The future of metal: change or obsolescence

Recently I've been listening to more not-metal 'underground' music. Some of it is not so underground, but that's besides the point. I noticed some stark contrasts between the metal underground, and the rest of the underground. Why is metal different, and why do the fans seem to have different expectations? I think it has to do with the history of metal. It's most creatively fertile period was in the '70s. I know that sounds counter intuitive considering all the classics released in the '80s and '90s, but hear me out.

Black Sabbath was the first metal band. Few would dispute that. But they did not come out of a vacuum. They came from a musical landscape that had grown bored / disillusioned with the bulk of psychedelic rock currently on the market, one in which some bands already began to experiment with a darker, 'heavier' sound. Sabbath tapped into the zeitgeist; they brought the disillusion and fear that came with living in the post-summer of love Cold War world. But there were other bands, pursuing similar artistic goals: Led Zeppelin, Blue Cheer, High Tide...etc Heavy Metal as a solidified genre never came about until the NWOBHM era, and I believe that without that self-consciousness, the artists were free to do as they pleased. The way they saw it, they weren't playing 'metal.' They were making something new, for a new time. Sabbath's best work was done in the '70s, as was Judas Priest's. The groundwork for almost every metal subgenre was laid during that decade.

Then in the '80s, metal was a wide open landscape. It was a frontier, one rapidly explored by pioneers of extremity: Slayer, Venom, Sodom, Hellhammer, Bathory, Saint Vitus. We all know the list goes on. Okay, these visionaries took an established framework and managed to create enduring and original works within it. The essential difference between these bands and their peers from the previous decade? A conscious attempt to create 'metal.' It wasn't a problem yet, as there wasn't much metal around at the time.

The last long-lasting explosion of creativity occurred in the early '90s. Yes, the eruption of death and especially Black Metal scenes. Death metal was a pretty linear development from thrash, but Black Metal was different. From the start, it was ideologically driven and the bands had a sense of purpose beyond creating music. Sometimes this is a recipe for disaster. Luckily for these bands (and for us), that external impetus led to a higher quality of music because they cared so much about the message.

What's the problem? Every evolution of metal has resulted in focusing on narrower and narrower aspects of it. Look at what the OP mentioned: technical death metal, orthodox black metal, and extreme doom metal. These are sub-sub-genres. They are not the next big thing, nor are they outlets for the truly creative. They are the last ditch attempts to suckle any remaining milk from the dead cow that is heavy metal. This is a result of 40 years of relying on incestuous intercourse for innovation. A healthy gene pool is characterized by--among other things--variation. (this paragraph might seem confusing: this post was originally a reply to a thread on another message board; OP refers to the original post which mentioned new styles of metal that have been heralded by some as the future of the genre or the 'next big thing')

People need to start looking at metal as a whole. What does the artist seek to accomplish? In what way is heavy metal conducive to accomplishing their goal? Don't just pick two of your favorite bands and throw them in a blender, or hone in on one aspect of a band and try to out do them. If metal wishes to be saved from stagnation or irrelevance (which is worse?), it needs a genius, or more people willing to look outside the genre for inspiration. Which brings me back to my original point: Metal evolved with a sense of pride and purity that is somewhat unique in the underground. Most of the other 'scenes' are far more integrated, and artists don't feel obliged to work within such narrow cultural limits.

Take post-metal for instance. What a sham! It's just post-rock with distortion. Real 'post-metal' would be to metal what post-punk was to punk, post-rock to rock, and post-hardcore to hardcore: An attempt to reimagine the genre without sacrificing the soul that made it appealing in the first place.

 

All the different metal genres drive me nuts. Metal is metal is metal. If it's good, I listen to it, if it sucks, I don't.

What is considered "post-metal"?

 

Isis, Pelican, Cult of Luna, Neurosis. Those sorts of bands.

Pelican - Autumn Into Summer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQn53Zz0sMc

Isis - The Beginning and the End - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qz8e7pgy_Y

Neurosis - Locust Star - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEVyDjxsUrk

(Neurosis is considered a post-metal band even though they lack a lot of the elements that currently define the style, like a reliance on structures pioneered by post-rock bands)

Cult of Luna - And With Her Came the Birds - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smF-zxffe4I

 

This post is exactly how I look at metal.

 

Ah, okay, thanks.

 

"Are you lost?" Neurosis are not post-metal.

And, are you saying the genre name is a sham or the music? Either way I enjoy some post-metal, which I'm pretty sure was coined once Isis got popular. Before Isis, no one would have called Neurosis post-metal. Neurosis are gods of heavy music, a truly progressive band.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-metal#List_of_notable_post-metal_bands

We can nitpick all day but in the end Neurosis will be considered a post-metal band, or at least on the fringes of the 'movement.'

And both the name and the music is a sham. I enjoy some of it myself but it in no way, shape, or form lives up to the 'post' prefix. Except, ironically, for Neurosis. Maybe. Because their music is not post-rock with distortion.

 

I don't agree, with some genres. Death metal and black metal in particular are as different from heavy metal as it is from English early music.

 

From your link - "According to Aaron Turner of Isis, experimental bands such as Flying Luttenbachers, Melvins, Godflesh and Neurosis "laid the groundwork for us [...] we're part of a recognizable lineage".[1] Although Neurosis and Godflesh appeared earlier and display elements befitting post-metal, Isis are often credited with laying down the conventions and definition of the genre in less nebulous terms, with their release of Oceanic in 2002.[4]"

Recognizing the lineage between Neurosis and post-metal is like recognizing the lineage between Slayer and death metal. Most people wouldn't call Slayer death metal, just like they shouldn't call Neurosis post-metal.

Music has to live up to the genre name that people have labeled it, whether the band acknowledges it or not? It appears you're holding the genre name against the music. What if all those bands were just called post-rock, would you be more inclined to enjoy it then?

 

No, I'd still think Isis were boring.

You seem to be missing the point. "post-metal" as a concept is a lie. The post-*genre* thing was originally what happened when bands got tired of a sound and reimagined it without altering its essence. Post-metal is just taking a blueprint from another genre and applying it to metal. TOTALLY different.

It's not that these bands are bad, per se. It's that they could be so much more than they are. This argument only becomes more valid if we don't consider Neurosis a post-metal band.

 

Death metal is just Slayer/Bathory with Napalm Death vocals, though.

Neurosis at least used to be hardcore/crustcore, but they've changed a lot over the years.

iggy::cheers2:iggy:

 

I'm not sure if I see any problem with this sub-sub-genre thing since bands that concentrating on a certain style still brings forth awesome stuff. I can't really add objective views on the post metal and rock thing unfortunately since I generally find both utterly uninteresting.

 

No, I got the point, I just like asking questions and testing the reasoning behind people's opinions :cheers2:.

My point was if you are getting caught up on what the genre name is, in this case the term post-metal, and the music doesn't match up to your expectations, aren't you holding a stupid genre name against the music? But you have already clarified this by saying you'd find Isis boring regardless of genre name, which is fine with me. I just wasn't sure how much weight you were putting behind these ultimately meaningless genre names.

Anyways I think you bring up something interesting that definitely applies to how I think of music. I am in a band with my roommate, and we are about to start recording. I often question the future of metal, and how I can push the envelope and create something fresh and exciting.

 

No, just no.

 

also, whatsup doom_monger =D

 

Your joking?

 

Metal has to take a drastic change or it will become OBSOLETE!

These new progressive metal bands that have been coming out are pretty good...some of them. We just need more interesting metal other than the great chugging palm-muted triplets we've been smashing our heads with for the past 10 years. ITS TIME FOR CHANGE!

 

Interesting point you make here. Iron Butterfly and other 'heavier' bands had already paved the way for BS and the other hard rock / HM bands that came after them. The 'psychedelic' vein never disappeared from Iommi's musical horizons and today there bands who have actually fused metal and psychedelia in a very amazing way.......e.g. ACID WITCH, ELECTRIC WIZARD, etc.

 

I really agree with the TS, very valid point, you got it in a nutshell

I also find it funny that many people who listen exclusively to metal hate mainstream with a passion
They claim that it is all the same, pop rock w/e but in reality every genre has bands that are 'the same' and metal is no exception, in fact I see it as even more limited in expression (distortion, diminished, power chords, screaming vocals, blast beats) I bet over 5,000 bands are nearly indistinguishable

Some like a band almost solely because it is underground and once the band emerges to mainstream many people move on to the next underground band
This was the case for my friends and CoB, I still love that band, I prefer their old stuff but you cant call them sell outs or just plain bad

Anyways, im not trying to bash on metal, I really enjoy it but i agree with the TS that it would be nice for some new bands to try something else

When it all comes down to it music is a outlet of expression
All arguing and conflict between genres is natural and fueled by the ego
I say break the rules and dont let anyone tell you what you make isn't music

 

lultrain to idiotville