. . .
A month or so ago, in one of my first assignments for IO, I reviewed the latest offering by Graveland, Cold Winter Blades. I had been anticipating a degree of backlash to this review, as it is impossible to review Graveland without someone bringing up Rob Darken’s xenophobic ideology, and so I had ready my usual responses of “I just separate art from artist/I don’t buy any of his records to keep the fascists from getting my money/controversial art is still art/et cetera”. However, I had both severely underestimated the amount of backlash to reviewing Graveland and also had not prepared myself for some serious questions about the ethics of listening to such music.
Some questioned my language in reviewing the piece, claiming that if I had truly wished to concentrate solely on the music, I would have left out politically loaded terms such as “ubermensch”. Others argued that, in the scheme of ethical dilemmas within metal, racist and ethnically charged music posed a greater threat to the outside listener through support of violent, bigoted causes, and that to enjoy such music, even on a mere aesthetic level, was the same as being actively in support of it (after all, by enjoying it, I was vindicating and justifying its existence). Frankly, I was fascinated by the breadth, and frequently depth, of these moral questions, and thus I decided to improve upon my review by fully exploring the questions of how we, as metalheads, approach ethical dilemmas in and surrounding our music. As a result, I decided to explore some of the major questions we, as metal listeners, must ask ourselves and consider when encountering controversial music. My intention is to spark an honest conversation on the matter.
In approaching this conversation, we have to address several factors: whether intent or externality matters in offensiveness, whether personal bias matters, and whether enjoying an aesthetic is in effect an endorsement. In short, we shall explore whether it is truly possible to separate artist from art. Before this, however, are two disclaimers: first, any real-world evidence I may use here (i.e. “female metalheads generally feel like blah blah blah . . . “) are purely based on my own experience. This is not an in-depth sociological study, and thus one should expect inferences based on my own personal experience, not the results of numerous interviews and data collection over the course of several years. Secondly, in using some examples as to implicit, explicit, and potential racism, I have made mention of quite a few offensive terms (primarily the N-word). This was meant to prove a point (and perhaps does so as is regarding privilege, as I am a white male who may not have a good enough cultural excuse to use such a term) and not to be in itself explicit. If the mere mention of such words is offensive and a symbol of how metal often blindly accepts white male privilege; however, please bring it up, for such a response is exactly what I wish to examine in the writing and follow-up to this article.
The first question to examine is whether there is a difference between music produced by those who offend us without intention of offense and music produced with the blatant intent to offend. In other words, is a band whose members are racist, but whose music/lyrics are not as outwardly offensive as a band is clearly, visibly racist? For instance, take Malevolent Creation: a seminal Florida death metal band that have a place alongside Death/Cannibal Corpse/Obituary/et al in the ’90s death metal pantheon and are currently signed on a larger label and touring with major acts. In this interview with the ethically unscrupulous Bill Zebub, Malevolent Creation guitarist Phil Fasciana frequently spouts the term “nigger” and other rather racist phrases such as, “I’ve got a lot of black friends, but they’re not niggers. There’s niggers, and then there’s black people”. However, with the exception of one song, Malevolent Creation are generally apolitical, and especially in the 2000s have toned their controversial content down. On the other hand, we have Arghoslent, whose highly racist stances are openly flouted: their website has a picture of a slave ship as its main icon, and song titles like “Tar-Skinned Pygmoids of the Dense Bush” make it abundantly clear that they’re not especially fond of much of the world’s population. Obviously, it’s easier to dislike Arghoslent because they appear proud of their racist image, but that doesn’t necessarily make it more right. Does the fact that Arghoslent actively seek to offend us make their indignities more heinous, or does the fact that they do so actually make them honest, thereby placing Malevolent Creation in the more culpable spot due to their questionable, but not clearly stated, views? The evidence for either is fairly strong; on the one hand, Malevolent Creation don’t tout the virtues of slavery, but the fact that they’re playing to a wide audience whilst holding racist views gives one pause as to whether or not their “apolitical” music is compromised. This in turn brings up the question of whether they can be excused for saying such crude things as a form of shock, thus placing them among the ranks of artists whose offensiveness is used as mere shock value.
Secondly, do our personal politics have any bearing on how offended we become when we listen to various styles of music? The answer to this one is probably yes, they do. For instance, I personally cannot listen to Leviathan’s music anymore with the knowledge of what Jef Whitehead is accused of doing to his partner. Never mind that Burzum is one of my favorite bands; my gut reaction is stronger towards rape than it is towards murder, and that’s why I can easily listen to Filosofem but not True Traitor, True Whore. My reaction is proportionally stronger in my mind due to the severity of the act, and therefore my personal reaction trumps reason: Whitehead hasn’t actually been convicted of his crimes, and there’s a good possibility that he’s innocent. Varg, by contrast, did it, end of discussion, and yet because I find rape as an act more revolting and inhuman than murder, I subconsciously excuse Varg’s proven deeds and not Whitehead’s alleged crimes. Likewise, as I have heard Christian metalheads attest, those with strong religious convictions are more often offended by anti-religious sentiment than by overt racism or even sexism, even when the racism being promoted is, in fact, more violent and with greater real-world consequences than any anti-religious sentiment could be.
Perhaps this has to do with the varying degrees of privilege enjoyed by each specific listener. After all, there are nearly 2000 years of Christian violence and oppression documented in the annals of history, with virtually no violence relatable to Satanism in any form in comparison; however, a Christian would likely find threats towards his/her/their religion more abhorrent than real life crimes perpetrated by those using the “Christian” moniker. To wit, as a white male whose ancestry lacks a major history of oppression, I have an ethical problem with Arghoslent, but not a visceral one, as they’re not singing about hating my ethnicity. If I were a minority, however, I can imagine that my response would be a lot less tolerant. In addition, we must consider the sliding-scale of ethics from us personally to us generally. It’s a good idea, when confronted with a moral dilemma, to ask, “what actions will satisfy our expectations of ourselves and what will satisfy our expectations of others?” For instance, it’s all well and good that I find (irrationally, as of yet) Leviathan abhorrent, but I wouldn’t hold this true for anyone who likes their music. It might satisfy me to stop listening to a band, but do I find it ethically relevant that others find my positions plausible as well? And, further, where is the line drawn between opinions that only I feel are necessary and those which I feel are necessary for the greater subculture?
That said, it is important to remember that, if metal is beholden to these prejudices, it is as large a part of who metal is as what it is. The metal subculture is, by and large, a white male subculture, and consequently the participant bands frequently get away with things that in other subcultures would be unacceptable. For instance, sexism continues to be an ongoing problem within much of modern metal (just go to Sevared Records’ website and observe), yet most female metalheads I’ve met generally do not seem offended by such vulgarity. I doubt this is because any woman metalhead wouldn’t feel offended by a song like “Fuck Her Head Off”, but rather that the masculine bravado of metal is so pervasive that contrary opinions are often dismissed as being too uptight and out of line. In the metal world, by and large, it is males who get to speak. This is not to say that no-one else does, but heavy metal by far is a male institution. Metal has become somewhat diverse culturally, as evidenced by the growth of folk metal and regional scenes worldwide, but the emphasis is still on masculinity. As noted before, many metalheads will become upset at racism and yet just stand by and bang head at the first mention of “Stripped, Raped, and Strangled”, with little to no cognitive dissonance (and this is an example from personal experience). For those who assume that this problem is simply the result of immaturity, consider the song “Dirty Gore Whore” from Autopsy’s latest album, with its central refrain of “Rape you / kill you”.
Despite throwing punches at the first accusation of racism, it would seem that most proponents of old-school death metal tend to turn a blind eye even to the most brutally misogynistic lyrics; one has barely heard anything but praise over this new Autopsy album (in other words, no intense controversy), and there hasn’t been any sort of accusation of the band members being in any way bad people. Rather, this sort of offensiveness is just business-as-usual. Yet, is this because of the institutional and often organized nature of racist groups as opposed to the pervasive yet simply attitudinal nature of sexism? And furthermore, doesn’t the fact that sexism is so easily embraced and simply skirted over when, in fact, more women are killed each year in sexual violence than minorities are in hate crimes mean that sexism in music is, due to almost ambient nature yet brutal results, more offensive than racism? Third, does the ideological backing of a particular brand of music influence the aesthetic of the music to the point that the listener becomes unwittingly complicit in the ideology, even if only the aesthetic appeals to the listener? This can be obvious in some instances: one would never accuse, say, Boyd Rice of not making his views abundantly clear through his music. However, in some instances it is less obvious. With Graveland, one has to actually think about the music in context of Rob Darken’s political stances in order to fully discern the extent of this influence. Hearing the martial beats and full-bodied masculine singing may leave a taste of Euro-centrism in one’s mouth, but it takes actually hearing the music in terms of Darken’s beliefs to put two and two together.
By the same token, when one listens to, say, “Frontsoldatten” by infamous NSBM act Grom, it’s easy to detect rhetoric in their music alone as well as in their lyrics (opening Nazi sample aside). The music is fast, abrasive, and martial, with strict cadences provoking fascist overtones vindicated by the title. Were I to listen to the music by itself, with no other indicator of its tone, I would still refer to it as being “reactionary”. Aesthetics can determine the seriousness with which ideas or lyrics are taken. However, does said aesthetic make the listener beholden to, and in effect party to, the philosophy of the band?
Reviewing Graveland, I found myself throwing out loaded terms such as “ethnocentrist” and “ubermensch” to describe the music, not because I felt any particular views on such matters, mind you, but because this was simply the response that the music imparted upon me. This could be a personal shortcoming, to be sure, but doesn’t the music at least play some part in what words we use to describe it? After all, you wouldn’t call death metal “brutal” if that was not the case; consequently, if music is either implicitly or explicitly fascist, does it tempt the listener to employ fascist imagery on a subconscious level? And again, there’s that privilege, allowing me to subconsciously justify this choice with “well, I’m not offended”. These arguments are not self-contained.
Can we ever truly separate art from artist? Frankly, I don’t have an answer. I think that, on one hand, most anywhere one looks in metal, one is bound to find something to offend sensibilities. Part of the reason we, as metal fans, gravitate so strongly towards metal that is controversial is because it not only allows us a sense of confrontation that we desire but that it allows us to vicariously live out a darker part of us that we wouldn’t ever want to actually come to bear. On the other hand, it should not be necessary to have to put up with bullshit; simply dismissing things that make me uncomfortable as being “necessary to being human” seems like a cop-out, as I imagine most of us would rather not have to constantly be confronted by things that we despise. We can separate art from artist to the extent that it allows us to enjoy the music whilst remaining clear about our ethics and conscience, but the moment that it starts to affect those (as, perhaps, Graveland did with me and my choice of words) then perhaps we must remind ourselves of what we believe and how these two concepts may not be easily reconciled.
As metalheads, I imagine most of us generally support artistic freedom whilst also not wishing to be in any way threatened or oppressed. Listening to good music that happens to be by people who seek oppression thus puts the engaged listener into a conundrum: Are some values more important here than others? Which one is the better choice, in that instance? Or can we at least recognize that the competing values are, in themselves, good, but limited and then try to determine what the nature is of the limits we perceive? It’s a fine line between pure outrage and necessary confrontation, which makes a conversation on the matter all the more important.
What do you think? Does art trump artist, or can the two never be separated? Who gets to pick and choose what is offensive within metal and what is not? Moreover, can there ever be a middle ground, or are these counterpoints incorrigible? And what happens next if we, as a community, define an answer for any of these questions?
. . .
Malevolent Creation – “They Breed”
. . .
Autopsy – “Dirty Gore Whore”
. . .
Grom – “Frontsoldatten”
. . .
The music is fast, abrasive, and martial, with strict cadences provoking fascist overtones vindicated by the title
Wait, what?
You might want to YouTube up some Authentic Period Fascist Music before going there; not so much with the “fast, abrasive”. Much more traditional, slower, not at all abrasive music, was what Fascists actually produced and promoted, characteristically.
Lots of martial, yes, but martial and fascist aren’t synonyms.
I’m not sure I buy the idea of “implicitly fascist” music (rather than lyrics, which are another matter entirely) – any more than “implicitly” anything else political, good or bad.
I can see music being implicitly or inherently “brutal” because brutality is an emotional resonance, so to speak. But fascism is not an emotional response at that level; it’s a political stance, and there isn’t actually anything that pure music can do to evoke that, unless someone else has trained the association into being*.
It can give you, say, “militaristic”, though even then it’s by training, not inherent quality. Sousa marches are equally “militaristic” in their rhythm and marching component, but not remotely “fascist”.
(* eg. look at the Nazi big band music, which is in content indistinguishable from anyone else’s – yet made specifically and intentionally to support Fascism.
From context, I know that the sample from that at the start of Current 93’s “All The Stars Are Dead Now” is meaningful, in a way that would be utterly impossible to get from the music, where it’s just a big-band sample.)
I think he just means that it’s a lot easier to associate fascism with fast, brutal, martial music. Nazis aren’t really remembered for their big band music, but they sure as hell were known for being martial, ruthless, and starting the bloodiest war in world history. I don’t think this was made clear in the article, but when you have a clearly fascist song name combined with martial beats, it’s hard not to make the connection.
Anyone named “Rhys” is obviously an asshole.
instead of dissecting the underground, think of it like this: Does listening to Judas Priest make you gay?
No?
Then fascist metal doesn’t make you fascist.
The music itself can be either a reinforcement or confirmation, but never a gateway or a premonition. Nobody listens to NSBM thinking “i never realized i agree with this”. They go to NSBM (or whatever haterock) because it speaks to them, and those views are already there (if albeit misguided, usually from loser adults surrounding them).
What is really cool is that for the most part, when the visage of hate wears off (and it almost always does by time youth goes away), these aesthetics of grand songs can be used as influenced toward more positive works that do not exclude its parties…whether its content or intent. The fear of supporting “a wolf in sheeps clothing” is only applicable when you spend a dollar towards the artists looking to profit(?!) and expand from these views, or minimally, when you say you agree with their views. And from there it’s just pointless, everything just talked about above and what i’ve stated has no meaning anyways.
thats a really stupid argument, do I want to support a gay person? yes. do I want to support a rascist? no.
That is such a non sequitur, that I don’t even know how to respond. There is a huge gulf between being sexually attracted to men and being politically fascist.
There’s a huge difference there…Halford isn’t saying “Go out and fuck other men!” in his music, it’s just metal. Granted, there are some homoerotic undertones, but it’s a far cry from NSBM bands actually telling you that Jews are inferior and deserved to die.
Funny how you call Rob “Bobby D” Darken “xenophobic” when what he really is is a plain old dumb fucking racist.
I can separate the artist from their beliefs. It just depends on the art content. I don’t care about any artists personal beliefs unless the music/book/etc. portrays the beliefs I don’t believe in. If someone is a racist but their music/lyrics have NOTHING to do with racism, I can listen to it all day long.
If TTTW were condoning rape, I woudln’t listen. To me it’s a guy who went through a hellish relationship and something may or may not have happened and he’s expressing his feelings.
I’m not a fan of much death metal, certainly not the type featured on the Skared webpage. That being said, my personal view of the misogyny and sexism which blankets a good deal of death metal tends to be dismissive: lot’s of childishness, histrionics and absurdity, which frankly makes it very easy for me to roll my eyes and ignore. It does make me wonder about the mindset of SOME of the audience (not all of them, it’s useless to make blanket statements when discussing these things). While I doubt that the average Cannibal Corpse fan thinks it’s okay to rape and brutalize women, I wonder how some people could be impacted by these sorts of things.
Honestly, I haven’t thought much about sexism in metal. Until earlier this year when Whitehead was arrested. I’m not the biggest fan of Leviathan, but I do listen to his music and I acknowledge it’s validity and importance. I have numerous albums that he’s worked on (the second Twilight record is a personal favorite) and I know that in the past several weeks I’ve played at least 2 of his albums. I have not however listened to True Traitor. A lot of this is my personal disgust with his actions leading up to the album (and the album itself). It’s not hard to discern an intense misogyny in this record: based on song titles alone, one needn’t even read his interviews recently to determine his hatred for at least one woman. So, I agree with you that personal feelings, beliefs, etc play a huge role in what a person finds acceptable and/or offensive.
In regards to racism in metal (especially black metal) I will not listen to a band if their music is inherently racist. If I had never read or seen any of the things which Varg has said which constitute racism, I would not know that the man himself is racist. This is because Burzum is not a fundamentally racist band, but rather a band created by a fundamentally racist person (there’s some rationalizing going on there yes, but sometimes things need to be overlooked/separated/deconstructed: for instance, Chuck Berry is a creep, but he made some amazing and absolutely essential music). I don’t think it’s necessary for a person to know every minute detail about a band to appreciate the music. However, if a band is intentionally racist, espouses a racist or ethnocentric view I won’t listen to them. By this I mean that the music itself is racist or built upon NS ideals. In regards to your example of the guitarist from Autopsy saying “black people, not niggers” I doubt that statement informs the music. It’s just one guy saying something stupid to a guy who is quite the jackass and I think he was preaching to the choir in that instance. I doubt he’d say something like that to Decibel or Invisible Oranges or any other high profile venue.
Conversely, I have no problem listening to music that is inherently anti-Christian. I rationalize this because Christianity, unlike race or ethnicity is ultimately a construct. It isn’t preordained or fixed like the color of one’s skin or their lineage. So I think a line can be drawn in that regard, however it is slightly hypocritical how cavalierly anti-christian rhetoric is accepted while racism is attacked.
a well thought response, but just butting in to make clear it was Malevolent Creation that dropped the n bomb, not Autopsy. I sincerely doubt anyone in Autopsy is racist, given that Danny is Latino.
This could have been an Overthinking It piece.
It’s a guilty pleasure, thats the only reason people listen to this stuff. Just like sneaking out of the house when you where a kid.
OK, I like the points you make, particularly that sexism is in fact worse than racism if you look at the potential for harm and pervasiveness in society. I hadn’t considered that. I like the way you’ve examined the whole issue. That said, it was rambling and unfocused. Two or three re-writes would have done wonders here, and having better structure (perhaps some headings to separate various points) would have helped as well. There’s a lot to think about:
1. What is the message?
2. Is the message serious, or calculated to generate controversy?
3. Is the message insidiously hidden?
4. Are the band’s identity and opinions important in themselves?
5. Under which circumstances are you “supporting” bad messages?
6. Can you appreciate music in a vacuum?
and so on.
@ Nick: I think your point about gay metal and fascist metal makes perfect sense. Frank has missed your point completely by assuming that lyrical content (as well as identity of the band) matters.
@ Rob: I’m not sure you’ve exactly stated your point. Race and ethnicity are constructs. Perhaps you could be a little clearer?
Fair point, however my opinion on religion is that it’s a choice, regardless of whether or not a person was born into said religion. The color of your skin, your ethnic makeup: these aren’t choices. Those are things ingrained into you. They can’t be changed. I don’t argue that these characteristics aren’t superficial.
Then what of Judaism, an identity which incorporates a religious faith, an ethnic identity, or both simultaenously?
I’m not trying to say “a-ha! Gotcha!”, just that it’s not always so clear-cut, and it’s salient here because it can be hard to draw the line between “hates Jews because they birthed Christianity” and “hates Jews because they actually think The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is nonfiction.”
Cliff made a good point. But another more important point is the one I’ve made several times in other discussions: That religion (or atheism) is such an important, basic aspect of a person that you should not expect them to change it. Therefore, to say that all white people are bad is just the same as it is to say that all Christians are bad; to say all white people should be killed is the same as it is to say that all Christians should be killed. It’s the particular actions proposed that’s important; the category is unimportant.
OK. To further my point of view: I don’t attack Christians. I don’t have a problem with Christians or Jews or Muslims as people. I do have a problem with Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, etc: with any and all forms of institutionalized religion (and just to be clear I think that Satanism is stupid and just as bad as Christianity). It’s not about hating the person, but rather the idea, the notion, the concept. And I agree with you that it’s stupid and pointless to attack an individual. To me that’s where the line is drawn and where racism is a much more personal sort of hatred. It tends to be about the core of a person. Hating an institution or an entity (like, let’s say the Catholic church) is a much different thing. I’m not going to get involved in a discussion about how personal religion is, I understand that. Eventually we’re just going to be splitting hairs and having an extreme difference in point of view. I just tend to have an easy time accepting anti-religious sentiment, which is why I have no qualms about inherently anti-Christian music.
I see that and understand it. But to me it raises an interesting question: Is it immoral to simply hate a person because of one of these characteristics (race, sex, religion, etc.) or all of the people who have those characteristics? Is hate in itself immoral, if you have no intention to act upon it? I would argue that it is, but that’s based on my Christian moral system. The prevailing “secular” moral system (I won’t go into the problem that idea presents) is one that allows everything as long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights. Under such a system, hate in and of itself can’t be immoral, I would think. And therefore a band which expresses hatred for all white people is morally neutral, as long as they don’t advocate any action, under such a moral view. Which makes it no worse than a band which criticizes Christianity. Please tell me if I’m wrong here, but that’s the way it seems to me.
@FMA, you consistently miss the point when it comes to criticizing christianity because you are one and an apologist for it. I have a hard time believing we live under some secular moral code considering the amount of shame and guilt our societal codes perpetuate (which are ultimately Christian in their origin).
1) despite your protestations it is eminently possible to be moral without being religious (morals existed prior to christianity and will exist when christianity goes the way of zoroastrianism or the pagan gods).
2) you consistently conflate religion (a mutable characteristic) with immutable, biological characteristics.
yes, “Hate” in and of itself is probably a neutral concept. I’m not sure what that has to do with anything, though. do you hate people who criticize your religious views? how would you feel about all this if you were not a white, hetero male?
(I’m now reading your response to me below and it’s clear that you only empathize with christians because of some blind, religious solidarity and you clearly have no empathy for people who’ve actually been oppressed and continue to live as “an other”. you have the privilege of ignoring it.)
On the other hand, it’s extremely important to hold religion accountable for the terrible things done in its name, or its use as a justification for oppression. The Taliban’s treatment of women, the Crusades, Jewish settlements in Palestine, the bombing of abortion clinics, knowledge systematically destroyed or contained by the Vatican, the eradication of indigenous customs by missionaries, the backing of California’s Proposition 8 by the Mormon Church…the list goes on. If somebody is out there saying “I want to kill all Christians”, the appropriate response is to ask why. Chances are that even (and hopefully) if it’s just rhetoric, something drove them to that extremity of expression, and yeah, chances are it’s one of the many atrocities committed in the name of God, Yahweh, Allah, etc. You don’t get to dodge that.
@ alex: I have not argued that you can’t be irreligious and moral simultaneously. What I have said is that there is no sound basis for a moral system without religion. You are right to say that morals predate religion as we know it, but that actually supports my point that morality is a natural law–an observation that can’t be explained without a religious basis.
Your distinction between religion and other basic human characteristics is a valid one, but for the purposes of discussing discrimination and hate it’s a distinction without a difference.
You’re missing the point I’ve been trying to make about hateful lyrics, so allow me to yet again rephrase it. Metal often has negative lyrical content. If you get offended by one, you have to ask yourself why another does not offend you. Hate is awful regardless of its basis. Misogyny, racism, and religious hatred are more or less moral equivalents. The only relevant distinction you can draw must be based on potential for harm or on the specific actions advocated.
@ Cliff: You can’t hold all Germans accountable for the actions of Nazi leaders.
what? of course morality can be explained without religion. that’s absurd. how about Epicurus? how about Confucianism? how about all the contemporary atheists (such as myself) who’ve developed a moral code?
I know you believe in universal morality (despite all evidence to the contrary), but there’s no such thing. Sorry. your will to believe is stronger than your capacity for self-criticism.
also, you keep equating religious criticism with religious hatred. I agree people shouldn’t be hated for their religion (which, I think, is Rob’s point), but to place anti-religious sentiment (which can be rationally and empirically defended) in the same category as anti-woman, anti-queer, anti-Nonwhite prejudice (none of which can be defended on any front) is wholly incorrect.
There is no evidence against universal morality. There are minor differences between cultures and between different people, sure. But that doesn’t change the fact that everyone essentially understands the same moral code. That is where we must diverge.
On to your second point–well, now you’ve finally made your point. Rationally defended, perhaps. Empirically? That one might need some more explanation. The fact of the matter is, however, that you can rationally and empirically defend racism and all the other -isms as well. Look up a white power web site some time. Some of them like to quote all kinds of scientific evidence. For instance, I imagine you’ll find them quoting studies that show black people have lower IQ scores. You and I might explain that evidence differently from how they would, but it proves that science is a tool that can be used in all kinds of ways, including evil ones.
I feel compelled to say I am not promoting racism or any of the other -isms. I’m only pointing out the flaws in your arguments. And I think you have every right to criticize religion. It is an idea, after all, and ideas are always subject to criticism. You have every right to criticize Christianity as much as anyone else has a right to criticize white people.
well if it’s discredited “scientific” evidence then it’s not really evidence, is it?
I’m not talking about cherry-picking to support an argument; I’m talking about sound, testable evidence. for instance, it’s been demonstrated that IQ tests only test how well you take an IQ test. same for SATs or whatever. There is no scientifically-defensible evidence for racism (or misogyny or heterosexism).
I feel like we’ve gotten drastically off track here. The original point of this article was to ask the individual listener how they deal with/justify listening to hateful/violent/misogynistic/(insert other qualifier here) music. Whether or not religion is philosophical or moral or a lifestyle, while a relevant topic, shouldn’t be the final word. I think it’s safe to say that myself and alex tend to view religion as a philosophical construct/notion. That to me is why I can find anti-christian rhetoric in music acceptable, but am offended by racism or misogyny: because it’s attacking and criticizing an idea, rather than objectifying a group of people (as sexism, racism and misogyny do). That’s my final word on the subject.
Full Metal Attorney: I respect your right to believe in Christianity and to live your life by it’s values and morals. However, I’m a tad bothered that you don’t seem to want to admit it’s also perfectly reasonable for a person to live their life bereft of those ideals (like say an atheist would). If I’m misreading or putting words into your mouth, I apologize (I came back to a lot of comments here and that’s how I read the back and forth). Ultimately, none of us are wrong, because what matters here is the individual’s point of view in regards to their own sense of what is and isn’t justifiable or permissible. It’s pretty hard to change someone’s mind, especially about religion, ESPECIALLY thru the medium that we’re using right now. Also FMA: I wonder, are you personally offended by Satanic music (like Gorgoroth or Deathspell Omega) or do you just separate the ideas from the music and enjoy (or not enjoy) it as just music?
@ Rob: You have misunderstood me, but let me just clarify. My point is that morals are universal. There are slight permutations, to be sure, but those differences can be explained by culture. And there is no other explanation for that universality of morality than to turn to religion. C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity explains it better than I can.
And as to my dealings with anti-Christian metal, you might be interested to read my posts on the topic:
http://fullmetalattorney.blogspot.com/2011/10/metal-and-christianity-part-1.html
http://fullmetalattorney.blogspot.com/2011/10/metal-and-christianity-part-2.html
For further clarification, I do think people as a rule hold moral values and can act morally on them, whether religious or not. You just can’t explain the moral system without resort to religion.
@fma: dude, you gotta chill on the whole “universal morality” thing. it’s an unsupportable statement. I get that you’re into CS Lewis and all, but unfortunately for him his ideas don’t hold up against contemporary cog-sci and neuroscience. it’s not dissimilar from Chomsky’s universal grammar, which has also been shown to be mistaken. you want to believe it, sure, but that doesn’t make it real. sometimes we have to deal with things that are messy and complicate our views of the world. a universal morality just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny— cognitively, neuroscientifically, sociologically… doesn’t matter. CS Lewis may have made it up for all I know, but it’s not a real thing.
And yes, you can explain morals without resorting to religion. the same argument applies here. (and if you really want to get into it, ask a wide swath of christians about moral codes and you’ll get a set of answers as individualized as the folks answering. morality is contingent and malleable.) I swear I’m not trying to be a dick about this, but the universe doesn’t care about how we want things to be.
@FMA- “You just can’t explain the moral system without resort to religion.”
Uhm, yes you can, with Evolutionary Biology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
http://171.67.193.20/entries/morality-biology/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOZ3Xt6ZMBA
FMA: And we end up in a circle here. We’re never going to agree on this topic, so we’ll have to agree to disagree.
This is an intense issue and one we, as a community, will probably grapple with as long as we walk the earth. That doesn’t mean we can’t draw a few lines in the sand. Here is one I’d like to draw, coming from a man with a (small, but potent)background in feminism and women’s studies.
There is a way to demonize something while portraying it. How many feminist films, novels, poems and songs portray rape? A fucking lot. Now, this is a big gray area when it comes to DM because clearly there is an element of relish to Autopsy and Cannibal Corpse’s portrayals of the act. That said, I think it’s pretty obvious that Autopsy does not condone that people take up any of the actions they portray in their music.
Look at DM portraying other acts: war, the holocaust, etc. I think it’s fair to say that while a lot of Death Metal musicians have a fascination with war, most of them do not condone war. Does Slayer really think Chemical Warfare is cool?
Point of fact, you could just as easily make the argument that DM is music about why violence is absurd, evil, and all around bad.
And why should we assume that the speaker in a song is the same person as the vocalist or lyricist? Metal is all about characters. Abbath, Oderus Urungus, the members of Slipknot… they’re all alternate selves so that musicians can express negative feelings and still go to bed sane(ish). Just because DM lacks the masks and makeup doesn’t make that any less true.
Joseph, I’m not even sure authorial intent is relevant. As it pertains to the Autopsy lyric: What is the role of the listener in that exchange? Should one feel titillation? Repulsion? From where does the enjoyment derive? Furthermore, if Autopsy (or Cannibal Corpse, or whomever) wrote songs whose lyrics “relished” in hate crimes against minorities, how many listeners would be quick to defend them? Where is the line drawn?
touche touche, my man.
It’s late at night, but here’s my gut reaction (feel free to continue via email, this is one of my favorite debates of all time):
The way I read it, Rhys’ article has an issue with the content of the art itself. What you just said is, (I think!) a critique of the listeners. I don’t know much art that comes with instructions on how to derive enjoyment from it.
Look at film for a minute: American History X has that curbstomp scene, right? If someone watched that scene over and over for the personal enjoyment of watching that man’s head get owned, does that make for an issue with the art?
This post raises an assload of questions. Not sure if I have any answers, but it sure gets the wheels turning upstairs.
All I can say personally, regarding separating art and artist: I try to approach everything case by case. If something jumps out as particularly awful, well hell, I’ll avoid it. If what little I know about the art or artist doesn’t affect my enjoyment of something, so be it: I’ll enjoy it. Everyone’s entitled to draw their own line in the sand, but it doesn’t mean your line should mean shit to anyone else. We have to make our own decisions in life, with the art we choose to consume and everything else. Trying to define what is acceptable is a might endeavor, but treating it as a generality is an exercise in futility. But… good post anyway!
Err, should read ‘mighty endeavor’ not ‘might endeavor’.
I think I can generalize about metalheads enough to say that I suspect we’re difficult to offend, given our listening habits. Metal makes its name by being loud, aggressive, abrasive (even the melodic stuff sounds that way to outsiders), and lyrically quite blunt, a lot of the time. There are ways to be a metal fan and avoid a lot of those adjectives, but it isn’t easy.
Still it’s appropriate to be offended by a metal musician’s racism, sexism, or aggression, if it a) spills over into real-life criminal acts, and/or b) spills over into the lyrical content of the music you’re listening to.
If by some stroke of luck the music and lyrics are works of art, allowing listeners to learn about themselves, society, the human condition, etc., then perhaps it can stand on its own, and people can enjoy it regardless of the person/people who made it. It’s certainly possible for a person with offensive beliefs to create real, resonant art.
I think this is a very individual decision — whether to listen to, and/or financially support, the music made by someone whose perspectives, politics, or actions are abhorrent. For the most part I try to avoid music made by these kinds of people, because I do have a hard time separating the two. Usually that’s because their perspectives do creep into the music.
@Beth W – Absolutely agree. There is a line between social perspective/commentary and being “abhorrent,” and I don’t think it is a fine line, its rather blunt.
I don’t know why – but when I was reading this I couldn’t help but think of Memphis Slim’s old blues song: “If you see Kay.”
Misogyny is a continuous theme in Blues, Rock, and therefore Metal… The only difference I see today is that under the cover of a distorted vocal you don’t have to be quite as clever.
Misogyny is a pretty continuous theme in society, too.
Re: ‘Stripped, Raped, and Strangled’. I’ve seen Cannibal a few times now, and I had a definite WTF moment when they closed out last year’s House of Blues gig with Stripped Raped and Strangled.
For whatever reason, there were an unfathomable number of women at this show (considering it was a brutal death metal show with lyrics about murdering women), easily 30% or 40% of the crowd. Cannibal’s cruising along with what Corpsegrinder announced is their last song: Hammer Smashed Face. They finish and Corpsegrinder screams “I lied. STRIPPED, RAPED, and FUCKING STRANGLED!!” The crowd flips out. Women in particular flip out. I’m standing towards the back of the room (because the pit at a Cannibal show is terror incarnate) surrounded by girls who are losing their shit, singing along to every word, dancing, hip-grinding and generally having a blast to fucking Stripped Raped and Strangled. Utterly surreal.
My best guess is that diehard fans of the band see the juvenile misogyny as a big joke, and one that they’re in on. Corpsegrinder also seems aware of the conundrum of playing women-killing songs to women, and he engages them directly several times through the night. Several songs were dedicated to ‘the ladies in the house’, and he’d play around with call-and-response, getting all the women to scream their most bloodcurdling scream. On its surface the lyrics might be horrific, but there’s some kind of unspoken understanding between the female fans and the band that I had to experience firsthand to even begin to comprehend. Strange stuff for a status quo white dude to bear witness to, never mind try to understand.
That’s a good point Wash. I’ve seen Cannibal Corpse more times than I can count over the years. Since George has joined the band he has always dedicated “F—ed With a Knife” to the ladies in the audience. And a bunch of them have usually replied enthusiastically. This has happened at every show I’ve attended, without fail.
I think people are in on the joke.
I guess I can see that. There’s part of me that laughs at “Last Caress,” too, even if the lyrics are pretty awful. They seem cartoonish. Awful, but cartoonish.
@FMA thank you for clarifying
@Frank- I was sort of rambling myself but that was my point. Support whatever you like. What they do personally does not (or at least should not) affect you. What you do however can affect them. For acts like aforementioned Graveland…I myself have never had interest because of that man’s views. There are 1000s of similar bands so there’s no need. On the other side of that (and I’m stating this as HYPOTHETICAL ONLY), if I learned that a very dead Quorthon held the same views in his lifetime, but never spoke of them…I’d be heartbroken yes. But I still love Bathory music. Like I like Chuck Berry. Like I like Mayhem and Emperor which employed convicted murderers. I just don’t wear the tshirts or share the YT links on FB, unless I know people know where I stand (and those who know me know I’m annoyingly leftist liberal).
This is an excellent topic for discussion. I’ve listened to a lot of black/death metal over the past 10 years and it has been the source of some (but not a lot of) cognitive dissonance. Here’s the way I’ve confronted the matter in my own mind:
When it comes to lyrical themes in metal (particularly death metal), I find the content, purpose, and subsequent reactions similar to that of horror/gore movies. When it’s good, attention grabbing, and holds one’s interest… it’s a good product. But when it’s being obscene and offensive just for the sake of being obscene and offensive, it stops being art and becomes trash. I can remember being a child and watching scary movies with my dad. He’d look over at me and say “remember, it’s just a movie”. I think that’s an important point to take away from this style of music. Why can a director depict (and even glorify) acts of violence on the big screen and be heralded as a true artist while a death metal band can sing about such acts and be dismissed as trash?
As a way of confronting what little cognitive dissonance this has created, for several years now I’ve held the opinion that lyrics are secondary in metal. They’re certainly not irrelevant, but I listen to the music first, and (if I like the music enough) the lyrics second. Shitty lyrics can ruin an awesome song, and great lyrics can be the icing on the cake. But when I hear Cannibal Corpse playing “Fucked With a Knife” for example, my first reaction isn’t “Oh how awful, why would they want to do that?”. My first reaction is to laugh because the theme of the song (and pretty much all of their songs) is so ridiculous in my mind that it comes across as a joke. I mean seriously… when they do a big finale at a live performance, and the singer grunts out the words FUCKED…. WITH A KNIFE!!! For me that evokes laughter not disgust. The day he is actually accused of sodomizing someone with a knife, it will stop being funny.
As for religious (or anti-religious) views, I view that in a similar light. I’m pretty tolerant of others’ religious views. But a radical anti-religious nut hell-bent on slaughtering all the Christians would probably spend his time starting a movement of sorts, not learning how to play blast-beats. Even if they are sincere about their message I say to each his own, just don’t do anything stupid.
And as for “racist-metal”, that’s just stupid. I think the quotes from the Malevolent Creation guy above might show his own ignorance and intolerance, but I don’t see that as a reason to stop listening to them. But if bigotry and hatred is a central theme in a band’s music… I don’t want anything to do with it. Even if it was awesome music instrumentally, I’d just have to shake my head and say that’s a shame…
I’ve always thought of it on a case-by-case basis too. I’m confident and secure in my own beliefs, and at this point in my life, a band – metal or otherwise – isn’t going to shape my worldview. I can consume all kinds of objectionable media without necessarily endorsing it. Watching Night and Fog doesn’t mean I approve of the Holocaust, reading Answer Me! doesn’t mean I share the Goads’ wholesale misanthropy, and listening to Burzum doesn’t mean I buy into an idea of Aryan supremacy. For me, it boils down to two questions: 1) Does giving the artist my money contribute directly to organizations I find personally objectionable? and 2) Does the degree to which the artists’ racism/sexism/homophobia/whatever is apparent interfere with my ability to enjoy the art? If I answer “yes”, then I don’t patronize it.
I tend to reject the idea of authorial intent, because it’s pretty much never clear-cut, and it’s tangled up with language/imagery specific to the author’s culture, the experience of the audience and how that influences their interpretation and all of that. It’s important to the extent that the author is accountable for using the language or images they do, rather than other language or imagery, but after that it’s pretty much anybody’s ballgame. (This assumes that the lyrics aren’t expressly didactic, which usually makes for boring and shitty music regardless of ideological leanings.) If the author really does have a specific ideological agenda, or really is a huge sexist or homophobe or whatever, it’ll show itself to a degree that becomes hard to ignore. At which point it’s not about the art, it’s about the artist.
Forbidden or controversial imagery is powerful. There’s an allure to martial music, to fascist aesthetics. It might be used for its original purpose, it might not. I tend to err on the side of freedom, the willingness to give an artist the benefit of the doubt until they prove me wrong. Denying myself controversial art out of fear that it is somehow singularly responsible for increasing the amount of hate in the world means denying myself the range of human experience and some really powerful, interesting art and music. (Not all of it, of course. Some stuff is both offensive and complete shit.)
Lastly, kudos on the piece. Could have been more concise, but I don’t think you’re overthinking anything. This is exactly the sort of serious examination of metal and metal culture that IO does well. Keep it up, and keep learning. Fuck the haters.
We have all been so desensitized to the point that there is no longer any boundaries between right and wrong.
The amount of murder/sex combined in television, movies, and video games makes everything now normal.
Writing lyrics about murder, rape, and everything else is no different than pop stars lyrics about sex, being promiscuous, etc.
Yet dumb parents who grew up on pop music and don’t know any better turn the other way when their sweet little darlings are watching Lady GaGa perform in a wardrobe made of flesh, or Beyonce performing on stage with dancers in full police riot gear, or Katy Perry on Sesame Street with her trademark cleavage(I know it was cut from the show, but what kind of mindset does that tell you the producers are in?), or any of the other pop stars thrown in our faces daily wearing barely anything at all, promoting drug use, promiscuity, advertising Love Pink on their underage daughters asses doesn’t raise any red flags.
But all the uproar is over extreme music and it’s disturbing messages.
Now would it be better to have Death Metal and all of the rest of the sub-genres with all of it’s questionable content in it’s place? No.
Unless the execs and figure a way to market raping dead corpses I can’t imagine Ryan Seacrest ending the hour with the hot new single from Cannibal Corpse. Although, the rate society is degenerating I can’t imagine that it could not happen someday.
Perfectly said, Mike!
What about the Carnivore / Type O Negative dilemma? I’ve been put off by Carnivore’s lyrics and TON’s first album.
Same for Mustaine’s post-reborn creations, all promoted with the guy’s prostituting his religion in almost every interview he’s done. I really can’t dissociate the art from the artist.
That’s why I will never be able to appreciate the ‘art’ of people like Marilyn Manson, and other ‘artists’ fueled by shock-value alone. Because when you remove the shock content, often nothing much of substance remains.
lol @ Does listening to Judas Priest make you gay?
No?
I wanted to just say I agree with the above commenters who said authorial intent is irrelevant, or at least of a secondary importance. The entire history of art criticism holds that art takes on a life of its own, in a matter of speaking, and the artist can’t dictate its meaning.
Most stuff in this category of self-questioning art I chalk up to morbid curiosity, in a nutshell. It’s why people buys paintings by John Wayne Gacy (or use them as album artwork, Acid Bath). It’s why some punk dudes are really into Skrewdriver, and claim they only dig the early material to their friends, but can sing along to every word of hail the new dawn. It’s touching that darkness from a safe vantage point. Out of this morbid curiosity someone really into black metal checks out a record by Kristallnacht because, holy fuck, they really fucking called themselves Kristallnacht?! From the recent interviews with Wrest, I seriously feel unnerved and disgusted by the way he views femininity as a whole. Whether or not he’s guilty or innocent of the crimes he stands accused for is irrelevant, and whether or not his tone was intentional to play up an angle or the way he actually feels, I can’t be sure, but it left an impression. That being said, his merits as an artist are fucking extraordinary. The Lurker of Chalice record was earth-shatteringly good and shows that Wrest loves awesome 80’s deathrock almost as much as he seems to hate women. The Leviathan output has been brilliantly varied, still can’t connect with Silhouette in Splinters, but the point towards the end of Tentacles of Whorror where it falls into 1-2-1-2 anarcho punk still gives me chills. The art is greater than the artist, for sure, but an artist with despicable qualities will garner a morbid curiosity.
Speaking of which, in this whole conversation how hasn’t GG Allin come up yet? Seeing the chick in Clockcleaner sing along on a GG Allin cover opens a whole new can of worms on this subject.
Good job promoting national socialism under the guise of social analysis. Cosmo leaves and IO becomes a national socialist safe haven under the guise of “discussion”.
I suggest the write looks up the rise of european nationalism again, including the recent serial killings in Germany because the government chose to ignore it and not publicize it, down to several countries having now extreme right-wing governments.
I’m confused… so we’re not even allowed to discuss these things now?
There are so many reasons people turn to nationalism and far-right ideology that have nothing to do with some jackass in corpsepaint and bullet belts that your objection is laughable.
The idea that such things shouldn’t be discussed is ever more laughable.
I’ve never come across a band with lyrics regarding such subjects as murder and female exploitation actually supporting murder and female exploitation. It’s a lyrical theme that falls within an imagery developed over the years. No matter how shocking or graphic, it exists for pure entertaining value, much like horror movies.
On the other hand, band such as Graveland have a strong fascist posture and support such ideology. It’s not aesthetics for aesthetics sake, there’s a clear intent in promoting racist and xenophobic views.
In the end, it really doesn’t make a difference how a band is associated with these ideologies, be it by the music they create or simply because of individual opinions within the band. If we, as a listener, are aware of it, it’s because somehow they made their views public and therefore are comfortable with it. Now it’s just a matter if you’re comfortable listening to their music. I’m not.
A few people in this thread have made this comparison, so I’m not singling you out, zé, but I’m not compelled by any argument equating film and music in this regard. Film (and literature, for that matter) is by definition a narrative medium, with character development and recognizable arcs. Even the most deplorable garbage (such as, say, The Human Centipede, coincidentally one of Autopsy’s lyrical inspirations) offers a victim and a villain, and it is the victim with whom the audience is intended to sympathize.
By its nature, music (and metal in particular) rarely deals in these narrative constructs. When Autopsy sings, “Rape you/kill you,” there is indeed a victim, but her point of view is never expressed. For additional clarity here, the complete lyrics of “Dirty Gore Whore” spell out in elaborate detail an extremely violent abduction and rape from the point of view of the rapist; the verse, in part, reads:
Blood, tears and cum covers your face
One big slash across your chest
Blood splatters from breast to breast
I’ll carve you a new fuckhole
And chain you to my toilet bowl
Won’t kill you, but you’ll wish you were dead
Keep you as my dirty gore whore instead
I recognize that violence against women is an accepted and embraced trope in metal, but I find the justifications lacking. I’m certainly not claiming that the authors of lyrics such as these are rapists, or that they are consciously condoning violence against women, but this “staged” misogyny seems especially troublesome to me, especially insofar as there is no lyricist “brave” enough to write gleefully about a lynching or gay-bashing and offer up the same defense: “It’s only entertainment.”
In that regard, it seems to me that misogyny is condoned by the metal community, and that is where the role of the listener here must be evaluated, IMO.
Thought-provoking piece and comments. I’m wondering why Autopsy is getting so much attention for “Dirty Gore Whore.” Because it’s a new song? It’s Autopsy, not Leaves’ Eyes.
This song would, of course, shock the shit out of anyone unfamiliar with death metal. But if you know the genre it seems par for the course. I can think of so many things out there that are much more offensive even to a jaded listener like me — XXX Maniak and a lot of pornogrind, for example. Should we also go after true crime books and movies like “Silence Of The Lambs”?
I have no real issues with fictional depictions of violence in metal. In some ways I think getting a lot of this stuff out of your system is cathartic. The human animal is still not far distanced from primal instinct and violence despite our many gadgets and social codes. What’s better — purging this stuff from your system or denying our inherent animal coding and hitting a boiling point?
Anything that traffics in racism is something else, entirely, because it can prompt acts of violence in the hateful and weak-minded. But if you have issues with violence metal is probably not the genre for you.
Justin, it’s emblematic of the trend — you’re quite right: it IS par for the course.
Again, I think the comparison of film/lit and music is a weak one. The disparity in complexity of storytelling is far too vast. Moreover, yes, movies and books portray acts of violence against women, but they also portray acts of violence against gays, ethnic minorities and so on.
In metal, though, violence against women is “par for the course,” whereas hate crimes against other groups remain taboo (unless we’re talking about Arghoslent or something, but that’s a whole ‘nother issue). To me, that suggests that misogyny is on some level acceptable in the metal community — because other forms of bigotry are NOT acceptable.
Also, to be clear, I too have no issue with fictional depictions of violence in metal. I’m disturbed by the fact that women are so frequently the target of said violence. I also question the distinction that “Anything that traffics in racism is something else, entirely, because it can prompt acts of violence in the hateful and weak-minded.” If you believe this, why are you so sure that anything that traffics in rape CANNOT have the same effect?
I just can’t see a bunch of sexual assaults occurring after people go to a death metal show. I can, however, see a bunch of hooligans kicking the shit out of someone they deem the “other” after an evening of listening to white power music. The fact that the latter HAS occurred bears this out, no?
just because you don’t envision them doesn’t mean they don’t happen, though. most sexual assaults go unreported to authorities (and that figure includes men who are assaulted).
rainn.org
This kind of opens the door to the debate about violence in video games, too. Do kids turn homicidal because they play Saints Row/GTA/Skyrim/whatever? Unlikely, though I suppose a few deranged, impressionable mutants might. Knowing that it could happen, should these games still exist, and should we be allowed to play them? Absolutely.
The fact that there will always be “bad people that do bad things” should not mean we censor our art or entertainment on their behalf. And frankly, I don’t think racist bands shouldn’t be allowed to do their thing either — just like we have every right not to buy their garbage and encourage others to do the same. It’s all fair.
I actually did a literature review on the effects of violent video games while in college. I posted it here: http://fullmetalattorney.blogspot.com/2006/01/effects-of-video-games-on-aggression.html. The conclusion I reached was, “even among all the hype and fear that people have about the possible link between video games and aggressive or violent behavior, there is no solid evidence showing a causal relationship.” In fact, it can reduce aggression according to some studies. However, there was evidence of increased arousal immediately following video game play. In that way, it’s a lot like metal: It can get you hyped up immediately, but it generally makes you more level-headed later on. Or at least that’s how metal affects me.
Wash, I’m afraid my original point has been mutated somewhat here. I never suggested, nor would I support, censorship of any kind. My point was: it’s alarming the degree to which violence against women is embraced in metal. Does that lead to *actual* violence against women? Probably not directly, no. However, I do think it implies a tacit approval of misogyny in the metal community. I would frankly prefer to see metal bands imagine violence against a more diverse group of fictional victims, if only because then I’d be more apt to buy the “it’s only entertainment” defense.
Again, if a death metal band wrote a song from the point of view of a Klansman or Nazi stormtrooper that glorified its protagonist’s acts as much as “Dirty Gore Whore” does, the band would be vilified and ostracized.*
Yet a song that glorifies rape goes unremarked-upon.
To be clear: NO ART SHOULD BE CENSORED. But the accepted level of “fictional” misogyny in metal — compared to the near-total void of other accepted “fictional” bigotry in metal — suggests strongly to me that misogyny has a comfortable place in our community. And anyone saying, “It’s only entertainment” is ignoring the pervasiveness of that mindset.
*(I’m discounting “Angel of Death” here, because that song is from the POV of a very particular historical figure-as-narrator; also it is an exception that strongly suggests proof of the rule.)
Yeah, I wandered off the path a bit. I was just readin’ all this good stuff, and the gears start turning, and before I know it I’m somewhere else entirely, spouting off about it. It’s been a long day at work
The exception to this, of course, is any band with a strong Juggalo following.
***
Of course gayness and fascism are completely different things. But that was kind of the point of the original argument.
There are SOME PEOPLE who believe that being gay is completely natural and not at all immoral. A person who disagrees with this notion might refrain from llistening to a gay musician’s music simply for idealogical reasons – even if the music (lyrics) is not inherently or explicitly gay.
There are SOME PEOPLE who hold fascist ideals as wholly normal and sensible. A person who disagrees with this notion might refrain from llistening to a fascist musician’s music simply for idealogical reasons – even if the music (lyrics) is not inherently or explicitly fascist.
Assuming you agree that it’s ok to be gay, and that it doesn’t make sense to not listen to a gay artist merely on account of the gayness, then, assuming you agree it’s NOT ok to be fascist, why would you nevertheless think that it’s any better to not listen to a fascist (or racist or sexist or whatever) artist merely on account of the fascism (or whatever-ism)?
First, thanks Rhys for the post. I might have to read it a few times, since I have only gotten to paragraph 4 and I’m already seeing red.
So many things to say. But let me start with right now, I would like to meet the guy from Malevolent Creation and Bill Zebub and beat the fucking shit out of both of them. I really wish I’d never clicked on that link. Let’s see them have that conversation in person with a group of “niggers” present. Let’s see how funny that conversation would be, then.
I really get tired at the amount of effort people take to defend racist assholes. “He’s a musician. He’s being satirical. He’s being funny. FREEDOM OF SPEECH.” This punk-ass motherfuckers. I’d really like to see how fucking funny they would be if they were confronted by black ( as in black people) metal fans.
To joke about slavery is not funny and should not be accepted by any rational human being as being satirical.
For the people who are trying to make a comparison between Chuck Berry and the members of Mayhem or other bands / musicians who have racist, sexist views? If I wasn’t so angry, I’d laugh. Nice try, but you are so off the fucking mark, it’s sad. Chuck Berry – I agree, a weirdo – his actions have not led to the potential harm of a mass group of people, men and women like some of the views of the musicians mentioned in the piece.
It’s hilarious, though that when I, as a Black female metal journalist have discussed avoiding various bands because of their views, I’VE been called “too sensitive” “too emotional” AND a racist. The hypocrisy that I see in these comments is astounding. You can pontificate on the merits of “the music” versus the person, but how many of you are hetero, white men? How many of you have been discriminated by someone simply because of what you look like? How many of you have been physically assaulted at a show, just for being there?
Okay, I’m fully awake now and starting to calm down. I agree with commenter Mike in the sense that , as a society we are becoming desensitized to ‘extreme’ images and views, but I just ask that some of y’all – not everyone because there are some awesome commenters on this post, think about these issues a bit more objectively. Just because it will never happen to YOU, the views and lyrical content isn’t directed at you, does not mean that it should be so easily dismissed.
I have Jewish family ties and I’ve made holocaust jokes. If I heard someone else make a holocaust joke, I’d be fine with it too as long as nothing truly hateful was tagged along with it (like, Hahhahaha that was a funny joke and now moving on to another vs hahaha yea that was funny, man fuck those jews, wish more of them had died, lol). Mel Brooks has made jokes about the Nazis and I think he’s quite good at it. And getting to slavery, Dave Chappelle and other comics have made jokes about slavery.
So, am I and all these other people horrible human beings?
you’re missing Lainad’s point so hard I wanna put my face through my desk.
And Jeff Foxworthy can make redneck jokes because he’s a redneck.
A level of awareness in Brooks’ or Chappelle’s respective work is derived (at least in part) from the ultimate knowledge that shit can happen again and they’d be (or their offspring) the victims this time. There’s a hint of absurdity in it, in that they happen to live in a time when they’re less persecuted and have the freedom to speak on a group condition. The laughter exists to shield from the horror, while simultaneously saying, “How fucking dare you people persecute us and enslave us and turn us into these lesser beings, these unhumans?”
If that never occurred to you then I pity your weak, feeble mind.
Chuck Berry – I agree, a weirdo – his actions have not led to the potential harm of a mass group of people, men and women like some of the views of the musicians mentioned in the piece.
i’m not sure you can extend much mass harm to the influence of musicians within a sub-subculture. what we’re talking about is more like dumping a bit more ambient ugliness into the atmosphere. this is simultaneously the point and downfall of “extreme” music. it’s supposed to be ugly – but everyone has a line where ugly becomes unacceptable.
that said, people calling anyone “too sensitive” is a pointless – and yes, probably privileged – dismissal of both your feelings and the larger point that even if no one is going to actually go out and cause mayhem (har har) due to some racist or misogynistic/misanthropic black metal band, either our actions mean something or everything is a big joke.
“If that never occurred to you then I pity your weak, feeble mind.”
A little unfair, as that is a pretty intelligent observation that most people wouldn’t make.
“you’re missing Lainad’s point so hard”
He was just picking up on the one thing she said. I’m not even sure exactly what her point was. It seems to be simply, “I don’t think it’s funny because it’s personal to me.” Right? I don’t know if I’m exactly in the best position to see her point of view, but as a Christian metalhead I have some idea of it. And I guess I’m just not that easily offended.
But if she is offended by it, that’s her right. And it’s her right to explain why she doesn’t think we should accept it. It’s also our right to accept or reject her arguments for whatever reason we wish. But to me, personally, I’m just not going to care that much what someone is growling/rasping/screaming unintelligibly in a song, especially if it’s clearly meant as pulp (as most death metal is).
you’re easily offended when it comes to people criticizing your religious views.
of course, at any time you can change your religious views. just as in I could stop being vegetarian or stop being confrontational about social issues (I won’t, but that’s a different story). one cannot change their genetic makeup. and therein lies the difference.
You’re attributing emotions to me that I don’t have nor have I expressed. I’ve not been offended. I’ve merely explained my positions.
I see the difference between religion and race. I’m not stupid, and I think I’ve made myself pretty clear. Yes, religion can be changed. But it’s a stupid distinction to make, practically speaking. You shouldn’t be expected to change your vegetarianism or your outspokenness on social issues either, as I suspect they are based on deep conviction. Oppression on either of those bases is just as bad as, and morally equivalent to, oppression based on race. As I said above, it’s a distinction without a difference.
they’re not based on conviction, they’re based on reason, empiricism and experience. I don’t do them blindly because I hope and pray they’re right.
There you go again drawing distinctions of questionable validity. It’s a conviction, whatever it’s based on. And my own convictions are also based on reason, empiricism, and experience, however much you might draw different conclusions from the same evidence. I’m going to conclude my participation in this particular discussion with you, because we simply don’t see eye-to-eye and I’ve already wasted too much time on it, but feel free to engage me in later discussion down the road.
@Alex – My larger point is that the statemet “to joke about slavery is not funny and should not be accepted by any rational human being as being satirical” is stupid. Ask any decent comedian and they’ll tell you that nothing should be off the table in terms of making a joke. It sounds like you and Lainad are espousing the banning of anything that could be deemed offensive, which is some pretty fucked up Orwellian thought crime.
(Can you even get through an episode of South Park?)
I can get through South Park. it’s often funny (though it’s been a while since I watched it).
I will apologize given that I apparently missed your point, but to be fair, your point isn’t clear in how you stated it. The comedians you listed are a far different animal than the type of bigoted “jokes” that one generally hears from people who aren’t talented, professional comedians. Also, as far as I recall in South Park, Parker & Stone don’t make racist jokes or anything like that (and if they do, it’s to lampoon the practice).
I’m not in favor of banning anything. I would, however, point to the Michael Richards fiasco as a cautionary tale.
“To joke about slavery is not funny and should not be accepted by any rational human being as being satirical. ”
Nothing should be exempt from having jokes made about it. Nothing.
totally agree that everything should be fair game.
but it does matter who is making the joke and whether or not the “joke” is actually funny (as opposed to being a malicious, derogatory dig to denigrate).
Mel Brooks & Dave Chappelle are funny. Larry the Cable guy, on the other hand, is not.
I tested this theory once. I told an online collective of metalheads that I wanted to form a Christian War Metal band. A band that would espouse a.) the total destruction of all Satanic rock music, by any means necessary and b.) the total destruction of the Christianist mainstreaming that undermined orthodox Christian practice in the United States.
The band was to be called The Ancient of Days and the album, “Revoking the Covenant.” Lyrically, although it would be New Testament heresy, most songs would revolve around the concept of “Just War” to rationalize the Crusades-like slaughter (figurative? literal?) of bands like Watain, etc.
This was found to be horribly, horribly, unacceptably offensive. A line not to be crossed. “Dude, that is so fucking NOT funny. If you were here in person, I would kick the living motherfucking shit out of you for saying that. Uncool.”
I found that quite interesting.
that is interesting, because it’s absolutely hysterical. was there any common thread to the offense(s) taken?
Well, the first set of objections revolved around how absurd it was. That it was stupid because Christianity was supposed to be about love and forgiveness and that was just insane to base a band’s concept on something that was so paradoxical and illogical.
I pointed out that Christianity actually had the BEST historical documentation for actually practicing War and Magic in the real world, and for that very reason made even MORE sense to build a band concept around, as not only was it immeasurably fantastical but also more accurately reflected the horrors of the real world.
It was at that point that I was universally told that I was, “fucked up” and that it wasn’t cool. At all.
of course, at any time you can change your religious views. just as in I could stop being vegetarian or stop being confrontational about social issues (I won’t, but that’s a different story). one cannot change their genetic makeup. and therein lies the difference.
i really don’t think you can separate culture from genetics with such a bright line. to use an example from the above, attacks on religious minorities aren’t necessarily based in genetics, but they’re still based in something that’s not easily discarded.
fair point, and I might agree to an extent.
however, religious views can be discarded or altered. they can also be criticized and shown to be wrong, misguided, etc.
quoting seems kinda screwed up, or i screwed up,
however, religious views can be discarded or altered. they can also be criticized and shown to be wrong, misguided, etc.
if the difficulty in changing something is the measure of the, for lack of a better term, the depravity of a strain of bigotry, then privileging language would rate higher than cultural practices, and both would rate higher than, say, sexual orientation or gender expression. people can, after all, live in the closet, or otherwise bend their sense of self in a number of unpleasant ways. it’s much harder to stop being part of an ethnic group, and even harder to stop using the language one was raised with.
black metal is unusual among musical genres for having a very strong anti-religious bent. and it’s often expressed in ways that are deeply bigoted. being neither religious nor an atheist, i get a giggle out of the moribund cult auto email reply:
“Find information on your recent order. Thank you for supporting the downfall of christ. Hail Satan!!”
obviously i would get less of a kick out of it if it had “downfall of mohammed” or “downfall of the jews” or “downfall of the black race” in there, because anti-christian expressions are normalized within this particular subculture.
i find it cute, because i see it as toothless and juvenile. it’s like corpsepaint or naming yourself after a character from some book about wizards. but i would find it less cute aimed at the glbt community, even though it would still remain toothless and juvenile in terms of actual impact on the target group.
whether that means i suck, or that people compartmentalize bigotry, or some combination of the above, i dunno.
This piece is a contender for the dumbest fucking thing I’ve ever read…akin to the incoherent ramblings of a backwater community college professor, who trial ballooned his ramblings on his ever-loving mother in whose basement he dwells…total waste of time…I enjoyed Cosmo’s thoughtful views on music even when I disagreed with him, but this shit is better left unsaid.
R.I.P. Invisible Oranges
fuck you and good riddance, you inveterate troll.
while the new staff needs to beef up its editing chops, this is one of the most thoughtful, constructive and necessary pieces I’ve seen on IO.
why is this better left unsaid? does it offend you when the metal world gets called on its shit?
Actual professor here, saying that you’re full of shit.
You’re a prof, and I am an inter-galactic chancellor…only on the interwebz…lmfao…as for Alex C, there was a time when this site didn’t need trolls to defend its content…first, the know nothings @ Metal Sucks skewers an editor, and now there’s an in-house troll lashing out at critics of a column that reads like a clusterfuck of loose ends…what a fucking disaster.
I’ve been “trolling” this site for a while, dickhead. why don’t you take a deep breath, count to ten, and pull your head out of your own ass.
or, alternately, provide a coherent response to what you consider a “clusterfuck”. if you can’t, then you’re just whingeing like a sad little fuckface who leads a shitty, uninteresting life.
this article has brought about a great and necessary discussion. cheers to the folks who want to be a part of it, even if we may disagree. the folks who think the discussion is unnecessary or an imposition can fuck right off.
Great article!
I believe you can never separate art from artist. No matter how abstract or representational, art (in the model of the universe I have constructed so far) is an expression of the subconcious. Even if you take a photograph, the framing and the contents will tell much more about the artist than meets the eye. Our brain emits waves just like radio waves or sound waves, and I believe that when we make any kind of art we transfer our vibrations into just like grooves get cut into a record. The aesthetics are a direct result of the mental state of the artist when he creates the art. When someone else views our art, they aren’t just viewing the aesthetic, they are picking up our subliminal mental energy just like a needle vibrates on a record. The human brain is a powerful thing, and I think when we listen to music, or watch a movie, or look at a painting, or even read an article, we pick up on way more stimuli than we register aesthetically. We can probably even make semi-accurate statements about the artist’s mindset without knowing any facts about their life of the context in which the art was created. If Graveland is an expression of ill-will, than perhaps that rubs off on us and causes us to make negative reactionary statements to the aesthetics. With a one man band it’s a lot easier to detect intent because it’s not multiple different vastly different personas interacting in a complex web, like in a band situation.
This is just my opinion, and it probably sounds like new-age hoo-hah.
Also, the last sentence of the big paragraph is hilariously bad. Disregard that.
I just don’t give a fuck
An army of bands like Graveland couldn’t equal the power of a single Bad Brains song.
…Bad Brains being highly homophobic fundamentalist Rastafarians (“burn in Hell bloodclot faggots” being one of H.R.’s preferred insults). Not saying their music is bad or that I dislike it, just that, if the implication was that NS bands are inherently inferior to non-racist bands, Bad Brains might not be the best example for a band that represents diversity or tolerance.
Exactly what I was thinking. Couldn’t tell what kind of point he was trying to make there.
@BSM — Apparently a bad one. Totally spaced on their homophobic rants. I’m going to eat a large serving of crow.
Still a great band.
I’m willing to listen to artists whosebeliefs I don’t agree with, but when they act on these beliefs or they make their way into the lyrics I lose interest. I would listen to a band who’s members are racists, but not a band with racist lyrics or a band whose member’s had commited hate crimes
this might be the most vocal comment section ever on here. if only Helm would make his grand return we could take this thing TO THE MOON.
I think the Graveland article hit 101 comments, but it wasn’t so many well-though-out comments from so many people. And this one’s still got some life left.
Whatever happened to Helm? Did he leave with Cosmo or something?
Sorry, wasn’t aware he posted below…
Going back more towards the original point of thus article, I do have a problem with the violent misogyny in metal. A lot of brutal death metal bands like Devourment were ruined for me by the lyrics. I understand the “we’re not being serious” argument but it’s always been unnerving to me how accepted misogyny is in death metal.
You brought up a lot of interesting points. I do think that purchasing an album, or wearing the merchandise of, an artist implicitly expresses a support for any beliefs that artist is actively promoting. I’m still on the fence with regards to piracy.
Walsh, I’m afraid I’ve been kindly requested to not comment on IO for some time now by Cosmo and I do not consider the change of managment a withdrawal of that request. So my thoughts on this topic are irrelevant. However I’ll take this opportunity to thank mr. Williams for the thought provoking article and all the commentators below for the food for thought.
Ah, well. For what it’s worth, I always enjoyed your comments.
I appreciate it and feel similarily towards your comments. If you want, you might search for a post named ‘Totalitarianism in Heavy Metal’ in my metal-related blog, which you can visit by clicking on my nom de plume.
Listening to music about raping women, consuming human flesh, hating Jews, or anything else that could be branded “offensive” is certainly morally ambiguous ground. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be having this conversation to begin with. “Morally ambiguous”, however, most certainly does NOT mean “morally repugnant.” I don’t rape women. I don’t consume human flesh. I don’t hate Jews (nor have I ever listened to any Jew-hating music that didn’t suck, but that’s beside the point). At the end of the day I just don’t care what the music is about or who the artists are deep down inside. To me metal is all about pure anger and fearlessly confronting our own id, with a healthy dose of fantasy tossed in to make the experience more fun. My ethics, my politics, and my other word-views have very little effect on my overall enjoyment. Granted I tend garner a little extra enjoyment listening to groups who espouse my own beliefs — such as Origin, for instance. But at the end of the day my goal is to listen to intense music, not a political statement.
Here’s a fine comparison; I still watch Mel Gibson movies. The man is racist, sexist, and dangerously insane in a lot of ways, but guess what? Braveheart is still a cool movie. Same thing with the Lethal Weapon series, The Patriot, and numerous other films. The man is a good actor who decent taste in the roles he takes. Would I spend 5 minutes with him? FUCK NO!!! But that has absolutely no bearing on my choice of entertainment.
I think the question here is, would you watch Mel Gibson in a movie called, say, “Jew Hunter 2: The Wife Beating”? It’s kind of like Buruzm songs empowering paganism(a negative person making relatively positive music) versus Arghoslent making the songs they make (morally negative people making morally negative music). Then, of course, there’s people who don’t really believe in what they’re saying, but say it for shock value (most misogynist brutal death metal). What I’m saying is, for a lot of people, it matters who makes what with what intentions.
First of all I want to say that all that you wrote here was very interesting and I enjoyed it a lot to read such smart ideas.
In my opinion what makes people to be more defensive towards the NS Black Metal is that while Cannibal Corpse would never “Fuck with a Knife” a girl, or Behemoth are not sending “Christians to the Lions” or Rhapsody are not killing dragons and fighting orcs,the NS Black Metal bands really think that they should do what they said in their lyrics. To me, listening to Hammered smashed face is a way of letting my anger out in a positive way, the aggressiveness of the lyrics are used to express that and after listening to that music I fell more relaxed and free cause I take that out of my system.
With the racist music you are told to kill or hate one specif kind of people that for a absolutely stupid reason is inferior, that of course is bullshit because if we want that stuff we would be listening to modern hip-hop or pop music that is constantly telling us that the people with less economical resources or that doesn’t wear a brand of shoes is worthless.
Metal is about freedom, to get free of christianism not by killing the christians but by changing their minds with facts like I and maybe you did to got rid of the christianity. In that aspect it crash with all the metal ideology, cause in my experience I listen to metal cause it understands me and it’s like a shelter, if it would be talking about killing my race or destroying my country cause I don’t have blue eyes they can go and fuck themselves even if it’s metal or whatever genre
Everyone hates everyone, from the first time a caveman hit another caveman on the head with a rock and others whooped and cheered, through to emo bashing in south america, hate is popular. I don’t hate anybody, to much of a waste of energy, I pity a few people though (in a sneering, cupping my own farts and smelling them way) can’t wait for the next Meads lp.
Very thought provoking article, not formatted as well as I would like, but very thought provoking, which is what the author, Rhys, set out to do. Bravo sir.
Cosmo asked Helm not to comment on this site?!?
Pretty screwed up.
That’s so, uh, un cosmo. Guess that big tent aint that big.
This is the sort of article that started me reading IO back in the Cosmo days; long may it continue.
And mostly good discussion – IOers are not your average internet peanut gallery.
Loved this article. Exactly why I come to IO. Great, though provoking stuff on a subject I love.
I’m glad this article was posted as it addresses a controversial issue. For the BEST and most accurate answer to the author’s questions, take the following steps:
1. Meditate for at least 5 minutes. This is important. Notice the content AND movement of your mind.
2. THEN, put on a metal record, find a seat where you can be relaxed and attentive.
3. LISTEN.
4. Meditate again and then ask yourself: Did this music change the content and movement of my mind positively or negatively? Does this music compell me take positive or negative action (religiously, politically, socially, etc…)?
The answer is obviously a personal and subjective one, but doing this will eliminate any need to get all metaphysical about the issue. Plus you won’t have to waste a bunch of time reading what other people think. Including myself
Enjoy art. Enjoy life.
The problem here, as always, is liberalism.
Liberalism has demonized honest nationalism, or the desire to have one’s own people ruled by an ethnic-cultural entity instead of a managerial state.
As a result, you get ongoing racial antagonism — brought on by diversity, which in any form (race, ethnicity, religion, values, culture and even class) produces divisive communities that eventually fragment — which becomes racism, or the substitute for honest nationalism.
If liberals in metal had any brains (they don’t) they would stop demonizing nationalism, which before the rising tide of liberalism from 1789-2009 was the dominant force in world politics, and allow it to take over and purge racism from our lives.
Of course, that does not mean that every person is welcome every where at every time. Some of us will prefer to live among the people most like us, for a number of reasons, the first being that identitarian societies are the most stable, the least divisive, and the most conducive to retaining positive genetic traits.
That’s fine. The world has always had places for mixed-race societies, however, they’re all in the third world. If you look at places like Brazil, Mexico, Iraq, and the former Soviet republics, you can find plenty of areas that accept liberal ideologies and the corresponding manic need for “equality” including ethnically-mixed societies.
The rest of us, who have read history and realized that diversity of any form is a society-wrecker much like liberalism is, are not insistent on equality. We would rather just rise above than have society force others to approve of us and treat us as equals just because we’re human.
As world liberalism reveals that it, indeed, is merely a shadow pawn for globalism, more people are dropping out of the politically correct mentality. These people are interested in honest nationalism, not racism, and to demonize them is to eliminate some of the best people of earth from your potential friend group.
Well then let’s continue to demonize them profusely and let’s give them hell!
Brett, you will never change the West on silly blogs and such. Your idea of pan-nationalism is retarded. Please die.
I do not believe Brett Stevens and “Vijay Prozak” are the same person, “Vijay” exhibits clear homicidal tendencieshe lacks the balls to act on and is much more reactive, resorting to censorship if you continue to articulate yourself intelligently despite the replies of “fuck off faggot” and thus back him into a corner. Brett does not, so unless “Vijay” is schizophrenic and spends much more time spitting out blog entries from his various personalities than originally thought, actually that does kinda sound plausible now…
That is very plausible and this is article is quite damn good.
Prozak,
There is no such entity as “world liberalism”.
Sincerely,
Mr. Outis
I know I am late to this post but I feel compelled to comment. Recently, Craig Pillard of Disma was publicly outed as a Nazi-sympathizer who had released racist music under a pseudonym. Those of us around the NY/NJ DM scene have known that Craig was a racist since way back in Incantation — he has an SS tattoo visibly displayed on his elbow after all. When the uproar occurred, various members of Disma other than Craig responded saying he’d put his past behind him and that Disma is an apolitical band, which is true. However, Craig himself has never gone on record as to his current beliefs so despite my enjoyment of Disma, I cannot continue to listen to them or Malevolent Creation or any other band that openly harbors racist members, particularly those with Nazi sympathies. Why? Because, as a first-generation German-American whose family was decimated by WWII, the very idea is abhorrent to me. There is a slippery slope that runs from ignorance to prejudice to racism to systemized discrimination to outright destruction and the history of Germany in the 20th Century typifies that.
Sure, metal in general is a micro-niche, one based in extremes of musical and lyrical content, one where the border between what is art and what is authentic is often blurred. It’s easy for bands to say that the racism/sexism/misogyny/homophobia/etc in their music is “not serious” or “artistic” or “taken out of context” but that too is slippery slope.
I do not believe in censorship or the limiting of artistic expression. Nor do I believe that racism, misogyny, or homophobia should go unconfronted. Each person can and should make their own determinations as to the limits of what they find acceptable but it is ignorance to assume that repeated acceptance of songs condoning rape don’t add to the endemic problem of misogyny in our culture.
There is also a huge difference between Chuck Berry and Burzum. That, frankly, is a ludicrous comparison.
I’ve been called out on occasion for my enjoyment of Miles Davis (a known wife-beater) and Beethoven (a child abuser and all-around asshole) but neither of them wrote music with lyrics reveling in or condoning those behaviors.
Lyrical content certainly matters, even for Slayer. I can accept that ‘Angel of Death’ takes a “documentarian approach” (according to Jeff Hanneman) but it is no surprise that such an approach is lost on certain segments of their fanbase. I stand with Slayer but not with those fans and bristle when others try to justify these outcomes.