Impure Metal: How Underground Heavy Metal Became Mainstream Heavy Music

[Jim LotFP]

Dave Burns' LotFP debut is up. I consider this a major deal for LotFP. I hope you agree.

Read it online in html format here.

Download it or read it in pdf format here.

... and come back here to discuss it.

[Occam's Razor]

This is huge! The amount of real and valuable info given here surpasses everything metal-related I have read since long (if not ever since).
However, I foubt that many people will do themselves a favour and read it in its entirety. If this was just a "snippet" - what about the whole thing? The research preceding this must have been enormous...and this from a person that obviously does not make a living with his writing: people with a job in the music media calling themselves journalists: this is journalism, my friends!

Hats off to Mr Burns - you should get a publisher for a book deal, I am going to translate this into German, Jim into Finnish, so you can start the crusade for the truth from two places where metal has gone wrong in many respects...

This contains things that should concern music writers and critics in general. Transfer this to other subcultures or the literture scene. There are many parallels.

[Jim LotFP]

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

Hats off to Mr Burns - you should get a publisher for a book deal

I'd love to see the reviews if this was turned into a 'real' book from a 'real' publisher. The metal press would trash it because it trashes them. Who else would touch it? Academics? Wouldn't they write a full review as soon as they see the words 'heavy metal' without reading anything? Or am I just making gross assumptions there? What about the 'alternative' press that's so lovingly described?

I'm suddenly sad for all of the valuable, informative, critical work we don't have because people don't pursue it in their spare time.

Self publishing is the way to go (www.lulu.com is how I plan to do my book), but publicity will be a problem.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

Jim into Finnish

hah. Talk to me in 2015...

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

people with a job in the music media calling themselves journalists: this is journalism, my friends!

If somebody can give me a nice slick 'press release' (*giggle*), I'll submit it to Blabbermouth and try to get this article's release mentioned as news. It's times like this I regret telling Borivoj that he's a boring writer with shitty taste.

[Occam's Razor]

Originally Posted by Jim LotFP

the words 'heavy meta'

was that a misprint? - Brilliant actually, because this is not only "metal journalism", but also "meta metal" and "meta journalism", because in this article, metal journalism reflects itself, both metal and journalism...

I want to read that at blabbermouth, but who could sneak this in?

With publishing, I had Iron Pages in Germany in mind. They have released all those encyclopaedias (NWoBHM, US Metal, Eastern European Metal,...), biographies (Lemmy), as well as some other things in German. I applied for translator in their house once, but they are lacking new projects...

Anyway, is the article now okayed and ready to be plugged elsewhere?

[Jim LotFP]

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

was that a misprint? - Brilliant actually, because this is not only "metal journalism", but also "meta metal" and "meta journalism", because in this article, metal journalism reflects itself, both metal and journalism...

heh. Yes it was.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

I want to read that at blabbermouth, but who could sneak this in?

I'm going ask a few people if they can submit it for me (mainly because it's not me that wrote it, I'd feel weird bothering other people about plugging my stuff to somebody else) that hasn't bashed Borivoj in print. Not that I know if he even remembers my name, but still...

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

With publishing, I had Iron Pages in Germany in mind. They have released all those encyclopaedias (NWoBHM, US Metal, Eastern European Metal,...), biographies (Lemmy), as well as some other things in German. I applied for translator in their house once, but they are lacking new projects...

I have that NWOBH encyclopedia. Insane.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

Anyway, is the article now okayed and ready to be plugged elsewhere?

Oh, yeah.

[Occam's Razor]

I'm on my way to plug it...but tomorrow morning *yawn*

...bedtime now...

[Jim LotFP]

We're getting hits from the Miskatonic board now... it would be nice if I wasn't BANNED from even looking at what was being said.

[BenMech]

Having read through the 45 page pdf, the words "Slight", "Superficial" and "Outdated" flash across my mind.

So: Terrorizer, a UK publication, is trend oriented? Gosh, whoda thunk?
Roadrunner is corrupt and trend oriented? Gosh, whoda thunk?
Metallica as trendriders, hypocrites? Whoda thunk?
Megadeth, Slayer and Anthrax as vague rogues who HAD money once? Whoda thunk?
non metalheads using "metal" for irony? Whoda thunk?


Seriously Dave, why did you bother writing this obvious stuff, digging only at the low level minds?

[Jim LotFP]

Originally Posted by BenMech

So: Terrorizer, a UK publication, is trend oriented? Gosh, whoda thunk?

Why does it matter if Terrorizer is based in the UK?

Originally Posted by BenMech

Roadrunner is corrupt and trend oriented? Gosh, whoda thunk

Not heavy metal mags like BW&BK apparently, who put that Roadrunner United thing, not an artist, on the cover of #93.

Originally Posted by BenMech

Metallica as trendriders, hypocrites? Whoda thunk?

In establishing the particulars of that early, the article demonstrates how behaving like Metallica is now standard and unnoticed behavior for just about everyone now.

Originally Posted by BenMech

non metalheads using "metal" for irony? Whoda thunk?

... a great many people seeing *metal* rise in popularity thinking it's a sincere commercial trend.

[Occam's Razor]

Even though some of this is obvious, it needs to be pointed out as a basis. Furthermore, things that are so obvious are often not seen - remember "The Purloined Letter"?

Anyway, especial the intrduction with the historical connection was interesting. It also made me aware of the fact that the bands usually frowned at nowadays like Sabbath (blame the Ozz...) or Tankard (they are a fun band, but the music was never irrelevant) were and are still more metal in this original sense than lots of newbies and Schmiers that have ducked out of metal for years and come back now beating their "steel"-chests...

[DBB]

Originally Posted by BenMech

Seriously Dave, why did you bother writing this obvious stuff, digging only at the low level minds?

I don't claim to be anything more than a simple man, so that should serve as your answer.

I also wanted to add this note here after thinking it over a bit:

I just wanted to add a brief note that did not come through in the text. I do not think that Advance and Vanquish is an atrocious album across the board. It is way too long and is like bubble gum—the flavor is strong and tasty to begin with but becomes flat and course after repeated chewings over time. Almost all the songs begin to sound too much alike due to the healthy dollops of metalcore ladled into the mix. Two or three of the songs remain solid tunes and at an Overkill show an old schooler came up to me and asked who they were when “Deadly Sinners” was playing over the PA because they did remind him of something he heard way back when—so they do manage to get the sound right on occasion. But they represent a disturbing trend where metal values are being turned into something to package and present as marketing hooks devoid of any meaning.

If the band would have merely released their music without all the erroneous fluff in the bio about crushing the scene from which they emerged and spent their formative years in and channeling the spirit of the bands that were dropped by Roadrunner a long time ago while remaining within the scene for all intents and purposes it would not be something disturbing—if the band or the label is responsible for this who knows? It is something that is quickly becoming common practice. There was a section dropped from the article due to time constraints about Chimaira being presented as true metal in Revolver and what true metal ended up being was Pantera. It is almost as if there is an orchestrated campaign beyond Terrorizer to redefine what constitutes classic, true and heavy metal and the PR behind 3 inches of blood is part of this fragmentary process that may or may not be a wider move towards a “new” scene that replaces one already in existence and creating excellent heavy metal and existing under the radar of the press for the most part.

Anyway, to denigrate Goat Horn as raping the past and utilizing “retro-thrashers” to tar the band as inauthentic opportunists (which is what the term retro-thrash signifies to significant contingent of critics) and give 3 Inches of Blood a free pass because they incorporate some metalcore into their sound is insanity and reveals how precarious of a ground heavy metal inhabits in today’s “extreme” scene and how the forward-looking, ground breaking ethos has a great deal of contempt for trend-free heavy metal.

I'll be back soon--for more "low level" conversation soon.

[BenMech]

some points:

A) Bands don't write press releases. But they are requested to read the scripts for continuity.

B) The "life was better back in the 80s" shtick gets old FAST, kill it, NOW.

C) Goat Horn is rather obscure anyway. As was Early Man. The casual metalhead couldn't be bothered to care.

[Occam's Razor]

Three Inches Of Blood are a caricature - it is so exaggerated...just like Dragonforce, only in a different way. They stylise metal and all its stereotypes so it jumps into your face in an unpleasant way. They might stand behind it with a metal attitude as much as they want, but I think the mark is overshot when you boil it all down to the music and realize it to be a poor rendition of what made the old bands great. Repka cover? - who cares? Spikes and leather? - We have had that before... whatever-core musicians allegedly resocialized into metal? - maybe this is for naive die-hard metalheads that see part of their wish to convert "unbelievers" through metal confirmed.

[Jim LotFP]

Originally Posted by BenMech

C) Goat Horn is rather obscure anyway. As was Early Man. The casual metalhead couldn't be bothered to care.

I'm sure the casual metalhead in the late 80s/early 90s couldn't be bothered to care either...

[Occam's Razor]

I plugged Dave's thing on various German boards - people like it for the most part, especially at RH-forum, they think it's good somebody pisses on Three Inches Of Blood, because they are a fave of some RH-staffers.

[Occam's Razor]

...and then there are people that call Dave a whiny bastard how gives questionable definitions of "underground"...guess that is because the Nazis are mentioned - that is when many of my country-fellows just switch off because they can't or don't want to deal with it for whatever reasons.

So Mr Burns: you are whiny!

[DBB]

Originally Posted by BenMech

C) Goat Horn is rather obscure anyway. As was Early Man. The casual metalhead couldn't be bothered to care.

This is petty…but if you insist…

Early Man - Ads in most of the major metal mags a few months ago when the album was initially released. Top 20 2005 album in Revolver (150K circulation) Currently on a cross-country tour of US sponsored by Decibel (25K circulation) Probably an upcoming feature in Metal Maniacs (55K circulation) (appeared in the playlist of three writers in most recent issue). But as a former employee of Metal Maniacs pointed out, these circulation numbers are most likely (Metal Maniacs’ numbers were at one point at least) inflated to keep advertisers’ breath baited. It does not seem to me that the band is flying under the radar. Of course, there are people who could care less about what is presented in the major mags because they are above worrying about them—but I am obviously not one of them.

As for Goat Horn, the obscurity charge is not one I am going to argue, but the band is going to be popping up all over the place soon. I did not use my obscurity meter on the article though, so there may be other cases where something was not prominent enough for your liking.

Originally Posted by BenMech

B) The "life was better back in the 80s" shtick gets old FAST, kill it, NOW.

I believe that the best days of heavy metal are ahead, whether bands will be around to make music is another matter. That was the point of the article—not that everything was better back in the olden days, just some things.

Originally Posted by BenMech

Having read through the 45 page pdf, the words "Slight", "Superficial" and "Outdated" flash across my mind.

This is beginning to sound like a compliment.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

So Mr Burns: you are whiny!

Yes, yes. That is to be expected. Somebody somewhere is probably saying that I need to get laid or that I am jealous. At this point, if I never write another word about metal, it will be no skin off of my back. I never thought about the Germans getting touchy about the underground definition section…ah well. Also, thanks for the comments and enthusiasm above.

[Occam's Razor]

The general feeling on the RH-board now is that people are not interested in true/untrue and listen to bands as long as they like the music. I reproached them of mere consumerism and got some pretty harsh words from somebody whom I assume to be the editor. Too bad they had a huge Roadrunner Special and label sampler a few issues ago... Monte C. is the holy cow even in Germany, obviously.

They did not understand that you were not so much criticising the bands but rather the machinery behind them.




News of the blabber-day: "CoB-frontman breaks toe - vows to carry on"

Let us pray he does not break that vow, too...

[Jim LotFP]

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

The general feeling on the RH-board now is that people are not interested in true/untrue and listen to bands as long as they like the music.

... "I like false metal!"

[Occam's Razor]

Wasn't it Chuck S. who coined the term "real metal" instead of "true"?

[Jim LotFP]

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

Wasn't it Chuck S. who coined the term "real metal" instead of "true"?

Didn't Chuck also claim that Cynic was not metal and that they were confused people? Or was he talking about Atheist?

*shrug*

[Occam's Razor]

That's another good point: Some of the things I listen to ARE not metal in an original sense (if that exists), but I like them - like Tool or big band jazz, but I would never claim that to be metal...just judging from the music. Then you have things that are musically swerving from metal, but close to it concerning "attitude" (we had that discussion going about Comus).

Problem is: the concrete definition of that wobbly thing called metal.

Another problem rising from the variety of preferences: people wanting to sneak bands into metal that are not, but they want them to be because they like them and need to justify that in front of their metal-friends. That's also where a lot of that "cross-dressing" comes from Dave refers to.

After all - is it still necessary to make up these drawers for different styles of music. Does it take the quality from real metal if it is not named that way?

[Jim LotFP]

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

Problem is: the concrete definition of that wobbly thing called metal.

Notice I never gave a musical description for heavy metal in Scum.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

Another problem rising from the variety of preferences: people wanting to sneak bands into metal that are not, but they want them to be because they like them and need to justify that in front of their metal-friends. That's also where a lot of that "cross-dressing" comes from Dave refers to.

Well, take Sculptured. Elements of heavy metal, but they play with it and crash it around a bit (did you ever hear their cover of the song Iron Maiden?).

Hammers of Misfortune seem to weave in and out of heavy metal within a song, have songs which are totally metal, and then have songs which have nothing to do with heavy metal. Kayo Dot, who knows what to call that.

How about Arcturus? Is Sideshow Symphonies really heavy metal? What about Aspera Hiems Symfonia? What about Alone and Chaos Path off of La Masquerade Infernale? But the band did that Disguised Masters crap.

... then there's the ridiculous situation of death metal creating a scene where Iron Maiden is a "glam band", "death metal" is just a "jogging suit scene" according to the old black metal elite...

The problem is, comparing dick sizes to decide who is really metal and who is more metal than the next guy is ridiculous and I think it would kill heavy metal as an art form if it couldn't grow.

I don't know what the answer is, but you can usually tell who is in it for the music and who is in it for the trappings of success (even if just on an "underground" level).

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

After all - is it still necessary to make up these drawers for different styles of music. Does it take the quality from real metal if it is not named that way?

It takes the ease away from marketing music.

[DBB]

Originally Posted by Jim LotFP

I don't know what the answer is, but you can usually tell who is in it for the music and who is in it for the trappings of success (even if just on an "underground" level).

I thought about having a section where I talked about what I meant by the word heavy metal and metal and quickly gave up on that idea and went down the road I did, because I know what I think it is (this probably came out in the article anyway to a certain extent), but could not craft a definition comprehensive and flexible enough to cover my backside. Reminds me of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's quote from a famous case about "hard-core pornography" in 1964:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

edit: One thing that has become apparent to me over the past eight months of writing though is that the New York Times 1991 headline “Heavy Metal: It’s More Than Music,” has to be part of the definition. Before I just was blithely going along not really thinking about much beyond the music (lyrics were a factor, since I have always avoided the “dead fetus on a popsicle stick” bands) and then when I really began to think about what was going on around me as part of the writing process--things changed. A lot of things I could ignore beforehand began to grate on me and altered how I looked at the world of metal. It is not just about slapping metal on something and presenting it as such, but there are certain intangibles beyond the music that have to be taken into account--something I knew at one time but got lost in the shuffle over the years for various reasons.

[Occam's Razor]

Originally Posted by Jim LotFP

did you ever hear their cover of the song Iron Maiden?

Yes, also have the "Apollo..." album...you know, I like wind instruments...

Originally Posted by Jim LotFP

Hammers of Misfortune seem to weave in and out of heavy metal within a song, have songs which are totally metal, and then have songs which have nothing to do with heavy metal. Kayo Dot, who knows what to call that.

Hammers is all metal, except for the song-structures maybe...and the multiple vocal approach...maybe just because it is so unpredictable, some might say it's not metal (from a RH-review: hippie rock and kraut-prog influences???)

Originally Posted by Jim LotFP

How about Arcturus? Is Sideshow Symphonies really heavy metal?

Whatever, but I can't get into the new one somehow...

Not to forget the latest Sigh album: total headbanging music with Beach Boys vocal harmonies and Farfisa organs...