So, apparently metal is cool again. The three (probably) most influential 'indie' sites have all been showing metal some love lately-- Pitchfork hooked up Baroness' Red Album with a robust 8.4 last year, Stereogum has also given Baroness some love, and Brooklyn Vegan now has their very own heavy metal correspondent. And many more examples are out there to be found, if one had the slightest inclination to look.
Ok, so maybe this phenomenon isn't exactly new-- certain metal acts, for one reason or another, have always garnered the attention of indie rockers and a wider circle in general. And it's not always the 'best' metal acts that pop onto non-metal radars either, nor is it always the most successfully promoted. What is the common thread, if any, that ties all metal bands with crossover success?
Though it may not really be all that new, the phenomenon is becoming more pronounced of late. Maybe it has something to do with the notion that, to quote an associate of mine, "the dust is all up in the air [in the music industry] and while the industry is economically shifting, reviewers are looking in new windows."
It's certainly not news that the music industry is changing at an alarming (well, alarming to those with a stake in the old model, that is) rate these days, and perhaps that has something to do with shaking things up a bit and breaking down genre boundaries.
I'm sure many of our regular readers will have opinions on this topic, which they should feel free to holler out.
In 'apparently-metal-is-cool-again'- related news, Brooklyn Vegan has an update on the activities (tour dates) of all three ex-Sleepers in early '08. With Om and High On Fire hitting all the major markets, Neurosis and (possibly, probably, hopefully?) Mastodon taking over the Brooklyn Masonic Hall for two nights, Doomriders and The Sword (among others) releasing new albums, 2008 is already shaping up to be a good year in crustcake-land.
January 7, 2008
Metal - Still 'Hip' or 'Hip' Again?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 hollers:
First of all, let's not get caught up in proclaiming metal to be hip again just because certain indie-rock centric media says so. The metal scene has been extremely healthy of late, yes, but that can be traced back to the rise of the new wave of american heavy metal which really started to gain steam around 2002/2003 with bands like killswitch engage, shadows fall, lamb of god, and mastodon, as well as the re-introduction of many of the swedish greats into the american musical lexicon (In Flames, the Haunted, etc). In fact, i'd argue that if Pitchfork is catching on, they're way fucking late to the game, and it's probably a signal that the good times are about to end.
Now, as for that media attention, I don't think it has anything to do with changes in the music industry, no offense meant to your associate.
You are correct that certain metal has always been seen as acceptable or cool to the indie-rock loving set. Baroness and High on Fire definitely fall into this category. It's got something to do with the aesthetic and perceived intellectual element of certain metal that they perceive as "ok" to like. It has to do with the whole northeastern / liberal arts college / brainy way of looking at music that appeals to that set. They don't want to be pigeonholed as meat-headed so they disassociate with anything that could be called as such. It also relates to the production elements -- hipsters hate well-produced music because they view it as artificial and inauthentic. This is crazy speak to any true fan of metal.
Those publications wouldn't be caught with their pants down writing about lamb of god, killswitch, or any number of very popular current metal bands that could be considered more trendy -- bullet for my valentine, machinehead, soilwork, etc etc etc. Nor would they pay attention to anything just as under the radar as, say, High On Fire, but whose emphasis is on musical ability over emotion: for instance Opeth or Dream Theater. You can forget about ever seeing anything about those bands or their ilk on Pitchfork.
Also, this relates to my next point: metal bands that indie rock fans / hipsters tend to glom onto also tend to be the ones with punk/hardcore influence as opposed to straight metal influence. I'm looking at you, Converge: not really a metal band, in my book. The simplicity of the punk ethos is valued much higher to these folks than musicianship. Exhibit A: Opeth and Dream Theater, above.
So yeah, it's unsurprising to me to see Brooklyn Vegan writing about bands like Om and High on Fire. And Neurosis. Those bands are in their own metal sub-genre: "hipster metal." And hey, I like those bands sometimes too, and I certainly won't dislike them because of who their fans are. All I'm saying is there's definitely a difference.
Sorry for the rant!
-VN
i definitely agree that hipsters dig on the bands that come from a hardcore or punk background. i've never once seen a hipster sporting an Aborted shirt. Then again punk and hardcore lend more to fashion than say death or thrash metal; therefore, getting the attention of the hipster or scenesters eye just based on their merch ideas!!! or not....
whatever happened to the long sleeve metals shirts with logos downt he sleeves? Crobwar is still doing it....
To address a couple (but not all) of your points, Vince:
You say those 'indie-rock centric' publications wouldn't pay attention to a band such as Opeth, who put their 'emphasis on musical ability over emotion'.
Pitchfork, for one, has featured them more than once, including an 8.4 rating for Ghost Reveries.
And with regards to Opeth and Dream Theater, I would argue that, while certainly and obviously technically able, Opeth put music and emotion before showmanship, whereas all too often with a band like Dream Theater the focus seems to be on complicated and technical playing for the sake of complicated and technical playing.
And if that's what you're looking for in a band, there's certainly nothing wrong with that-- I've listened to my fair share of Dream Theater and the like.
You also say "[t]he simplicity of the punk ethos is valued much higher to these folks than musicianship." And I agree with you whole-heartedly. It seems to be an eternal truth with music that there is a certain distinction between music seen as 'high art' and music of the common people.
It's a symphony orchestra vs. a traveling minstrel a few centuries ago. It's Yes vs. Bob Dylan a few decades ago. It's Dream Theater vs. High On Fire, to use one example, today. Typical people tend to identify with music that is accessible, personal, and folky (in its literal, not musical, sense: 'of the people'). Typical people tend not to identify with something like Dream Theater, perhaps because typical people aren't themselves musicians.
Back to the original question, though, 'is metal still hip or hip again?', I think it's hard to say. On the one hand, yes, certain metal has always crossed over into non-metal circles. But on the other hand, I do think metal in general seems to be becoming less and less taboo to the mainstream or indie-rock centric publication and, by association, music fan.
Post a Comment