We are all familiar with the term: a group of males in a circle, each masturbating, with the collective approval of the act protecting the individual from criticism by others. In theory, this act originated in the days when masturbation was taboo and boys wanted to ensure that others would not inform on them, so got together a gang to self-stimulate together and attack any informers as a group.
For the purposes of this article, such events will be referred to as “autoerotic circles.”
Most metalheads pay no attention to the Grammy awards but for some unknown reason, much of the population seems to attend to these with regularity despite their being the result of a few hundred insiders and their opinions about what we should buy, not what is actually good. Watching the Grammys is like turning on your television to watch a 30-minute commercial (except that many infomercials were actually interesting in comparison).
For decades the Grammys have slighted heavy metal. This is because the media elites do not want you to like or purchase heavy metal. Heavy metal does not play by the rules, which is that every band must make basically the same music but differ in production and surface aspects, so that the great money circle can continue. The record industry makes its money by pumping out the same stuff again and again, having its lapdog “journalists” praise it, and then the clueless audience buy it because it is new and exciting on the surface. Then repeat. Watch money show up like spring rains. The “autoerotic circle” of media and industry became self-referential long ago, approving whatever was put out as a jobs program for journalists, studios, labels, promotions, and bands themselves. Just keep the money flowing, keep the scam going, don’t tell the secret.
Heavy metal breaks this model. It is riff-based, and requires bands to come up with not just killer riffs but the song structures to support them. It does not follow the denialist trend in lyrics, which has two prongs: a “protest song” prong that demands we pursue surrogate activities in lieu of noticing our society is decaying, and a “bohemian” prong which suggests ignoring all problems and focusing on your own pleasure, importance and drama at this one moment. Heavy metal tries to be heavy, both in lyrics and music, which is everything the music industry finds both unprofitable and threatening to its business model.
As a result, the music media elites view the Grammys as a chance to bash metal by mis-identifying it, putting non-metal bands in the category every time. As VH1 notes:
Yesterday in our breakdown of what’s right and wrong about this year’s ‘Best Metal Performance’ Grammy nominees we said musical comedy duo Tenacious D would win. Not should, but would. Why? Because since 1989, the first year they recognized the genre and Jethro Tull infamously beat Metallica, the Grammys have shown time and time again they have no clue and one can only assume little respect for heavy metal music. Nothing against The D, who are without a doubt talented, funny and truly love hard rock and metal, but to award them for ‘Best Metal Performance’ is to fundamentally misunderstand the genre and what makes it great.
Things seemed to have started well enough, as legendary hard rockers AC/DC began the festivities with their high decibel opening performance. But that’s only because most people didn’t know about Tenacious D’s win, since the Grammys don’t even feel the award merits inclusion in their primetime telecast. As word spread of their victory, outrage traveled throughout the metal community. Veterans however reacted with ambivalence, as the slight is just the latest in a history of heavy metal Grammy fails.
Hint to metalheads: the music industry hates you and always has. It tried to replace you with hard rock, then with rap-rock, and now with indie/shoegaze. It is your enemy. This is why metal went underground in the first place, and why it should not only never rely on mainstream media like the Grammys, but also actively reject them. It is not that we do not need these media elite awards, but that they are pretenders to the throne and should be torn down and sent back to the world of hipster posing where they belong.
The destruction of metal has not gone unnoticed. As Guitar World‘s Will Wallner notes, heavy metal is not heavy metal any longer because it has become rock music. Rock music assimilates anything in its path, adopting it first as a “new” style and then dumbing it down until it fits within the rock paradigm, at which point in its neutered form it becomes normed.
Heavy metal has lost all form of legitimacy as musical genre.
I believe it has evolved, or devolved, to the point where it has become something so different from what it once was, that it now is a different genre all together.
People could argue that music trends change constantly with new generations that influence what is popular. However, jazz is still jazz, blues is still blues, but metal is no longer metal. Traditional forms of music such as the ones I mentioned have changed over time, but not as quickly or as drastically as metal. In fact, the only other genre that seems to change so often and with such extremes is pop music.
While the rest of his post makes some assumptions that over-simplify metal, his point is essentially thus: the drive for jazz/progressive overtones in metal has abolished the genre itself, leaving in its place an aggregate of styles that ends up creating an average of them all. The more different elements you put in the pot, the more the result tastes like just plain stew, because the radical extremes balance each other out to the point of negation. If you melt all of your crayons together, you get a grayish-brown. When you dump every trendy music style into metal, you end up with rock that has a few metal riffs.
The music industry has been trying very hard since the 1970s to replace metal with rock. Rock pretends to be rebellious, but its secret is that it is easily controlled. It is all very musically similar, so new favorites can be quickly produced, and while none of them are as good as the founding acts of the genre, the audience cannot tell the difference. And they keep buying and buying. But with metal, the bar is raised and the domination of rock over the airwaves is threatened. That upsets the old hippies, media barons and neurotic journalists who make up the music industry elite, and they will always try to destroy metal for this original sin.
Tags: assimilation, grammys, media elites, music industry
Yet more bluffery about metal being superior to rock/pop because it ‘has the structures to match’ or is riff-based. This is one of the articles of faith on this site and nearly every reviewer wheels it out every time he want to write-off any post-96 bands, when he actually lacks the objective understanding of music to do so.
Metal, death/black in particular, almost universally uses one absurdly simple structure: play one riff (riffs which are often far too musically simple to stand alone even as the melody of a Europop song) several times followed by another that doesn’t sound totally incongruous. In fact, many of the DLA ‘Best Ever’ albums were full of the ‘and now for something completely different’ transitions despite this being the standard rebuke against bands like Necrophagist.
We next add another riff, then another. Sometimes a LITTLE thematic variation, even more rarely counterpoint. I don’t agree that A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K-L-M-N-O-P is necessarily a superior musical form.
You of course want to make the genre sound academically credible like baroque/classical/romantic so you call it structuralist but, honestly, there is little storytelling or greater-than-the-sum-of-it’s-parts effect in the DM/BM riffscape itself (with just a HANDFUL of exceptions – please discuss below…..)
Let’s just quit pretending to be objective about it – few of the reviewers actually have the musical understanding to do so legitimately anyway. We love the music for 2 reasons: firstly, the subjective pleasure, even transcendence, that such energetic, violent music invokes. Secondly, and this is were I agree wholeheartedly with this site, it is the fantastical, modernity-rejecting weltanschauung inherent in the genre.
you are an idiot
You keep accusing the writers of lacking the knowledge on music theory to effectively critique albums, but then you sound like you know little about it yourself.
You are evidently confusing yourself with the objective/subjective duality; better off to just drop that kind of thinking.
The pop form (verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge/chorus) is ineffective at communicating a sense of motion and development. With your knowledge of music, you must realize that death/black metal is more expressive mostly due to the variations on the basic idea of the sonata; introduction/development/resolution.
A screwdriver is not objectively superior to a hammer, but accomplishes different tasks and is designed for a specific function, so it can be expected to perform better than anything else when it comes to screwing things together. This is the difference between pop and metal; different form for a different purpose.
Why, what DM has a STRUCTURE different from how I described it?
Or how many use much thematic variation?
I never said they lack ARTISTIC merit , just that this site suggests they are objectively musically more advanced than pop music. They aren’t, or only slightly.
You didn’t even describe any death metal, you mentioned playing a riff, than another riff, and so on. What music isn’t structured that way aside from electronica or jazz?
And did you just give up your argument in that last sentence?
I was just responding to ‘asshole’s’ comment but by the time it had been moderated you had already responded.
But one of the things I was saying was that I don’t think DM often DOES have that variation that you mentioned that sonata’s etc. themselves possess.
It is rare for them to state a theme and then vary this throughout the song (though there are many notable exceptions to this.) It is often just one riff followed by an unrelated riff.
My issue was that the writers often suggest that death/black IS objectively more advanced than pop music, hence is superior; and then they try to bluff musical knowledge to support this.
Looking back at what I said it did look like I was criticising the genre when I was actually just pointing out some pretentiousness on the writers’ part.
But don’t think I was criticising the ART expressed in DM, and CERTAINLY not BM. But that’s another matter, we’ll discuss that another time….
“My issue was that the writers often suggest that death/black IS objectively more advanced than pop music, hence is superior; and then they try to bluff musical knowledge to support this.”
Haven’t you heard of “riff-gluing,” bro?
Your comments hardly make any sense.
If metal is musically retarded and mostly one riff followed by an unrelated riff, how does this ART or fantastical, modernity-rejecting weltanschauung gets to be expressed? Is it purely through aesthetics, lyrics or something subjective that you cannot put into words?
Btw this site never argued that pop is musically unacceptable, just that it’s worthless as art. It also argued that metal, at it’s best, avoids the, typical for pop, verse-chorus format which signals stagnation. I’d also add that metal does so through intuition and not application of theory.
Meant to say DM often DOESN’T have that variation…..
Yes, I’ve heard of riff-gluing. It’s not a term you’ll find in any of Schoenberg’s books though.
It’s a term mainly used by people who like DM (fine), don’t understand music theory (also fine) but then try to make their analyses of the music sound quasi-academic (why bother? Pretentiousness?)
Its basically a term that means 2 adjoining riffs won’t sound incongruously awful without drums clumsily doing the work at the transition.
But yes, there are some bands that did (and still do) that really well and they do have talent. Even if they don’t understand theory, they must have enough natural musical talent (plus thousands of metal listening hours) under their belts.
But like I said, I didn’t set out to say DM had no artistic value. It does. My problem is reviewers who feign to have knowledge of music theory when they slate every new album they hear that doesn’t have old-school aesthetics and pretend it’s because they are objectively less compositionally advanced than the old classics. They add a few bluffs about the music not having ‘direction’, ‘context’ or ‘going nowhere’ – all highly subjective terms regards this style of music.
Let’s be honest, we’ve all heard albums slated that have brilliant riffs AND transitions. And we all know the reviewers are just imitating Prozak’s (superb) writing style anyway.
Don’t get me wrong though. The best albums, I mean the very best black metal – are superbly composed.
I was being sarcastic and actually completely agree with you, in case you hadn’t noticed.
Cool.
Sadly I hadn’t noticed…. But you’re right, it’s just one of those terms that people use that makes one riff follwing another sound like advanced composition.
What bands/albums do you think write more than riff salads? Not that that means great composition in itself but just out of interest?
Are you asking me? I’m not sure how much my opinion matters. Like what you like. People will give you shit no matter what side of the fence you’re on. I would be intrigued as to what you think of my band’s record, since it was reviewed here and didn’t receive the highest of marks due to compositional critique.
Yes, I was genuinely asking you. And now that I know your a musician I’d like to know what bands most influenced you as well. I can tell you listen to a lot of the newer technical bands, yes? Any old-school? Sounds like Demilich influence on some riffs but that could be a coincidence?
I’ve listened to your album now. If I picked a hundred random albums released this year and compared it to yours I think yours would be one of the best. So good effort man.
And seriously, don’t be disheartened by a review like that from this site! “Ara show an insight into both riffcraft, or the act of writing riffs themselves, and the type of transitions in song that give meaning to previous riffs by shifting context.” That’s quite some praise coming from Brett Stevens! Anything that even sounds remotely like ‘-core’ is slated immediately, normally.
I think the rest of the review is trying to be constructive, and most of it is good advice I think. You’ve gotta ask yourself: what are your aims in writing music? Are you trying to create art, or do you just like playing brutal music for the satisfaction of it? Both are fine, as long as you’re honest in what you do. What audience do you really want to listen to your music? If it’s a modern tech-deth audience I think you’ve succeeded well. But you’ve gotta remember too thats not the kind of people who use this site – so don’t worry if it’s not popular round here.
If you want to create ART that will be listened to in 20 years time, then maybe try to make less of a conscious effort to be technical first, and try to make riffs that are more… muscial, maybe, if you get me? You could still add a TINY amount of melody to your riffs and still be aggressive and technical, like Gorguts did. But again, it all depends on your aims.
Damn, I’ve just read your own comments on the review.
You clearly stated your intentions there. The idea of listening to how a melody plays out throughout a song, including on midi without all the distortion, is highly admirable, and is one of the main ideas this site normally praises.
So I’d just say carry on doing what you’re doing. Some of the songs just sounded more technical-focused to me though but I’ve only listened to it once! The very best albums always grow on you with repeated listens, maybe I’ll pick up more of the melodic ideas with a second listen.
I’m still very glad to have read the positive remarks in the review. I mean, even The Chasm got slagged here. As for some of your other questions, aside from very few exceptions I don’t really listen to any newer (death) metal bands. Having gotten into death metal in the early 90s, learning by myself how to play guitar and during that time seeing how extreme technique went at the end of the 90s with Canadian bands and the experimentation happening in the states as well (and of course Demilich is in there), I guess you could see the progression of where my style came from. The reason I can’t back really any post-2000 bands is because as you know, the riff died in the 90s, and scalar metal became the focus. I thought the first Necrophagist was pretty cool when I got it on the first label it showed up on, and I had no idea that that would be the new face of extreme metal, but I think we may be one of the only newer bands that isn’t apeing what they did. I have been accused of having the tail wag the dog as far as technicality goes, but to me, the key is that the music be interesting rather than technical- it’s just tough to attempt “interesting” this late in the extreme metal realm without coming off the rails either technically or through exotic note choice, which unfairly sometimes gets lumped into a “post” or “jazz” category (I don’t know a thing about jazz or actually have any musical training at all so I won’t insult jazz by pretending to draw inspiration from it). As far as bits of melody goes, as Upson Pratt would say, “they creep up on you” through the course of repeated listens, which is why I agree with your last sentence.
As far as what I think are great examples of extremely well written death metal, this will be a tough one to answer because good writing for a non-schooled musician is hard for me to describe objectively. I Think a song like “Orgasm Through Torture” sticks out as extremely well-written in Cannibal Corpse’s catalog as much as I’m sure that will be sneered at, and as mentioned before I really liked the linear mutations of “God of Emptiness.” I’m pretty sure everyone hates Anata here, but hearing “Dethrone the Hypocrites” in 1999 and unplugging the left, then right speaker during the more dense parts showed me the idea of polyphony instead of the standard “up 3 frets” death metal harmony, and they may and that record may be my biggest overall influence. I also have a soft spot for much maligned stuff like Novembre, whose “Conservatory Resonance” squeezes as much emotion as possible from maybe 2 themes total, which is a writing idea I wish I could master. I definitely wore out my copy of “Pierced from Within,” which as far as technical death metal goes, is hard to top in terms of effective writing.
As far as wanting to create something that will be listened to as art in the next 20 years, I suppose that’s not up to me. I feel everything I do as an artistic statement musically, but that’s up for an audience to decide. I have composed more focused concept albums in other genres before, however, such as here-
https://concentric.bandcamp.com/album/v
Thanks for checking out the Ara record and for the interest in general!
Thank you. Listened to Concentric – even though it’s more tech/prog oriented than the metal I normally listen to, it’s one of the few concept albums I’ve heard that actually SOUNDS like the concept. I look forward to hearing how you progress with your Ara project too.