one of my favorite bands ever), and even in something like Gates of Slumber, I am more prone to the traditional music values you speak of and am more in awe of the sheer musicianship and getting lost in the stories. To me, it’s a different type of escape. Maybe you just haven’t found a way to escape into death/black/grind, whatever, and maybe you never will. Maybe you just don’t have the genes, as said. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It it was for everyone to understand, we’d all be packed into stadiums to see Mayhem. But we’re not, and that’s kind of cool (though I certainly wouldn’t want any of these musicians, or those who runs the labels, to be without a way to support themselves) because we have a special bond with a style of music not a lot of people understand.
You seem to be a 10%’r like me in that roughly only 10% of the music you come across regardless of genre does anything for you. Since you’re coming from more traditional metal and looking to get into more Death/Black I can recommend
Dagon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgx72hNyCio Death w/ classical influence
Ironthrones: http://download.ironthrones.com Proggy with a heavy Opeth sound
Gladiator: http://gladiator.bandcamp.com/ Jazz Metal
I’ll Eat Your Face: http://illeatyourface.bandcamp.com grindcore with sparse vocals and a range of influences
Misery Index: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWYyyJdIfYk death/grind/thrash
Thy Catafalque: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVVfuGuolD0 Just barely black metal but has a lot of the other characteristics you seem to enjoy
How is this “controversial”???
Retro-metal dude doesn’t get death metal, grindcore, or black metal…how exactly is this interesting or worthwhile?
I’m 35 years old and this feels like my mom telling me that Metallica “is just screaming” when I was in the 7th grade in 1987…yawn!
Alex P…did I ask you before, is P for Pappademas? Hindsight / Influx…ring a bell?
Just asking. Dave
To an extent your piece simply proves that there is in fact no accounting for taste. Progression and change can make things born from the familiar unrecognizable. Being as I’m probably a decade or two younger than you, the music to which I was exposed when my mind was still in its easily molded adolescent state was of a different spectrum than it was for you, and no doubt I’ll be saying “I just don’t get it” about new musical subgenres in twenty years as well. But when I was growing up, I was simultaneously getting into the classic metal sounds of Dio and Iron Maiden and the first and second wave black metal bands, be they Bathory and Celtic Frost or Emperor and Immortal, and somehow the two different sets of bands didn’t seem so far removed to me. Perhaps because I don’t have the perspective of somebody who was an active fan as these genres were emerging I am not predisposed to look only at the differences but also and more importantly at the similarities.
Why do I listen to noise, grindcore, drone, and other forms of extreme music?
It’s cheaper than seeing a therapist.
Dude, what this article said to me was “This is what I like. I don’t like the things that aren’t the things I like.” I don’t see what is so edgy about this.
Taste is taste, and unless you’re a Certified Taste Accountant* it’s unaccountable.
That said, heck, I agree about some of that about Death Metal, and I like it as a genre.
Might be because the first “Death Metal”, so-called, that I heard was the first Darkthrone album – and I think Soulside Journey sounds as good today as it did on vinyl in 1991.
Too much the field isn’t very good, though.
(Exceptions? The most notable one for me lately is Ofermod; I’ve listened to the five good tracks on Tiamtu dozens of times in the past few months. Which, for me, is high praise.
It’s approaching The Bees Made Honey In The Lion’s Skull, and Black One in play count.)
And the commenters on Black Metal make a good point, too. I think it’s brilliant when it’s done well, especially the more experimental varieties, but there’s a lot of it that’s pure dross.
This will be true of any genre, pretty much by definition, however.
Then, I like sounds as opposed to just music; that helps aid enjoyment of things like Portal or Wold.
(And to expand on what David says, I tend to think of the more progressive Black Metal as being basically jazz, with radically non-traditional instrumentation and aesthetics.)
(* Lucrative, but the accreditation process isn’t worth it.)
Listen to Gorguts
The question posed is far from connotative to a drawn out and philosophical defense of whatever music you may like. Simple really, I like some death metal, and make fun of other death metal bands..There are about 3 “black metal” bands I like and the rest I rather enjoy laughing at. Extreme metal is just that for me. On the one side of the spectrum, I thoroughly enjoy it, and the other, well, It’s nothing more than a parody of itself.
On another note Mr. Scalzi, maybe another point you could touch on, and I’d love to here your opinion on, Is the, for lack of a better word, “Elitism” that plagues underground music. I find an overwhelming amount of fans, mostly of the younger demographic, that tend to listen to things, not so much on how much good it is, but how unknown it is. Whatever happened to listening to something because you like it, no matter how many other people do. I’m not so sure what the fascination is with finding and attaching yourself to a up and coming unknown band, only to distance yourself as soon as they are given any real recognition for their talent.
Anyways, Mike, Do you listen to Manilla Road? I’d also love to know your opinion on Neurosis if you have ever heard them.
pdf’s comparison to classical music is apt. It might be a shock going from Bach to Schoenberg – but it might make more sense if one follows the chronology of composers pushing the boundaries of tonality. Likewise, extreme metal’s roots are clear. One thread starts with the first wave of black metal (Venom, Bathory, Hellhammer), which is song-based until the second wave, where sound starts taking over (see Burzum). Another thread follows traditional metal and NWOBHM into thrash, which leads into death metal, with hardcore punk entering the mix for tributaries of grindcore and sludge. Gothenburg melodic death metal is really just Iron Maiden sped up, with growls on top.
[Off-topic, responding to one of pdf's points - extreme metal isn't devoid of the blues. Old-school Swedish death metal (Entombed - which leads to death 'n' roll), Venom (guitar leads), and Eyehategod/sludge are some examples. But I do see the larger point of younger musicians having different roots.]
So that’s one accounting – people’s tastes grow over time as the artform grows. That accounting operates by logic.
But explaining why I prefer Thai food to Chinese food, even with the clearest logic, won’t convince someone else to have the same preference. As others have indicated, much of the appeal of extreme metal lies in sonic frequencies. If you prefer a certain arrangement of frequencies, then you prefer a certain subgenre. That’s the gut talking. One can acquire knowledge and understand others’ preferences, but one can’t will one’s gut to change.
I happen to share Scalzi’s emphasis on traditional musical values. I think they can operate successfully within extreme metal. Bands that can embody both aesthetics (i.e., bands that write actual songs) attract me most. An old example is Morbid Angel; a new one is Dreaming Dead (or even later Immolation). I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – sounds come and go, but songs stay.
there are monkeys that enjoy expressing themselves and monkeys that just want to be noticed. that’s a difference between true and false metal.
when a bunch of twats cover their sweetness with a bunch of flashy pubes. that’s false metal. I want it bare and ready to jostle my cock with it’s thunderous contractions! that’s just me though
if these kids can be rustled into action by defying their insulated perfect little “metal” world, so be it. give them the fire to try and make a riff to impress me. otherwise let them join the scene and score whatever scraps of poon or glory come their way.
two schools of thought in literary theory, new criticism and deconstruction. two approaches to literature, swap that variable type out for anything. cinema, music. if you’re smart you’ll choose NC, if you’re dedicated you’ll choose deconstruction.
my guess is scalzi takes the NC approach. forgivable for those that make awesome albums and work hard. not everyone has the time to burn on meandering worshippers and reviewers. just take it as it comes, maybe even talk to some people. community is a nice thing.
on metal: halford said it came from jazz and electricity and good ole southern blues. my theory is people are either more jazz or more blues. this mostly accounts for taste I’ve found.
*two cents scattered about aimlessly*
There’s this great bit of research I remember my biopsychology prof telling us about in class one day: Somebody (I forget who) did a study on two samples: Average college students, and students at Juilliard (presumably music majors). They hooked each group up to fMRI machines or something similar, and played them music. They monitored where brain activity increased as the music played.
What they found was that in the average college students, activity increased in the auditory cortex – the part that processes sound. In the Juilliard students, activity increased in Wernicke’s area – the part that processes language.
Combine that with what we know about critical periods for the development of language comprehension (teach kids foreign languages early, because it’s tougher to pick it up late in life) , and maybe you have an argument for the idea that if you don’t pick up on a style of music at a formative point, you’ll never really be into it. I have a friend who makes deliberate efforts to expand his musical tastes, but he just can’t get into extreme music. I told him his brain just isn’t wired to appreciate it at this stage in life.
I have a lot of respect for your music and, usually, your opinions on music.
But frankly, your criticisms of death metal are as valid as those of a sorority sister hearing Cannibal Corpse for the first time (albeit more eloquent and witty).
This is what happens when you attempt to “account for taste”. Apparently, this amounts to listening to music you don’t like, making fun of the qualities that don’t fit your taste, and discarding it.
So, yes, the analysis presented is ridiculous, in part because it is almost purely ridicule. There is no “analysis” about it.
But the bigger problem is that any evaluation of the criteria you judge – melody, song structure, and catchiness/memorability – cannot mean anything to another person. What is a good melody, what is catchy, what is a well-written song, are opinions with the same value to others as one’s favorite color. Suppose you were to say that green just looks like pea soup vomit. Is that in any way enlightening to a person who finds green to be appealing? Could that possibly benefit anyone? Is there any way to make a comment like that and not come off as a dick?
This is why I was disappointed to read that death metal drumming sounds to you “like someone pattering on the top of Lincoln Logs… the way I did when I was seven years old”. Not because it bothers me that you don’t like death metal. Not because you don’t have the right to like or not like whatever music you want to (you absolutely do). But because you think this type of “analysis” somehow constitutes a justification of your taste as something more than pure subjectivity, and because you imply that others should be able to make similar bullshit justifications from similarly arbitrary criteria. This is a sentiment that I think leads to arrogance both from the far-too-exclusive snobs (to use your own word) and the far-too-inclusive snobs.
With that said, your article was a fantastic read, and I’m looking forward to your next one!
@ Dave.
Nope, don’t know you. I’m a French Canadian.
This is a fun topic, but ultimately I think we all know that there’s no accounting for taste. We like what we like and don’t like everything else, and I don’t think our level of knowledge or vocabulary allow us to articulate why in a way that will make someone else re-evaluate their own taste.
Take this statement for example:
“The only possible conclusion I can come to is: I am judging extreme metal according to traditional Heavy Metal or traditional musical standards, and they simply don’t apply—i.e., it’s not about catchy songs, memorable riffs, vocal lines, inflections, etc. ”
“Catchy” and “memorable” are clearly subjective terms. What’s catchy and memorable to me may not be so for someone else. I honestly don’t know why – as I said this requires a level of knowledge about how humans work that I don’t think we’re equipped to address right now.
What I can say is that anecdotal evidence suggests that people develop an ear for certain kinds of music and will hear and respond to it completely differently than someone without the same inclination. This isn’t static either – the same person can hear the same music completely differently given time and circumstance. The first time I heard At the Gates’ “Slaughter of the Soul” in 1995, I thought it was horrible. I could not get around the vocals and the drumming sounded robotic to me. Maybe six months passed and I heard it again – for whatever reason, it clicked. I regard it as one of the best metal records of all time, as do many others. For whatever reason I wasn’t ready for it upon first listen. There’s a very complex series of phenomena that go into the development and evolution of personal taste.
One thing that does bother me when this debate comes up is when people say “you’re listening wrong” or “you don’t understand it.” These kinds of statements imply a mistake or an intellectual deficiency and serve to create an elitist distance that only douchebags buy into. Someone may not hear it the way you do, but that doesn’t say anything about their intelligence or that they’re somehow less sophisticated. I run into this a lot when I tell people that the last few Tool records are steaming piles of pretentious and self-indulgent shit.
To further the classical comparison a little, there’s no better book about how 20th century composition evolved than Alex Ross’s “The Rest Is Noise,” and it’s not hard to imagine how you might use it as a template to write a history of metal. If the world of “modern music” can fit John Cage and Pierre Boulez under the same tent, surely there’s room in metal for Slough Feg and Portal.
Ultimately I think genre is really something that is only meaningful in the service of shopping. It helps bring together buyers and sellers. But it means nothing, really, to music itself.
@ pestilential mists
Thanks for the book tip – I’ll check it out. I also agree to an extent about genre. It’s also incredibly subjective to classify bands this way. For example, some of the previous posters have classified both Opeth and Darkthrone as “Death Metal,” which is not how I would describe either of those bands.
And to Mike, since you are more active here than on the Slough Feg forum I’ll say it here: The Animal Spirits is a great album. I really liked Ape Uprising but this is a much tighter and more accomplished effort. Thanks for giving us great music.
Six Demon Bag,
If you heard Darkthrone’s first album “Soulside Journey” you would unequivocally call it Death Metal. They were most definitely a Death Metal band before being seduced by Euronymous to the dark(er) side.
I would also argue that Opeth started out as a Progressive Death Metal band and then progressed towards a Progressive band.
I think you’re right on with the main problem being how you judge the music. Jazz was largely looked down upon early on because it was being judged by the standards of classical, which just don’t apply; it’s a different type of music. There were other important factors of course, but that’s not what’s important here. Extreme metal can practically be a different genre; the roots of it are so ingrained into us that for you and others it just seems natural to see it as just an extension of the music you already know. Personally I think atmosphere and riffage are the most important “enjoyment factors” of black metal, but I just try and listen and “get it”. I guess I would think of it as a different genre, or just listen.
I know you address this, but it is also possible you just haven’t listened to the “good stuff”. Or at least you haven’t spent enough time with the “good stuff”, even if you’ve listened. I might try to get into Death, or Mastodon. I’m sure you’re at least familiar with them, I just think they share a lot of the riff emphasis of more traditional metal. And extreme music often requires “extreme” listening; very often it’s not very enjoyable for a lot of listens, but a lot of the “acclaimed” albums of extreme metal are real growers.
Also, if I didn’t put this off clearly, I’m not necessarily saying the key is to judge the music based on different criteria, it just helps for the sake of this discussion. I personally just listen and try to enjoy; the standout qualities come in time, or the track gets familiar and stale. I think the key is to just listen without comparing it or having preconceptions. Quite often this allows one to see aspects of the music that weren’t initially inherent. It’s definitely “rescued” a couple classic albums for me, one’s that I initially thought were boring or unnotable.
@ Miskatonic
You’re kind of arguing my point – discussing genre and assigning these labels to bands is extremely subjective and doesn’t really serve much purpose beyond the already mentioned utility of pairing buyers and sellers. It also helps identify “scenes,” but for pure musical enjoyment is it really all that necessary?
Look how many qualifiers you used just to talk about two bands. Ok, so Darkthrone is a Death Metal band because they put out one record that sounds like the schema you’ve created for death metal? What about the other dozen or so albums? And is Opeth a Death Metal band, a Progressive band,or a Progressive Death Metal band? You seem to have put them on some sliding scale of Death Metal to Progressive and they are somehow plotted along that continuum depending on some arbitrary point in their history. In the same breath we go from simply calling them Death Metal to heaping on all these qualifiers until we’re left with a pretty convoluted distinction that really holds little meaning to anyone else.
I’m not picking on you or saying your view isn’t valid, but we are all very limited in our ability to put meaningful and consistent categories to this stuff. I’ve noticed as I’ve gotten a little older that I have a much harder time talking about music in terms of genre/sub-genre. When I was younger I would have no problem reciting the amazingly convoluted taxonomy of metal and being confident in my assessments of what constitutes what (grindcore vs. thrash vs. death metal, etc.). Having those conversations has really become less important and meaningful to me the older I get. When people ask me what Slough Feg is like, I simply say “Adventure Metal” and call it a day.
Hello!
Most intriguing blog, Mr Mike! I much enjoy trailing over your words, Sir! Eloquent as ever, regardless of subject opinion.
I am eternally fascinated by the ponderations of others, and here is no exception. Intriguing how you seem to want to rationalise personal taste, as seems normal for us humans, we are prone to go a-rationalising. However, it’s such a big, fat subjective topic is metal, I can barely rationalise my own thoughts (on this or anything I suppose). Maybe just revel in the diversity and accept that you are a diamond in the rough, and sadly we cannot all be as masterful, musically-speaking as your good self!
Someone else commented that they appreciate extreme metal for its epic nature – that already is that person’s perception. I consider myself to be into ‘epic’ metal but not extreme metal, so interpretations abound! I can understand the interest in extreme metal if it is for cathartic reasons! Must feel pretty good to let rip like that, but I simply choose to do so by different means – e.g. with Slough Feg!
Who knows!
Anyway, amazing new album!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am much consoled, despite the proliferation of crappy music in recent times, of the existence of bands such as Slough Feg!
p.s. apologies for lowering the tone of the forum, but, I think you’re a very sexy man, Mr Mike!
p.p.s. I am of the female persuasion, so as not to mislead you into believing you have a stallion of an admirer.
Of course it’s not necessary to discuss genres in order to enjoy music. Since genres are often attributed to certain scenes and bands, those genre tags become short hand for describing music and musicians. Of course, this is a pretty lazy technique, but it’s handy nonetheless.
“Ok, so Darkthrone is a Death Metal band because they put out one record that sounds like the schema you’ve created for death metal?”
I think it’s pretty clear that I referred to Soulside Journey as a Death Metal album, not Darkthrone as a Death Metal band. Only a fool would call anything in Darkthrone’s catalog after the first “Death Metal”. My point about Darkthrone was not to declare that I am insistent they be called a Death Metal band until the end of days. I just wanted to shed light on the fact that one of the most prominent Black Metal bands ever, actually started out playing Death Metal. The obvious change in style was one of the most drastic direction changes ever. Based upon what you wrote earlier, I wasn’t sure that you were aware of that album’s existence. It’s also interesting when compared to their long, slow transformation into what they are now (blackened punk? Here I am doing it again).
As I age, it becomes more difficult to apply genre tags, as well. But I think that has more to do with the way artists have experimented and combined, and innovated than anything to do with our aging process.
I listened in these days to the few death/black metal bands I ever liked thinking again about the taste-accounting problem. I realised that the songs I’m more attracted to are the more similar to classic heavy metal or thrash structure. Memorable riffs (Darkthrone, “Transilvanian Hunger”… except it seems a rip from Motorhead “Fire Fire” ending riff…), classical Judas Priest-like HM riffs (Death “Spirit Crusher”), a very good Sabbath atmosphere (second part of Entombed “Left Hand Path”), memorable vocal melodies (Carcass “Heartwork”).
I know “memorable” is a completely subjective concept (as you said, Six Demon Bag). But how to effort the fact that some chorus or riff, even if you don’t like the kind of music (think about *any* song by Motley Crue, Judas Priest, Black Sabbath or old Slayer), will remain forever in your head, you want it or not, but I would hardly say the same of any Entombed or Obituary chorus or riff (I’m not judging value: they’re obviously classics, I can hear quality, even if i don’t love them). There must be some difference in the interest a death/black metal or a classic heavy metal band puts in different elements while they write songs (or should I say “music”?). But I also admit that whatever “memorable” is, that’s not the only point, because some early Voivod or some Metal Church stuff that I like and that are undoubtly old-school, are not so memorable but not less interesting to my ears. Also some new stuff like Leif Edling’s Krux, or High on Fire, at least to my ears, seem to think more about a certain atmosphere (like death and black?) than to what makes two songs two completely different “individuals”.
Anyway, I feel some “revolution” (I mean, as between alchemy and chemistry, so to say) between thrash/heavy metal/speed/doom (or even punk/hardcore/crust) and death/grind/black, even if I can recognise the “evolutionary line”. A similar revolution we can find between 60’s music and hard rock, or between blues and rock/hard rock. I’m not a historian, but maybe that’s when there is no more just a line but a third (or a fourth, or so on) element comin’ in, that’s my impression. Or just some new stuff from a genius and people trying to do the same. In hard rock it was no more only blues, no more only folk music influences, but maybe distortion and maybe classical music influence (or maybe Blackmore or Clapton aping).
Am I talking now about differences between genres, and no more about taste accountability? I think taste is connected to structures, genre stereotypes and musical elements or contents, but in a very subtle way. That’s why in my opinion it’s not completely impossibile to account for it. A friend of mine once told me: I like unpredictable music. That’s a good point. She liked jazz, art/free rock, improvisation, Mike Patton-like stuff, and so on. Very different things but with something in common. If I like Hedningarna, Slough Feg, Iron Maiden, Dead Can Dance, Discharge, Arthur Brown, Cream, Diamanda Galas (but also some songs by The Bangles
or some cartoon song), and I can find there what I like (and I search for), it seems they have something in common to my ears. The more you can account for your taste, easier it becomes to find some new interesting stuff that you like!!! More difficult it’s to define what we can find excitingly clever or genius or entertaining. That’s exactly when the unpredictable “UFO-Testament” problem (“You’ll like it for sure” “Actually I don’t”) comes in…
There’s a lot of posts here, so perhaps someone has already addressed this, but from what I had read it seems like no one has.
It seems to me the biggest problem Mr. Scalzi has with Extreme Metal is the vocals. I mean, yes sometimes Extreme Metal bands don’t have great song writing (sometimes Thrash and Traditional bands don’t either) or far too much distortion, but the unifying factor is that Death Metal, Black Metal and Grindcore all have distorted vocals. So it just seems obvious that that’s the main problem for him. Which is something I find quite understandable regarding someone exposed to this music later in life after already building an identity from the 70’s to early 80’s. As a recommendation to Mr. Scalzi one band comes to mind that holds some traditional and extreme factors yet hardly has any distorted vocals (beyond what you would find in Thrash) is the more recent Primordial material.
That all said, like many here I love plenty of Extreme Metal vocals and while many lack the catchy vocal passages/choruses of older Metal, I still think some amazing and timeless music has been written. I would easily rank Celtic Frost, Bathory, Emperor, Morbid Angel and Carcass with legends from before.
Also, Mr. Scalzi if you’re reading all this posts, just want to say I love the music of Slough Feg (especially Traveller and Ape Uprising!) and love the fact a teacher of Philosophy is at the head of such a great Metal band. I look forward to seeing you perform next time you come through LA.
I’d just like to say that personal taste may not be something for which we can account, but neither is it immutable. You can expand your taste to encompass more music, if you choose to do so – of course, many people take the opposite path and choose to progressively refine their taste to exclude more music over time! I presume this is subconscious behaviour, relating to the issue of self-definition, as discussed extensively after Mike’s last post.
If you do not enjoy something immediately, you can find some individual aspect or element of it that you can appreciate, and use that as your entry point. As you listen to that music again, familiarity helps to smooth out the rough edges, and make the whole more accessible. It’s interesting how your tastes can change over time; I never throw away a ‘classic’ album that I didn’t like initially – in most cases, I’ve returned years later and found I have become more accommodating.
I saw Suffocation play earlier this year in a small club and Frank actually said something to the effect that he and his young friends didn’t have any master plan, they just wanted to make the heaviest music they could, so that explains death metal and I think that explains grind and even newer stuff like Allegeon and Withered. Black metal, though is actually a rejection of that quest. If you read interviews with the pioneers of that genre, they all talk about turning away from the metal that was popular at that time as their primary motivation.
I listen to a lot of death and black metal, sometimes for the atmosphere, or for some particular guitar tone and style that tweaks my brain. Generally, though, the best bands of any rock-based genre I can think of have great songs. Some extreme (I’m having a hard time not putting scare quotes around that word) albums I would recommend based on Scalzi’s criteria are:
Peste Noire – Ballade cuntre lo Anemi francor
Awesome sketched out guitar playing, actual songs, and somehow, in a band that is dead serious black metal with an evil feel, a sense of humor.
Axis of Advance – Obey
Pretty straightforward death metal with ridiculous militaristic drumming. Some of the songs may seem overly long and lose you, but that’s made up by the epic moments. Also, a sci-fi concept album about a dystopian future ruled by computers.
Blood Revolt – Indoctrine
Mostly the same dudes as AoA, but with the singer from Primordial added in doing clean vocals. I haven’t had time to process the whole album, but the theme seems to revolve around a holy war of some sort. Definitely about war in general, at least.
Primordial – A Journey’s End
Black metal with a very (maybe too much?) pop sensibility. Cleanish vocals, epic songs.
Sentenced – North from Here
Aside from having one of the best song titles ever (My Sky is Darker than Thine), great, catchy death metal.
Mike’s problem is maybe that he does take it seriously. A grain of salt is obviously required for liking extreme metal, and it’s also obvious that what kind of musical framework one’s taste is built off of has an impact on what one can later digest and actually become a fan of.
Born in ‘81 in Alaska, I started with AC/DC, moved to Metallica, moved to Pantera, moved to In Flames, moved to Death, Darkthrone and THEN Maiden and Priest in my late teens/early twenties. Completely ass-backwards!
It all depends on what era you grew up in AND WHERE and what your established likes and dislikes are. At this point I can listen to basically anything metal related and like it, as long as it is interesting ON SOME LEVEL. Whether that level is pure novelty, or actual respectable songwriting and craft.
For instance, I think Virgin Steele is awesome (well, sometimes), but I also think of Deeds of Flesh as the best brutal death metal has to offer. Both of these bands however, overdo it on a regular basis. But for whatever reason, this doesn’t really bother me.
Watain/Dissection/Melodic Black metal is great, but if screamed vocals don’t do it for you, the quality of riffs and song structures are not going to fill the gap.
More eclectic bands that are worth a few listens are indeed the Irish Primordial as mentioned, but also:
Sólstafir and Potentiam of Iceland
Urfaust of Holland
Windir and Vreid of Norway
Drudkh of Ukraine
Megiddo of Canada
Sabbat of Japan
The Chasm of Chicago/Mexico
Buried at Sea and Minsk of Chicago
Middan/Yob from Oregon
Hour of 13 from North Carolina etc etc etc etc.
I’m sure Mike’s heard half this stuff already, and I can honestly say that taste is entirely relevant. If you don’t like something, and you’ve tried, it’s not likely to change. As I said I like Virgin Steele, but I can’t stand Rhapsody (of Fire). I love Manowar, but that doesn’t mean I’m buying all the extraneous bullshit they talk constantly. I can listen to them even though they are beyond ridiculous. That’s part of the charm in my opinion, and the same goes for extreme metal.
We could give a lot of counter-example to Mike by quoting some groups which have the qualities which they look for at a group, although he made the effort to throw it an ear.
Even to a group as DEATH (the album “Symoblic” for example), you do not find these qualities?
I would indeed recommend a group: STARGAZER, who has just release his last album on the label Profound Lore, and who contains 8 memorable songs, with strong melodies, rich ideas and strong identity.
This group is unique, nothing to do with the ambient mediocrity in extreme metal.
A example with this two songs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoJWltcgxFk and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWVdF9n-dls
To me, your question sounds an awful lot like Robert Pirsig’s examination of quality. I believe the standards by which people judge art have always been relative to their own experience, and yet certain near-universals rise above the rest in terms of praise. I would be inclined to agree with Pirsig on this phenomenon in this context – that is, when quality is present it can be realized by the listener without the need for specific definition of which elements makes it so.
So I guess I’m saying no, there is no accounting for taste. Nor do I believe there should be. Most of the time, shit can’t be neatly put into a box, and the incessant need to do so is a detriment to our ability to grok things for what they are.
The fact that you hear nothing but “indecipherable guitar” in Bolt Thrower suggests that you just don’t have an ear for what they’re doing, as they’re one of the more catchy and structured death metal bands out there. Even during their early career, they were always “writing songs”, and that’s even apparent on “In Battle There Is No Law”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzhoURAKoMA
The solos on this song are quite chaotic, but the underlying structure is based on riff patterns which wouldn’t be out of place on any number of records from “thrash bands that incorporated metal elements with heavy reliance on double bass drums, Satanic and gore lyrics, and extra-scratchy sounding vocals”… it’s the speed, repetition, and layering of the different guitar parts which makes this song seem “indecipherable”.
And on “For Victory”, over half the song is blatantly based on heavy-metal melodicism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waBLNFJK1pY
I agree with those who’ve suggested that the difference between heavy and death/black metal is similar to the difference between blues and jazz. The use of repetition and layering in extreme metal is just plain different, as is the relationship between the music and the vocals… and while extreme metal comes from heavy metal, it also deliberately deconstructs most of the heavy metal rules, including (conventional heavy metal) “song structure, melody, and catchiness”.
In short: yes, extreme metal is enjoyed according to a different set of standards. I wouldn’t call them an entirely different set of standards, though, as it’s obvious that they evolved from the original set, and some of those standards (such as heaviness, evil, and even riff-based catchiness) are still in effect.
At any rate, I’d suggest bands which combined death and/or black metal with a late-80s heavy-metal song structure, like Armoured Angel, Destroyer 666, Sabbat (JPN), Atomizer, and Legions of Perkele-era Barathrum. That said, if you don’t like Bathory, I suspect you won’t enjoy any of this, either, as that’s exactly where much of it is coming from.
Maybe there really is no accounting for taste… but at least we can all agree that Slough Feg fuckin’ rules! Can’t wait to see you guys live again.
All I can tell you is it is either in you or its not. You respond to it or you don’t. I like all the same music you like, and I also like a shit ton of death and black metal. I get a lot of shit for liking death and black metal, all I can say is “I understand and enjoy your music but you can’t understand mine” so more for me. Good stuff:
Carcass – Symphonies of Sickness
Slaughter – Strappado (the 80s Canadian band)
Sadistic Intent – Resurrection of The Ancient Black Earth
Immolation – Here In After
Claws – Absorbed In The Nethervoid (on a side note, this and lots of Razorback Records bands are very catchy)
Demilich – Nesphite
The Chasm – Farseeing The Paranormal Abysm
Impetigo – Horror of The Zombies
Anata – Dreams of Death And Dismay
Shit, listen to Autopsy, all those albums while may seem like “eeeh” reading the titles to you all offer massive universes unto themselves of sheer awesomeness. Blurg
I agree with most of the criticisms of modern metal. Going to a death metal show is typically an amusical experience. But if you can’t find something musically interesting in Demilich, I don’t know what to say. In all fairness, I don’t know how much they actually count as metal – they have ridiculous vocals (the vocals ARE just there for the weird atmosphere) but except for a few nods to death metal they seem to have just been doing their own thing.
Basically if heavy metal had a rule book that bands absolutely HAD to follow, you’d be the guy to write it. Also, I have no idea why people can stomach that stuff, sorry. If there’s no MUSICAL value involved I can’t listen to it.
While there are a handful of “extreme” metal bands that really are putting out progressive, original music, most are merely painting by numbers with no more sincerity or originality than the millions of pop punk bands that sprung up in the 90s in the wake of Green Day and Offspring, or hair metal bands that exploded (and then imploded) in the 90s.
The reality is that most genres exist because a very few bands did something original and interesting (those two things don’t necessarily go hand in hand) and then a hundred followed, copying merely the style and stagnating the scene. Most “black” or “death” metal bands have more in common with a secretary who dresses up like a slutty nurse on Halloween than they do with the pioneering groups they seek to so flawlessly emulate. The put on the clothes, they play the same riffs with the same tone and get some guy to scream over the records (in a low voice for Death and a high voice for Black–thats really ground-breaking) and really, its just like putting on a costume.
The truth is that a great many people get into metal for the same reason that a great many jocks get into Creed. The desire to fit in is almost the same as the desire to not fit in. And extreme metal gives the listener the comfort, and an ego boost, in knowing that “others don’t ‘get’ this” im more extreme than those jocks who beat me up because i listen to Gothol’s Tomb, and dress like Count Grishnak (nevermind he was having a laugh). This is why so many fans turn on extreme bands whenever they earn even the slightest modicum of success. Suddenly they lose that exclusivity.
How many times have you heard someone crucify Cradle of Filth and call them sell outs, describe them as too commercial or berate their fans as trend followers? And how many of those same people have the Trooper as their ring tone? Somehow Cradle of Filth is a pop band and Iron Maiden retains their metal cred when objectively, Dani Filth’s vocals make Bruce Dickinson’s sound like Mariah Carey’s. If Maiden came on the speakers at my gym, nobody would bat an eye–however if somehow “Her Ghost in the Fog” got through you can bet people would actually stop working out and go to the front desk and complain. Isn’t that extreme?
Now I’m not saying COF is a good band, or Maiden for that matter. I’m leaving the subjective out of this for right now. Objectively the reason COF get stick from many fans is because a lot of people like them and that is the antithesis of what many people who get into metal are looking for. They want something that no one likes, that they feel is their own, so that they can say “i get this and you don’t, and therefor I’m better than you.” For most humans everything is driven by insecurity. And the same attitudes many extreme metal fans harbor have just as much in common with fundamentalist Christians or any other sect seeking something out to make them feel better than everyone else. The very idea that you are superior to someone because of some band they listen to is 1) absurd, 2) sound evidence you’re an imbecile and most importantly 3) exactly the same sentiment behind sexism or racism.
Yet for a genre that is supposed to be “anti” metal has just as many rules and trends as even the most extreme high school clique. I live in Phoenix and there is a shop that sells metal records (and lame pentagram candles and incense. and black t-shirts… One stop shopping for your new identity) If I walk in wearing a Blind Guardian t-shirt (a band I truly love) I’m greeted with warm smiles and salutations… Like Norm entering Cheers. However, when I enter wearing a suit because I’m off work suddenly I get the evil eye from the staff and body language that more clearly delivers the message “Get out and fuck off” than the ghosts in that house from Polterguest. Nevermind that the same attitude that cultivated my taste in metal and led me down the path to Blind Guardiandom was also applied to my fashion. I’m wearing a Marc Jacobs suit–the Blind Guardian of men’s clothing–not some men’s warehouse parachute. There’s a reason that Nick Cave looks stylish in his suits and the Mighty Mighty Bostons look like monkeys… And someone who seeks and studies good fashion will appreciate that difference just the same way that someone who seeks out and studiies good music can tell the difference between Six Feet Under and Opeth.
That attitude, pure open-minded, art-seeking… Or whatever you want to call it, that is what should be the common thread uniting fans of metal. And it should be applied to all forms of artistic expression, because god damn it life is boring and full of boring derivitative crap. Ive heard many people praise metal for its breadth of styles. You have power metal, symphonic metal, black metal, death metal, doom metal, drone metal, thrash metal, sludge metal, NWOBHM, melodic swedish death metal and Manowar. And yet what are those genres if not 2 or 3 bands that originated the sound and then 100 that copied it to perfection. The reason these genres are so clearly defined is because the bands within them are so unoriginal. The labels that sign them realize that as long as they get the album art and logo right (and by that I mean copying what everyone else is doing) they can sell records because the fans will by exactltly what is put in front of them so long as it looks right.
Some labels have even taking to re-issue albums from the 70s that have no association with metal what-so-ever, re-branding and repackaging the music with new “metal” covers and then coloring the vinyl just enough to sell to die-hard metal collectors who don’t think twice ::cough:: comus ::cough::
As a musician, I realize that with Guitar Rig I could bang out 8 songs in any one of the afore-mentioned number styles. Throw the appropriate drum beats on withe my Drumkit from Hell (it was good enough for Devin Townsend even with Gene Hoglan on speed dial) and with one poorly lit photoshoot and the appropriate airbrushed art a record deal from Rise Above or Southern Lord wouldn’t be far off. And yet I don’t. And until I cultivate an original sound I won’t.
So are you not “getting” extreme music? No. And it’s not because you’re applying an out-moded model of analysis. It’s because you’re analysising it at all. It’s a trend, an element of a pre-packaged identity. And there’s nothing more to “get” than there is to understanding why Ska fans “skank.”
Bands shouldn’t really fit into genres. They should just do what they do. The very nature of genre implies bands trying to sound alike, and that should be abhorant. I’m interesed in good bands. Bands that people respond to, at least enough to recommend to someone else. But when someone says “you should check out this new wave of noise rock” bands, somethings wrong.
And btw, Slough Feg is definently an originator and not a follower.
-Austin
PS. Please repress Ape Uprising and Traveller on vinyl.
It seems Mike Scalzi is having the same problem I have had over the last 17 years or so: even though I like rock music, specially metal music, I haven’t found a metal music fan who has a similar taste on music as I do.
I guess it all comes down to facing the truth: this issue is so subjective that attempting to explain to people why you enjoy a particular band and not others is just a waste of time.
Enjoying a band’s music is a matter of the right mindset (you are having a good or a bad time at the moment of listening to the music), external conditions (the place, the weather, the company, the amount of time you can dedicate to doing the job), prejudices about the band’s music (or lack thereof), among other reasons.
For instance, I can enjoy Immolation, Suffocation, Primordial, Iron Maiden, Slayer at any given time; however, I simply can’t dig bands such as Cradle of Filth, Job for a Cowboy, Messhuggah (probably misspelt)or Children of Bodom. While I do recognize huge differences in their sounds, they do have a lot of things in common. Just like apes and humans.
(This may be a little jumbled because I’m doing other things while trying to gather thoughts, sorry.)
I’m seeing a few decent points being made, and a lot of name dropping trying to persuade you to see it their way.
You answered your own question several times in your own article. You’re you and you have your own taste in music. You simply can not apply your “traditional metal values” to something that isn’t “traditional metal.” They’re not the same thing. Music is often accompanied with the word “taste.” If you continue with that and use the analogy of food, you’re not going to bite into a piece of bread and ask why it isn’t as good as an apple or vice versa.
Those people that claim you are listening to it wrong may be right (to an extent). Because they’re different things, you need to approach them differently and expect different things. I figure the average person isn’t going to slice up an apple and put some ham and cheese in there to make a sandwich. Personally, I find different genres fitting for the mood I’m in or want to be in. I listen to Thrash and Death typically because it’s aggressive. I (rarely) listen to Black Metal because it’s just silly. I’ll listen to whatever else because it typically has something else to offer that I crave (although I’ve barely found anything Black Metal has to offer not offered somewhere else, and better).
You may just not have the “gene” for it. You may want the gene and have been trying to acquire this taste for so long because you feel like you’re missing out. From my point of view, you are. From yours, that’s up to you to decide. Don’t take recommendations from other people with another taste based on wanting “good Death/Black.” This may be a problem you’ve encountered. The best way to music you like, is to mention something you like in the genre you’re looking for and ask for things that sound like it (this is from my experience).
Now to name drop:
Based on “They write songs, and have memorable riffs, and at times even melodies done with honest articulation of an idea” which may be the only major factor that you’re looking for that can translate between genres, I’ll give you these two less than underground bands that you’ve probably encountered:
Opeth – Still Life, Ghost Reveries, Blackwater Park
Opeth is a death metal band that I believe stands out from the norm because they don’t rely on being fast or intense, they rely on songwriting. They also have some of the cleanest guttural vocals I’ve heard.
Mastodon – Crack the Skye
I’ve always considered this album my #2 album. I find it a continuous flow of musicianship on top of songwriting. I expect this to have the catchy factor you may be looking for.
These will most likely do nothing for you as they do amazing for me. Oh well.
Geez, this was a mess.
Now for a personal question that I don’t exactly respect a response to as I hide behind a screen as an anonymous person with face:
I tried talking to you after a show being and I couldn’t tell if you were being extremely sarcastic as a style of humor, or just extremely bitter. It’s not a turn off, I just couldn’t figure it out because I could easily understand you being bitter. So which is it, if not a little bit of both?
Hey, I really liked reading this article; it’s one of the most intelligent things I’ve read about music. I think that what you are saying about approaching the music from the wrong paradigm might be correct. I’ve only become interested in heavy metal of any kind very recently, coming more out of a rock and folk and, later, electronic background, and this shift in perspective actually did have to happen to me. I got into metal because of a couple of friends who like it, but it took me months of trying it here and there, building up a tolerance to the harshness of the sounds, and finally I guess just hearing the right things at the right moment when music that was harsh yet textured was what I needed, more than music that had good melodies or whatever.
I think you’re right in saying that “extreme metal” has greater kinship with ambient or industrial or noise music than traditional heavy metal, because with something like black metal it is almost entirely the textures that I find beautiful. I’m sure I probably wouldn’t have gotten into it without first spending a few years plumbing the depths of the electronic music scene, because I was into computers and synthesis and stuff.
Another part of it is really becoming desensitized to the vocals, I think. I only really started to like black metal when I found some where the vocals were so minimal that I was sucked in before they intruded. Since that time I’ve gradually become accustomed to extreme metal vocals to the point that they don’t register as ridiculous anymore, as they used to; I can no longer see them that way. They feel atmospheric, sometimes emotional; rarely silly. I think that extreme metal musicians themselves have all reached this point themselves, and thus the fact that they can unironically sing that way isn’t because they’re stupid but because they hear the vocals in a different way.
The other thing is that often these bands do have hooks in their music, you just have to listen for them in places other than the vocals. Listening to a lot of electronic music helped me with this; sometimes a hook is a little rhythmic quirk, or the way a bit of feedback falls against a bass note, or something like that – moments that can’t be described as traditional songwriting, but are composition of a sort. You like Black Flag and Bad Brains – aren’t their hooks sometimes like this? At the very least it seems like usually their hooks involve riffs and not vocal melodies.
Lastly, maybe it is a thing of age. At the ripe old age of 19 it is probably not as difficult to suddenly figure out how to listen to music in an entirely different way than you used to.
Loving the column Mike. I have to agree by and large with your commentary on Death Metal, but if you’re looking for some intriguing and “different” black metal, you might want to try Silencer’s “Sterile Nails” and just about anything by Master’s Hammer. I’m not a big BM mark, but those two bands really spark something with me.
And also, you need to give Bolt Thrower another chance.
YES BOB!!!!
Very strong agreement over Bolt Thrower, those feisty chaps are the heavy groove-champions.
(Also seconding your suggestion of Master’s Hammer!
)