John Cobbett of Hammers of Misfortune answers 100 Questions for LotFP!

[Jim LotFP]

It's Double Feature Friday!

http://www.lotfp.com/content.php?interviewid=53

[Cheiron]

His replies were great. I have to agree with him.

Does any of what he says (as well as some of the other respondents), make you think about your own ideas of 'True Metal' and the your opinions, which you integrated into the questions?

Does it bother you that some of the bands you love, or would label as 'true metal', don't give a shit about 'true metal.' Does them not giving a shit... make them no longer 'true metal'?

[Cheiron]

The Problem with Music, mentioned in the interview, can be found here:: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

[Jim LotFP]

Originally Posted by Cheiron

Does any of what he says (as well as some of the other respondents), make you think about your own ideas of 'True Metal' and the your opinions, which you integrated into the questions?

The 100 Questions idea was probably better on paper than in practice, but I still consider the motivation behind it as a positive thing.

Some thoughts:

I believe that media is powerful and does shape the way people think about things.

I believe that the meaning of words is important. (I buy and read books on language... not really serious academic work on the subject, but there is an underlying context to the humorous work of men like Lederer and Humphreys that is very disturbing to me).

I believe history is important. (I buy and read history books... some quite thorough and terribly tedious to get through...)

... and I believe that the current environment is causing (or was caused by? chicken and egg!) media with no connection to or appreciation of heavy metal beyond its popularity to exert its "outsider" influence over the art itself, to the detriment of that art and distorting its history. My way to combat it is to peel away the hype and commercial aspects and hold up authenticity as something to be valued in and of itself.

When it comes to Cobbett answering the questions, some of his answers were brilliant, and some of his answers I think completely dodged the question being asked (which of course I am going to focus on more here, haha).

First of all, he nailed the tone of the interview: "I'm sure he was expecting nothing less, considering the tone of the interview, which is itself confrontational" while at the same time really dropping the ball here: "and irrelevant to my artistic output." Does anybody familiar with Cobbett's work really think his answers are irrelevant to his artistic output? The interview captures attitudes beyond "what were you thinking when you wrote this one piece of work" and is more about how the artist thinks about music in general.

Tell us why heavy metal is worthy of respect.

Perhaps the question was worded badly since his answer isn't a bad one, but would anybody reading LotFP say I give things a free pass simply for being metal?

His whole "why am I considered an expert?" thing seems... false to me. He's made one of the best albums of this year, made my favorite album ever a few years back, and has his hand in a variety of musical styles so he has perspective. Who better to ask?

Selling out? Maybe it's still possible for metal bands to "sell out" in some parts of the world. Where I live the concept of "selling out" seems rustic.

He's either not being serious here, or he's the most jaded musician to ever answer an interview. heh. Or maybe it's just a setup for his answer to the next question.

Tell me how an album that takes hundreds of hours for an average of four people to write and record, at a cost of thousands of dollars, is too expensive if a copy costs as much as three or four hours of minimum wage pay.

This question and the one after weren't answered. They were commented upon, but not answered. There were assumptions read into the questions that aren't in the wording of the questions themselves!

And by the way, why do you qualify every single reference to music with "Heavy Metal"? Metal does not exist in a vacuum.

I've been looking for an excuse to address this answer. The reason I was qualifying every single reference to music with "heavy metal" because I am not talking about music as a whole, I am talking about heavy metal specifically. It doesn't exist in a vacuum, but I don't accept the notion that it doesn't exist at all. If it doesn't exist, what the hell are all these heavy metal bands from the past 36 years? And If it does exist, it can be talked about, analyzed, explored, and characteristics identified and judged. Which is what the point of the 100 questions.

Tell us why, if bands go on tour to "promote" an album, fans pay to go see these live commercials.

Tell us why bands talk about their fanbase as being "the kids". Tell us whether you feel bands that do this are writing music for children, and tell us whether you think children listening to heavy metal is a good idea.

I was looking for an exploration of the language used surrounding this. To me, calling the fans "kids" or "tigers" are both equally ridiculous and inappropriate. He dealt with the tour question quite nicely though.

Tell us whether you would rather listen to real heavy metal bands adopting mainstream sounds to try to be more popular, or mainstream "heavy music" bands adopting heavy metal methods to try to be more cool and credible.

I love how he invalidates the question and then immediately validates the idea behind it.

Tell us why so few black people play heavy metal.

Totally avoided the question.

His Young Adult Fiction was highly entertaining yet completely irrelevant to what was asked. Is the moral of the story that unprepared people with no clue won't be successful?

Originally Posted by Cheiron

Does it bother you that some of the bands you love, or would label as 'true metal', don't give a shit about 'true metal.' Does them not giving a shit... make them no longer 'true metal'?

Actually, it's the bands that are aware and do different things anyway that make the best music. Opeth's Morningrise, Hammers' own August Engine, Amorphis' Tales... and Elegy (although their opinions voiced at that time certainly heralded their decline), Fleurety's Min Tid Skal Komme... all albums that didn't play by the rules and that's part of the reason these bands tower(ed) over bands that are so metal they shit steel.

My love of floofy prog rock and my enjoyment gained by going to punk shows gives me some comfort that I am not the closed minded musical fascist that some might suspect. Shit, even within metal, the power/prog people think that LotFP is anti-power metal and the death metal diehards call it a power metal zine.

And I suspect the people reading the print version are not the same people reading the articles online, and each has its own focus and flavor, two sides of the coin.

And don't the Star Trek Convention question and the "Unpopular" question make it pretty obvious that I'm not blind to the "extreme logical" conclusion of "true metal" thinking?

Basically, I'm rambling to avoid doing real writing at the moment.

[Cheiron]

Haha. Its cool.

See I'm not into metal for the typical early-metal reasons. I am not in it to be rebellious in a cultural side (excluding music... hold on.. let me explain). I listen to metal because right now its bloody well some of the best music out there. I also listen to a lot of folk, classical, hard rock, etc. And because sometimes I'm not in the mood for metal, nor any of my CDs, I listen to 99x here in Atlanta. Lots of crappy songs on terrestrial radio by the way.

Anyhow, this is why I found myself agreeing with Cobbett. Metal, is about the music. There is a culture that surounds it, and one that is mostly positive. One I do take part in. But I didn't start listening to metal -for- the culture. But for the music. Metal does not have to be culturally rebellious to be metal. You -can- be a right-wing republican and do metal. You can live in a mansion, have unlimited luxuries, and do metal. Metal to me, is about the sound. The sound, happens to be something that I find more enjoyable than what is on the radio. I find the instrumentals to be riskier, more talented (at times), and same with the singing. I find more experimentalism.

In my opinion, all of the metal I listen is progressive... in the sense that it is more technically and intellectually advanced than radio-rock.

That said, if its on the radio, I don't hate it out of necessity. Something else I agree with Cobbett. It would be idiotic, narrow-minded, and a detriment to the progression of metal in general, to only listen/enjoy metal. If its a good song, its a good song. Doesn't matter how it was made, what label it was supported on, etc. Music is something that -can- exist onto itself.

Sure, I can see the desire to maintain the progressive nature of metal, by shunning massive marketed metal (which attempts to bring conformity, and dryness, which may encourage musicians that otherwise would have produced a good metal album, to put out a safer, more money oriented album). But I cannot see the desire to dislike music, based on the formentioned characteristics. I do not believe that my enjoyment of a song, will cause the decline of metal. But rather, I believe that blind ignorance of music, in favor of non-musical related reasons for pushing music (i.e. to want the long hair, disobedient nature of metal fans [[which is altogether interesting... because many old school metal fans only probably listened to metal because it was rebellious, and not necessarily because they liked the music. Yes... many 70s 80s metalheads were hipsters]], to remain.. without care for the true importance, the music).

[DBB]

I can and will only speak for myself.

People just get too hung up on the designations “true” and “false” based on the conventional wisdom that can only present it as something to mock or dismiss due to the hegemonic “tr00” interpretation of this dichotomy. I knew going in that employing “true” and “false” as signifiers for a network of values not normally associated with the terms—but there for everyone to see if they took the time to take a close look without flinching—that I was going to lose many people from the get-go and put others ill at ease right out of the gate. However, in their response to the first article decibel decided to malign me as a narrow-minded scene policeman looking for “false metal” like a delusional Puritan witchfinder general and they got what they asked for on one level—without the results that they expected. Anyway, to type anymore on this subject would be a waste of time and space, since I’ve tried to illustrate the flexibility, diversity and open-mindedness of these terms in numerous ways and words and people are still going to paint me as a “fascist” or “fundamentalist” (a serious abuse of these terms and something that would warm the cockles and mist the eyes of any member of the Bush administration who is on message about the never-ending “War on Terror” and raking in the dough on some Halliburton stock options).

Originally Posted by Cheiron

Does any of what he says (as well as some of the other respondents), make you think about your own ideas of 'True Metal' and the your opinions, which you integrated into the questions?

Does it bother you that some of the bands you love, or would label as 'true metal', don't give a shit about 'true metal.' Does them not giving a shit... make them no longer 'true metal'?

However, I was expecting a variation on these question much sooner and looking forward to it in a way. It would be tacky and crass for me to comment on this question at length in this context and air differences of opinion and orientation and why it doesn’t matter to me personally in this case—and I’m not going to do so. But it is worth noting that despite the swipes Cobbet makes at an anonymous author in passing within this interview that he seems to echo some of the conclusions and arguments made in the article.

Since the word “trolling” has been used, I will take care to note that the public board from where these statements were culled is one where I’m a member and no one hides their identities even if they use an electronic sobriquet. Cobbett and I actually had a brief and esoteric exchange about these issues and the interview on the board.

I am also not doing this to put anyone on the spot, but just to prove that concrete similarities can emerge out of apparent differences at times.


Plus it is a happy fun good time.

Originally Posted by John Cobbett

Anyway, isn't the whole nu metal thing pretty much over by now? I think if you're going to rail against anyone at this point it should be all those hipster indy kids co-opting and posing as metal, like Atreyu, Swords, Wolfmother and the like.

Response to the decibel roundtable on “hipster metal.”

Originally Posted by John Cobbett

These clowns tried to pass the Sword etc off as "the next big phase of Metal". People saw through it and branded it "hipster Metal" - not a flattering term. Probably the kiss of death for this gambit to appeal to hipsters and metal heads alike. The term "Hipster Metal" will totally alienate both camps. Metal people usually hate hipsters and hipsters HATE being called hipsters.

This is pure spin, PR damage control, an act of desperation to save a failed marketing scheme. Ha ha, watch them squirm.

It would be difficult for me to sum it all up more succinctly in a standard length message board post…

[Cheiron]

I agree that Cobbett and some of the writings on this 'site' have commonalities and agreeances. But as Jim likes to say, words are important. So if we are going to use words like 'true-metal' and 'false-metal' thus creating a major dichotomoy, they should be fleshed out/debated among those that might want to use them. At this point, they are dead terms. Its like the term 'nu' metal. Initially it wasn't a negative word. But now, if you use it, people jump all over you. Kind of like 'emo.' How many 'emo' bands call themselves emo these days? In the same way, people will just ignore the rest of a conversation once 'true metal' is spoken. So perhaps new terms should be designed that are more accurate and appropriate. Then again, I do see a number of groups out there claiming that their recent album is 'true metal'.

And yeah the 'hipster' tag killed them. Somewhat. Which I don't completely get. The Sword.. was made to be hipster, but I don't think it ended up sounding hipster. Not in the way that Wolfmother (who don't call themselves metal...), and some other bands have been

[Jim LotFP]

Originally Posted by Cheiron

I agree that Cobbett and some of the writings on this 'site' have commonalities and agreeances. But as Jim likes to say, words are important. So if we are going to use words like 'true-metal' and 'false-metal' thus creating a major dichotomoy, they should be fleshed out/debated among those that might want to use them.

There are several large articles on the LotFP site doing this very thing...

[Cheiron]

I agree and disagree (f'in hell nothing is easy with me). I agree that you all have been writing about it. And while I think you guys are clear in the way you use 'true metal'; true metal is a term used and created by others. If somebody (say a person responding to an interview), encounters that word here, they might interpret it as something different than you use it as. Which I think is the case. I don't think that any of the responders have interpreted 'true metal' as a 'non-commercially generated metal'. But rather as 'only metal that fits in our small world of old school metal (old school of every style) is true.'

Perhaps I'm not being clear.

[Jim LotFP]

Originally Posted by Cheiron

I agree and disagree (f'in hell nothing is easy with me). I agree that you all have been writing about it. And while I think you guys are clear in the way you use 'true metal'; true metal is a term used and created by others. If somebody (say a person responding to an interview), encounters that word here, they might interpret it as something different than you use it as. Which I think is the case. I don't think that any of the responders have interpreted 'true metal' as a 'non-commercially generated metal'. But rather as 'only metal that fits in our small world of old school metal (old school of every style) is true.'

Perhaps I'm not being clear.

I define "true heavy metal" as heavy metal performed by those with artistic integrity (meaning they will write the same music that they intend to sell out of the trunk of their car as they would for a major label release) and with knowledge of and respect for the full history of heavy metal itself. Therefore, true heavy metal is not, and can not be, simply a regurgitation of 80s heavy metal. Tell us Why you think I would reject the idea that consciously "retro" metal can be "true".

Yes, the term is not used in its "traditional" way. Yes, people probably don't notice the explanation and take the term "true metal" at Manowar face value. But I don't think I'm making it difficult to be on the same page for people doing these interviews...

[Cheiron]

I agree (even with your definition -- though without so much hatred towards 'false-metal' bands). But you also seem to consistently argue that if a band has become popular (see making a lot of money), that it isn't (wasn't) true. I think this is where you find the biggest... disagreement. And some of the confusion.

[Jim LotFP]

Originally Posted by Cheiron

But you also seem to consistently argue that if a band has become popular (see making a lot of money), that it isn't (wasn't) true. I think this is where you find the biggest... disagreement. And some of the confusion.

This is why I'm really glad Burns got on board and started writing... his style, while criticized by some, definitely isn't so emotional and personal in tone. It's easier to discuss the ideas he writes about because of it.

Me, I'm all charged up. Spazzy. On one hand it's a weakness (in this case because a workable definition of "true metal" gets all fuzzed up with my "shit, if they're appealing to a lot of people, something must be wrong with them" personal viewpont). On the other hand, if I wasn't like this, there is no LotFP. So I just have to live with it.

[terrorbat]

Originally Posted by Cheiron

Does it bother you that some of the bands you love, or would label as 'true metal', don't give a shit about 'true metal.' Does them not giving a shit... make them no longer 'true metal'?

chances are most bands worth their salt aren't worried about true metal issues. why would they? that's the fans/media's job.

[terrorbat]

Hello, just thought I would take a few minutes to respond...

Originally Posted by Jim LotFP

"and irrelevant to my artistic output." Does anybody familiar with Cobbett's work really think his answers are irrelevant to his artistic output? The interview captures attitudes beyond "what were you thinking when you wrote this one piece of work" and is more about how the artist thinks about music in general.

all this stuff about true metal is irrelevant to my artistic output - to me anyway. what I mean is you should ask the Sword or whoever about this stuff. I write record and play a lot of what people consider metal, but that doesn't mean I think about the definition of metal, let alone true metal, at all. In fact it's better to ignore these issues completely. The less you know about this stuff the better when it comes to writing music.

Originally Posted by Jim LotFP

Tell us why heavy metal is worthy of respect.

Perhaps the question was worded badly since his answer isn't a bad one, but would anybody reading LotFP say I give things a free pass simply for being metal?

this question is so ambiguous that it's almost impossible to answer. who's heavy metal? which heavy metal? of course we all know that not all metal is good... this almost seemed like a trick question.

Originally Posted by Jim LotFP

His whole "why am I considered an expert?" thing seems... false to me. He's made one of the best albums of this year, made my favorite album ever a few years back, and has his hand in a variety of musical styles so he has perspective. Who better to ask?

again, i've played a lot of it and listened to a lot of it, but when you have 100 questions about "true"-ness, "selling out" and so on, it creates an atmosphere of paranoia almost. In a climate where these "heavy metal" issues are such a big deal, I'm hardly gonna feel like an expert.

Originally Posted by Jim LotFP

Selling out? Maybe it's still possible for metal bands to "sell out" in some parts of the world. Where I live the concept of "selling out" seems rustic.

He's either not being serious here, or he's the most jaded musician to ever answer an interview. heh. Or maybe it's just a setup for his answer to the next question.

I was serious. what does it mean to sell out right now? how does selling out apply to anything in our little world? I don't get it. it seems like something you watched Def Leppard and Metallica do ages ago, but these days it just doesn't mean anything to me. who can sell out? to whom? how is it possible to sell out when there's no money and no buyers? again, maybe my ignorance is bliss and i'd rather not think about this.

Originally Posted by Jim LotFP

Tell me how an album that takes hundreds of hours for an average of four people to write and record, at a cost of thousands of dollars, is too expensive if a copy costs as much as three or four hours of minimum wage pay.

i thought i answered this. value is measured by the person who is earning minimum wage in this scenerio. only they can say what's too expensive. how much did metallica spend on "st. anger" know what i mean?

Originally Posted by Jim LotFP

And by the way, why do you qualify every single reference to music with "Heavy Metal"? Metal does not exist in a vacuum.

I've been looking for an excuse to address this answer. The reason I was qualifying every single reference to music with "heavy metal" because I am not talking about music as a whole, I am talking about heavy metal specifically. It doesn't exist in a vacuum, but I don't accept the notion that it doesn't exist at all. If it doesn't exist, what the hell are all these heavy metal bands from the past 36 years? And If it does exist, it can be talked about, analyzed, explored, and characteristics identified and judged. Which is what the point of the 100 questions.

when you ask questions about album length and stuff, thats about the music biz and recorded music, so the qualifying of these questions with "heavy metal" seems wierd. think about what it's like to read through this interview for the first time... it's like bieng blind-sided with all this heavy metal stuff. the lure of mischief is impossible to resist.

Originally Posted by Jim LotFP

Tell us why so few black people play heavy metal.

Totally avoided the question.

My answer to this question was absolutely and unequivocably the 100% truth. "because they don't feel like it" is the perfect and only real answer to this question.

Originally Posted by Jim LotFP

His Young Adult Fiction was highly entertaining yet completely irrelevant to what was asked. Is the moral of the story that unprepared people with no clue won't be successful?

The story took each premise of the question, cast the hypothetical musician in the question as a character, and addressed each suggested condition one by one. In each case, the character fails and has to resort to MAGIC in order to get to the next premise. I wrote a vivid account of what would most likely happen had someone attempted what was suggested in the question - step by step. This is how the ideas in the question work in reality. How could I have possibly better answered this?

If there was any moral to the story it's that the question being asked has very little to do with what actually happens on the ground when you try to do something like this.

Originally Posted by Jim LotFP

Actually, it's the bands that are aware and do different things anyway that make the best music. Opeth's Morningrise, Hammers' own August Engine, Amorphis' Tales... and Elegy (although their opinions voiced at that time certainly heralded their decline), Fleurety's Min Tid Skal Komme... all albums that didn't play by the rules and that's part of the reason these bands tower(ed) over bands that are so metal they shit steel.

the fact that some bands do things differently is just as likely due to the fact that they are (blissfully) unaware of the rules. breaking rules is easy when you don't know what they are.

thanks again for reading, cheers!

-John C.

[Jim LotFP]

Originally Posted by terrorbat

The story took each premise of the question, cast the hypothetical musician in the question as a character, and addressed each suggested condition one by one. In each case, the character fails and has to resort to MAGIC in order to get to the next premise. I wrote a vivid account of what would most likely happen had someone attempted what was suggested in the question - step by step. This is how the ideas in the question work in reality. How could I have possibly better answered this?

But the fiction doesn't address the question of doing everything yourself instead of going through a label... not at all!

Most bands manage to get together a lineup, gear, some songs, practice space, a website, recordings (for sale, even!)... not by magic... but by working at it and for it. Yes, they do it with the idea of eventually getting on a label, but I have a couple hundred CDs sitting on the shelf and in boxes made by bands "on the ground" with no label's logo on the back cover.

The trick of course is figuring out how to get people to care at that point!

Just taking Hammers as an example... did Tumult have anything to do with the lineup, material, or even the recording of The Bastard? I know Cruz Del Sur had no involvement in the lineup, material, or recording of The August Engine.

Now, obviously there are reasons to go for labels (you keep looking for and signing to them...!), but it's got little to do with the story you wrote.

[BenMech]

A) Thanks Mr. Cobbett for coming around here. Please feel free to discuss what you desire, when you do.
B) I still haven't made my way through every question
C) Cheiron - You're still a corporate rock tool. You will never not be.
D) Dave's very much so an emotional and "personal" writer. That's why I get on his case. Where he gets my support is academic reliance on mostly forgotten or previously obscured source materials.
E) There is no fifth thing
F) Quoth Devin from Earth Day - "Music? Well It's Just Entertainment Folks!"

[Some Bastard]

Originally Posted by Jim LotFP

I've been looking for an excuse to address this answer. The reason I was qualifying every single reference to music with "heavy metal" because I am not talking about music as a whole, I am talking about heavy metal specifically. It doesn't exist in a vacuum, but I don't accept the notion that it doesn't exist at all. If it doesn't exist, what the hell are all these heavy metal bands from the past 36 years? And If it does exist, it can be talked about, analyzed, explored, and characteristics identified and judged. Which is what the point of the 100 questions.

Personally I think you're contradicting yourself here. No, Heavy Metal doesn't exist in a vacuum because it's part of music as a whole. That does not mean it doesn't exist at all, it just means that your border-defined view of Heavy Metal is overtly romantic, as I've stated before. What Heavy Metal was there 36 years ago? Black Sabbath? They didn't set out to invent Heavy Metal, but I've explained that in another topic already. Led Zeppelin? They started out as a blues band and actually only roughly a third of their entire output could be considered Heavy Metal or even Hard Rock. Deep Purple? I've read a recent interview with Ian Gillan and when it comes to Heavy Metal he has the same viewpoints as yours truly. And so does Mr. Cobbett to a certain extent.

Funny how you're going all the way to twist and interpret Mr. Cobbett's answers to fit your romanticized view, but when I'm stating the exact same viewpoints I'm accused of being 'mired down in this world of jocular, unteathered meaningless hyper-individuality' (or was that your colleague?)

[Jim LotFP]

Originally Posted by Some Bastard

Personally I think you're contradicting yourself here. No, Heavy Metal doesn't exist in a vacuum because it's part of music as a whole. That does not mean it doesn't exist at all, it just means that your border-defined view of Heavy Metal is overtly romantic, as I've stated before.

And I can accept that. But I'm interested in where the borders are, regardless. It's a constant process of refinement and part of the aim of the 100 questions was to get the people making the music involved in figuring all this shit out. If they're not so interested in that, well, I'll just have to look elsewhere in my investigation.

Originally Posted by Some Bastard

What Heavy Metal was there 36 years ago? Black Sabbath? They didn't set out to invent Heavy Metal, but I've explained that in another topic already. Led Zeppelin? They started out as a blues band and actually only roughly a third of their entire output could be considered Heavy Metal or even Hard Rock. Deep Purple? I've read a recent interview with Ian Gillan and when it comes to Heavy Metal he has the same viewpoints as yours truly. And so does Mr. Cobbett to a certain extent.

We should throw them all out and look at the people who started bands with the idea of playing "heavy metal" from the start. I don't see heavy metal as some sort of invisible force that can be felt and heard but never seen nor examined.

Originally Posted by Some Bastard

Funny how you're going all the way to twist and interpret Mr. Cobbett's answers to fit your romanticized view, but when I'm stating the exact same viewpoints I'm accused of being 'mired down in this world of jocular, unteathered meaningless hyper-individuality' (or was that your colleague?)

I disagree with the word "twist" there. I may be disagreeing with points that he makes, but I am not using his words in a manner he did not intend to make my point. "Twist" has some dishonest connotations and I think I am being straight with my viewpoint.

As for that quote, that's definitely not my wording.

[Some Bastard]

Originally Posted by Jim LotFP

We should throw them all out and look at the people who started bands with the idea of playing "heavy metal" from the start. I don't see heavy metal as some sort of invisible force that can be felt and heard but never seen nor examined.

That will pose some difficulties. I believe Blue Oyster Cult were an intentional Heavy Metal band but I don't think a lot of their output could be considered Heavy Metal nowadays. I also think the pioneers and inventors in Heavy Metal (or any genre for that matter) were the ones that really didn't care for genre borders and played whatever the hell they wanted to play. I don't think Montrose or Uriah Heep or Grand Funk or Rush really care for the term Heavy Metal. The 70's bands that wanted to play Heavy Metal are mostly bands that imitated Sabbath/Zeppelin/Purple. Most of 'em aren't that interesting. If you want to examine interesting bands that wanted to play "heavy metal" from the start you probably can't get any further back than the NWOBHM.

Originally Posted by Jim LotFP

I disagree with the word "twist" there. I may be disagreeing with points that he makes, but I am not using his words in a manner he did not intend to make my point. "Twist" has some dishonest connotations and I think I am being straight with my viewpoint.

You probably don't mean to be dishonest, but you do seem to have a hard time accepting the answers as they are.

[DBB]

Originally Posted by Some Bastard

I'm accused of being 'mired down in this world of jocular, unteathered meaningless hyper-individuality' (or was that your colleague?)

Edit:

By the way...

Originally Posted by Some Bastard

I also think the pioneers and inventors in Heavy Metal (or any genre for that matter) were the ones that really didn't care for genre borders and played whatever the hell they wanted to play. I don't think Montrose or Uriah Heep or Grand Funk or Rush really care for the term Heavy Metal. The 70's bands that wanted to play Heavy Metal are mostly bands that imitated Sabbath/Zeppelin/Purple.

No Judas Priest? A real slip up there. Bill Ward (Yes, the Black Sabbath drummer) didn't.

I think Rob Halford would make a great ambassador/spokesperson for Heavy Metal [caps in org.]. I love the way he articulates and nails the very essense of this unforgiving thing of enormous proportion and diversion, expression and commonality called Metal. Rob is one of the only guys in Metal that is able to express so clearly the force that was so prominent at Sabbath's birth time (circa '68/'69). Now, beyond Aston, this force is world legendary.

Bill Ward "Forte, Please." Hails & Horns Summer 2006

And why would anybody be so sloppy as to call Black Sabbath heavy metal? *sets aside baggage and brain and cranks "Metal Forces"* \m/

[Some Bastard]

Not sure what you're getting at here. Like I said before, Black Sabbath started by imitating Cream. And likewise Priest started by imitating Sabbath. Like it or not, the kind of music later to be called "Heavy Metal" was already there before it became a 'formula', a 'kind' of music restricted by so-called 'rules'.

Of course I could counterpoint your little Bill Ward-quote with quotes by Geezer and Ozzy where they distance themselves from the term 'Heavy Metal' but that would be too easy. After all, seeing that you are once again pretty selective in what you actually react to you have already decided to disagree with me, no matter what.

Why would anybody be so sloppy to call Black Sabbath Heavy Metal? That's hardly the point, is it? I'm interested in music, not semantics. You?

[Cheiron]

Originally Posted by BenMech

C) Cheiron - You're still a corporate rock tool. You will never not be.

Support that. I doubt you can. Easy to just spit shit out, without support. My responses and indicated opinions have nothing to do with 'corporate rock.'

If you really want to know what I stand for. I stand against music publishers making all the friggin moneys, while the artists are being shafted. The theory is that the publishers are taking risk by singing bands, and lose money on them, so deserve to make profits on successful ones. Hardly the fact. The fact is that they can (as those articles indicated) easily write-off losses, and still easily steal from bands that are making lots of money.

But that -can- be different than saying 'I enjoy Band X.' With Band X being signed by 'Popular, genre forming, Label Z.' Am I indirectly supporting Label Z? Surely. But should I feel slightly guilty if I blame and thus.. don't support Band X, because they were signed by Label Z? Yeah. I would feel a bit guilty.

I think BenMech, that if you knew the various metal that I listen to (and I listen to a lot of underground, obscure shit... since I'll listen to just about anything I can get my hands on), that you would find yourself with no support for your above statement.

[Some Bastard]

For some people here that seems to be the general mode of discussion; if someone disagrees with the views expressed here, just pin some label on him/her

[Cheiron]

Originally Posted by terrorbat

I was serious. what does it mean to sell out right now? how does selling out apply to anything in our little world? I don't get it. it seems like something you watched Def Leppard and Metallica do ages ago, but these days it just doesn't mean anything to me. who can sell out? to whom? how is it possible to sell out when there's no money and no buyers? again, maybe my ignorance is bliss and i'd rather not think about this.

Perhaps, if you change your music based on a labels desire to cash in (them forcing you to, or in order for you to get a label you have to sign those rights away), is selling out. Of course, as you state, what is the purpose of selling out? These bands aren't going to be making that much money. Problem is, they often don't know that. So their intent is to sellout.

But you made me think about something. Trying to name a band that came out in the last 5 years, that has somehow -made it big- and is now rich. Are there any? I can't think of anything other than Hip Hop (how are they doing it? are is it all false money right now), and Teen Pop stars.

Originally Posted by terrorbat

My answer to this question was absolutely and unequivocably the 100% truth. "because they don't feel like it" is the perfect and only real answer to this question.

Yeah, but I think the question was trying to get 'Why don't they feel like it.' Which is probably a fairly simple answer. There is no cultural motive. Same reason not to many black people are putting out albums that sound like Dave Matthews Band, Fall out Boy, and Matchbox Romance. Also seems to be a decline of them putting out any form of rock, jazz, blues (even though they basically invented all of them).

Originally Posted by terrorbat

The story took each premise of the question, cast the hypothetical musician in the question as a character, and addressed each suggested condition one by one. In each case, the character fails and has to resort to MAGIC in order to get to the next premise. I wrote a vivid account of what would most likely happen had someone attempted what was suggested in the question - step by step. This is how the ideas in the question work in reality. How could I have possibly better answered this?

If there was any moral to the story it's that the question being asked has very little to do with what actually happens on the ground when you try to do something like this.


the fact that some bands do things differently is just as likely due to the fact that they are (blissfully) unaware of the rules. breaking rules is easy when you don't know what they are.

thanks again for reading, cheers!

-John C.

Yeah it made sense to me. Had to reread it to see how you were answering the question. But I agree. This is why I hate using questionaires in my day job. Have to go through several sample tests first just to get feedback, to make sure the survey really asks what you want to know. Either way, your responses were enlightening.

Hopefully sometime I'll get to see Hammers of Misfortune in the states (hint. Atlanta. hint hint.)