Essentially this. Although metal is the genre I listen to most, I've always felt more at home with the punk scene. I don't like the metal style of dress at all and I've never really been enamoured by lyrics about satan, gore ect. There surely is a lot of individuality, innovation and integrity within the metal scene, but I think it's important to remember that metal is no more about individuality than the next genre. It has just as much conformity, stagnation and closed-mindedness as a lot of the things metal is supposedly rebelling against.

Clinging to the whole 'us metal brethren versus the world' mentality comes off as rather juvenile in this day and age. First off, I think it's almost impossible to argue that metal is even one vaguely cohesive community anymore. I understand moderate elitism and even think it has its place to some degree, but I've seen some people act like they are superior human beings because of the (sub)genre they listen to (if it gets to this point you should probably take a long look at your life and consider moving out of your mother's basement). Guess what - someone isn't an inferior person because they listen to deathcore or whatever else "false metal" they may dig. One of my good friends listens primarily to deathcore and beatdown hardcore and he's a cooler dude than pretty much any metalhead I've met. And as for the whole everyone whining about deathcore thing being a huge problem, I'm sure the 'real' metal dudes way back in the day whined about hair metal and whatnot.

It isn't. Nothing as big is a community, but metal is way too fractured to be a community even if we ignore the size. Not even a subgenre like "black metal" has an actual single community, as it's evident from some of the arguments in this thread.

People who act like superior human beings because of music suck, but I've also met the opposing who laugh in your face if you say that a pop song has no artistic merit, as if it's 0% objective and only down to taste.

There's also the issue of categorizing people into stereotypes - there have been multiple times people talked (and more times when people acted) as if I thought metal was the only type of good music just because I listen to metal and maybe mentioned that this or that band is great, or said this or that pop song is bad. Obviously, the problem wasn't in me, it was in the stereotype, because nothing I ever said could be constructed into that stereotype.

So the thing to take away from this is, have your opinion, don't be a dick about it (meaning only politely discuss it if it comes up) and don't preemptively assume a person is something until you know he is. Having an elitist opinion, or negating any non-subjective value in music just so you could feel well might be annoying, but what makes it a problem is the way you express it.


That's all this communities sucking consists of IMHO, it doesn't matter whether you want to befriend people in metal concerts or only want to read forums.

If your friend isn't a fuckhead about his taste, no one reasonable will give a shit, and anyone who does is generally a teenaged neckbeard who feels the need to assert their "metalness", which is less elitism and more just being retarded. The reason that deathcore kids still get a lot of shit is generally because they're often very vocal about how their tastes are superior and that death metal sucks. I don't know what it is, but they LOVE to talk shit for no good reason and tend to have "us against the world" attitudes way too often.

I think the problem with this thread is that some people are arguing about the concept of a metal community as a binary, black and white concept. As if:

A) You're a complete outsider

or

B) You're part of THE metal community, where metal brothers and sisters oil each others' back and bound eternally together, singing Manowar anthems.

In reality, there are thousands of communities and sub-communities and within them, no fixed membership. People come and go and they have varying attitudes toward things. You "join" them to get whatever it is you want and you invest whatever you want in them.

With more music and advance in technologies, you have a lot more options as far as communities. The trick is to have realistic expectations. Nothing is "starting to suck". Things have always been changing and they always will be. There was never one big community where everyone was cool and agreed with everybody else and there never will be one.

That's no reason to be shitting on communities. You just have to know how to use them.

"Wimps and posers, leave the hall"

Seems pretty straight forward to me. We need more elitists and less falses co-opting our music into some watered down horseshit that Bright Eyes fans can say they like to feel 'cool' and 'rebellious'... and less people giving that kind of bullshit a free pass. Fuck that. It's not cool to have any convictions anymore, now it's 'too much work' or 'trivial' or 'elitist' to actually think anything should have any sort of integrity.

Look at what happened to punk music. An entire genre of music that was genuinely dedicated to rebelling against popular culture/music, that those involved couldn't identify with and thus loathed, was slowly but surely assimilated by the very thing they existed to defy. The 'look', the 'sound', the 'attitude' all appropriated, drained of any real meaning or genuine intent, recycled en mass into a watered down shell of itself and made available at every mall in the land so that 'cool kids' could wear/listen to it and tell mom and dad to fuck off for a year of high school before they went off to college and became investment bankers or whatever and left the 'rebellion' behind in favor of the bright future they always knew they'd have. People used to be scared of punk, it used to be violent, people used to be fucking worried about you if you were into that shit... now it's Blink 182. Do you think that anyone who was genuinely into what that shit was really about was like "oh neato" when that happened? Do you really think they shouldn't have cared or that them caring was juvenile or trivial?

That's not to say there wasn't good punk music being made anyway, of course there was... just like there's good black metal being made regardless of whatever Deafheaven and the like signify, but to have the general perception of what you were doing go from being genuine and having some sort of meaning to 'juvenile fashion for kids who paint their nails black' is a hard pill to swallow. The thing those of you who are saying 'who cares?' are forgetting, and largely discounting, is that while you may just "listen to what you like and don't care about public perception" there are a lot of people that this shit actually means something to beyond just 'music that sounds good to their ears' and there's nothing wrong with that.

That's ok, but only because you feel the music you're loving is a so big part of your life you can argue and quarrel with everybody hangin' around you doesn't mean you have to forcedly be aggressive, otherwise you (or somebody else) will consider yourself a wimp if you aren't. Black metal (but Metal in general, I may say) is a VERY important thing in my life (wouldn't have it been, I wouldn't have bought more than 5000 records in almost 30 years), and yet I never blamed anybody for his different musical tastes. Just lived my life by my own, careless of other's. What's mine is mine, I don't need to change your opinion or the Whole world because I listen to this or that music style. This is in my opinion the real point this thread is getting to

Not a bad idea behind your post, you got the general idea right, but here's the thing - we should have conviction for whatever our individual tastes might be, not just what's true metal and what scares and shocks people - as fun as those things may be. I fucking hate the trend these days of everyone watering themselves down and indeed the notion that it's "trivial and elitist" to think anything has integrity. It's all bullshit to me. But what you're forgetting is that not everyone DOES have the same ideas of what good music is. If someone likes Bright Eyes or Blink 182 and can back that up with strong reasoning why, without coming off like an insecure defensive douche, more power to them. Several bands I like are pretty far away from that kind of metal, rebellious attitude and I don't care, because they write good music anyway. You should have conviction for whatever your tastes are. Being metal isn't really a part of it.

That said, since this thread is about the metal community, your post does have more of a context there - metal as an art form is inherently rebellious and headstrong, it has always run against the mainstream tide with its attitude and aesthetic. And there's nothing wrong with defending that.



Well, disliking Deafheaven because of a musical aspect of their sound is fine. Disliking them solely because the people who listen to them are perceived "hipsters" is just retarded.

I certainly wasn't implying you have to be a dick about your tastes or shun someone else for liking something you don't, not at all. I like all kinds of different music, there's nothing wrong with having varied tastes. I just think all these people saying it's 'juvenile' or 'trivial' to care about something and believe in the integrity of something are wrong. You can care about something and be bothered by things you think are bullshit that are being associated with it without acting like an asshole.

Emp, the whole notion of my example hinges on disliking the music. If someone likes their stuff then go for it, nothing wrong with that, but it's perfectly ok for someone who thinks they're bullshit to say so and be disconcerted that the aesthetics (musically and otherwise) of the music they love is being appropriated by a 'group/scene/whatever you want to call it' that they don't like.

Idealism in art is a good thing because it motivates people to create something meaningful rather than to merely pander to arbitrary preferences. I think there is room for reasonable discourse regarding aesthetic ideals; they are not completely subjective and can be argumentatively justified or challenged based on a consensus about certain fundamental principles. This possibility of critical discourse is accepted in pretty much any other art form, but somehow in popular music it is seen by the crowd as absurd and negatively elitist. Music is the only art form where the contemporary public consensus is that it's all down to subjective personal taste (with the notable exception of "academically relevant" music like classical or jazz). There is no reason why this should be so other than the fact that it allows for better commercialization.

it doesn't necessarily allow for better commercialization either - the tv and movie industries seem to be commercializing just fine, even tho' people voice a lot of relatively objective criticisms toward both; and it is indeed often used as an integral part of marketing

Marketing utilizes critical reception, but often enough in a manipulative matter that undermines the point of it. Paid reviews are the obvious example. Are you sure they couldn't make more profit if it wasn't for all that pesky critical nitpicking? Imagine how much money they could make with brainless Transformers movies if nobody gave a damn about the brainlessness.

Oh but it does. I mean, we've all met people who think music is 100% subjective. And it'd be hard to argue that pouring money into things that are supposed to change public consensus... Isn't changing consensus.

I don't get the people bitching about the "brotherhood", all I consider a "metal brother" to me is someone who helps you up in the pit when you've fallen, which fits under a level of bond I've never seen at any other show. I mean yeah, calling us a family as if we never fuck each other over is bullshit, but there is a natural level of comradely at a Metal show that is far more apparent than in any other genre-show I've attended. I don't know, maybe it's just Canada where everyone rushes to the person who fell in the pit to ensure they don't get crushed, at a level of concern similar to as if it we're their own friend, despite being a stranger. I just don't see anything like that at hardcore shows or huge Raves (I mean, most people are fucked up at those so maybe that's to blame), where people do tend to kick or step on people cos they just don't give a shit.

I don't think what OP is referring to are elitists either, because most elitists hold those influential bands to a higher standard than the normal person, unless maybe he's referring to the likes of Pantera or Machine Head. I mean, really, nobody here will kill you for not loving King Diamond, but lesst you say bad things no one will kill you. But that's someone like King Diamond.

I see what you're getting at, and I don't disagree...but a good deal seems to have been written about, for example, psychedelic music, punk and the post-punk movement (academic acceptance could be seen as a sign of what killed punk, arguably)...and I think this sort of thing would fall under the "pop" umbrella. I realise that when you are talking of "pop music" you're probably referring to whatever today's top 40 music is and not Sisters of Mercy, David Bowie or whatever, but it's still interesting. I think a generation or so has to pass before serious academic discourse can be considered. hence, we don't really see a lot of credible stuff written about black or death metal at this time, but it's coming/becoming increasingly prevalent.

No, it's not just you, or Canada, I think. I've been to a lot of non-metal shows where I felt kind of out of place and a bit isolated at first. Usually as the night goes on that changes, what with people drinking and becoming more social and excited. Anyway, when I went to my first out-of-town metal shows in Rochester, Chicago, etc, I found that a lot of people I didn't know just wanted to come up and talk because they saw my shirt, or noticed that I bought a certain CD at a murchandise table, or whatever. It's not a big deal, really, but you know, I'm still in contact with some of these people years later....I think that says something.

Note that I'm not in any way attempting to imply that metal is superior because of the crowd....not at all. Even though I was pretty inactive during most of my teen years, I grew up with all sorts of music and have been to raves, hardcore gigs, folk gigs, jazz shows, and the symphony, you name it...and I have to say that the metal show experience is pretty unique, and usually a good time.

Surely it wasn't just academic acceptance, but maybe the way critics or other artists started treating it? Or was academic acceptance critical in that, if so can you elaborate? I'm curious now, this is a very interesting topic.





Anything that's more interesting than just common knowledge about the genres?

That last bit seems like a huge generalisation. Sure, at HUGE raves, where you have multi-thousand crowds, there is a sort of impersonality, but if you've ever been to a more intimate, low-key bush party (as we have occurring in Austrlia regularly) you would probably find a very helpful and compassionate community. It seems pointless to compare huge commercial raves with what is likely to be small, low key metal gigs. Rather, compare it to small 'bush doof' style gatherings and you will actually find some real similarity. In effect, there is nothing outstanding or especially unique about metal shows, excepting the music being played there.

But we don't actively let people die! The bond is completely unfathomable to the pleb masses!

Actually I was using it in the broader sense of the word in that instance, but it's not really important which specific artist that includes because I was more referring to the audience anyway. It was supposed to be an observation of how the mainstream public talks about music. The subject of that talk could just as well be Pink Floyd or David Bowie though.


I didn't necessarily mean academic discourse. Non-academic critical discourse is something that regularly happens in these forums for example. But this way of discussing music is the exception outside of nerdy music boards and is, I think, generally seen as abnormal (as some of the reactions in this thread show). And I get the impression that this is different with other art forms such as movies or literature, so it's not completely unrealistic to ask for higher standards.

Academic recognition of metal is seemingly becoming a thing at the moment, and I find that to be definitely a positive development because it means metal is recognized as art and taken seriously. But Iron Maiden and Justin Bieber still share the same medium, so to be able to argue that Maiden is good art while Bieber is brain cell poison [citation needed] they have to be judged under the same aspects and held to the same standards. And that can only happen when music is universally debatable.

Metal's many things, but its essence is extremity. You can look at early metal and pick up many qualities, none of which have grown as extensively as extremity. So why aren't genre's with more of that more evolved or advanced than genre's that have less of it?

Metal isn't only about extremity though. By that logic everyone will be listening to harsh noise in a few years as that would be the pinnacle of the genre. That logic also makes it sound like classic metal isn't worth listening to anymore, which is just wrong.

Metal's essence is definitely not extremity, sunshine.

I'll join the chorus and say metal's essence is absolutely not "extremity"… not even sure what the fuck this is supposed to mean.

Is there such a thing as distilling metal to its essence anyway? Some threads I've seen on this forum attempting to define metal usually end up as some kind of "agree to disagree" even among the smartest members.

^ Yes it is. Even if it doesn't always manifest itself in the way you would expect.


I didn't say only, but it's one of the more important aspects of it. It doesn't invalidate older metal, I didn't say it got better(I do think it did though). Extremity isn't only how fast your blastbeats are. Atmosphere, aesthetics, riffcraft... etc are factors also. All these got more extreme as metal went on. It wouldn't have constantly gotten darker, faster, heavier if that wasn't the case. Why would it go that direction at all if it was driven by extremity?

I assume you meant "wasn't driven by" there in the last sentence.
A part of metal went that way. But it was a part of metal, firstly, and secondly it stayed at those specific places in the specific genres. It shows that various niches were filled by the more extreme traits, but also by other traits, because clearly (a) there are multiple genres (b) they have other traits apart from being extreme (c) they sort of stay with those traits and that level of "extremeness" instead of creating one genre that's maximally extreme.

So agreed. And honestly I think what the OP is complaining of, happens in nearly any other situation when people get together over a common interest (e.g., in the case of seeing some band live, or metal music in general). He also appears upset that people have negative opinions over things he loves (such as the "greats" of metal). OP, listen to the music for yourself and give up the illusion of brotherhood or some sort of friendly music society. Don't bother yourself about things that happen in any situation.

That happened all around metal, even if it's more common at certain places. Generally, bands furthered whatever characterized their sounds. There were fast bands, then came faster bands, then came faster bands. There were technical bands, then came more technical bands, then came more technical bands. There were slow bands, then came slower bands, then came slower bands. Chaotic bands got more chaotic. Brutal bands got brutaler. Whatever atmosphere an influential band exuded, bands influenced by it sought to take it further. Bands outdoing each other, things taken steps forward... etc. Extremity isn't the sole defining factor, but it's probably the biggest. Bands sticking at a certain level is due to limited imagination, physical constraints, complacency... etc. You can't expect every band to exemplify this ideal.

This is really kind of a copy and paste subject. Is there anything that actually makes the community suck? Not really, because there was nothing to make it great in the first place. What one individual finds great about something, another person hates. Take the hardcore movement for example. For metalheads, this was a disease, but for the younger generations like me, it was a great way to get introduced to heavy music, metal or not.

There have always been disputes between metalheads, and that will never change. This sense of brotherhood you mentioned is kind of an expected thing for metalheads to have, but we don't have connections anymore than people who listen to rap or country. We are people with similar interests in music and that is pretty much the end of it. Sure you will find people with more in common than just music, but them listening to the same music as you doesn't automatically mean you guys are two peas in a pod.

At the end of the day, the metal community evolves and changes, most likely into something you won't like.

Ugh....I hate all this extremity talk. Shit doesn't need to keep evolving to get better. I don't need more technical or abrasive music. The mention of invalidating older classic bands is funny to me as well. Could you imagine a regular Iron Maiden topic on this board? The one man black metal fanboys would shit themselves in disgust.

I don't know of any black metal fans who post regularly on this board who dislike Iron Maiden.

They stay at a certain level because they've found a level that they and their fans enjoy. Some bands deviate from that, and then they become a new genre (or just get forgotten). You're stretching this natural evolution on what people like into a scale and for this reason throwing normal musical expression (which often is in the level the artist's comfortable with) in favor of your theory on extremeness.

It's important in metal, yes, but IMHO your posts show how trying to map a genre's evolution based on a single trait is not consistent with how music works.

You probably just grew older and realised how much younger people suck. Looking down on youngsters is Socratic, keep being the old guy with yo bro'z an yo sista'z and it will be all fine.

I don't know if it's the scene of my city or if I'm an idiot or what, but I don't miss any brotherhood at all.

OP, the metal community hasn't recently started to suck, it's always sucked and you're just now realizing it. I suggest you just ignore it. Nothing will change or go away. There never was any "metal brotherhood" or anything like that. People have always battled and disagreed, even long before the Internet. It's the way it has been and always will be. Just listen to what you like and ignore everything else.

1. I am a wimp, though. I can't be the only one who's fucking sick of me(a)talheads who treat metal like a church for macho heterosexual purity, right? I'm not sure why that means I should stop listening to metal, just because I can't identify with/won't perpetuate that one dumb subset (stereotype) of metal culture. Fascist-minded, eviler-than-thou Euronymites who go on about "wimps and faggots diluting the scene" are the johnny-come-latelys here anyway.

2. I rather like Bright Eyes... I got into them long after getting into Grindcore and Death Metal, though... not the other way around.

3. Sex Pistols/"Punk Rock" were manufactured just like every other boy band.

4. At the end of the day, we're all human. We all live on this ball of dirt, and we're all going to fucking die here and all of human history will die with us, so, to quote Spazztic Blurr just one more time: IF YOU'RE SERIOUS, YOU LOSE! Hate, elitism and exclusivity are concepts for deluded chumps (chimps).

lord genghis, couldn't agree more. I may as well try to spend my time with people who happen to like the same fucking breakfast cereal as me, for all the difference taste and proclivity makes to the likelihood of my getting on with anyone.

I have a limited, small number of close friends who happen to listen to a lot of metal, and know a decent number of very talented metal musicians who are great to hang out with. But the thing is, these are people I would hang out with anyway, 'cause I like them. Just how I'm happy to hang out with a bunch of people who listen to whatever fluff is currently on the radio, because I enjoy their company. I get nothing out of this ephemeral and irrelevant "brotherhood" of neanderthal thrash-vest troglodytes people always want you to be a part of. It's just a way for lonely or inadequate people to be a part of something bigger than their crap lives. You know like a church, a synagogue or a mosque. At one point I actually started to despise metalheads almost more than any other "group" because I overloaded on going to shows and on the whole internet bickering thing. In fact my blog has a couple of articles from myself and other writers on just how awful some people at gigs and metal bars can be. If you think you're part of a scene or a brotherhood, you're kidding yourself. If you've found people whose company you genuinely enjoy that's wonderful, but please, at least realize that is because of who those people are and not because they're wearing Bathory, Von and Sodom patches.

That said and in the context of the_raytownian's post, the elitist nature of many black metal bands - for example the more occult or "religious/orthodox" styles and in particular Les Legions Noires - seems to be a necessary contributor to just how excellent a lot of that music happens to be. The French black metal bands in particular do truly live in an extreme way and that unbridled hatefulness seems to seethe off the recordings of bands like Antaeus and Hell Militia. Obviously I have no wish to actually seek out their society in some attempt to emulate or ingratiate them, but I admire their works. But it can go both ways as narrow-mindedness and aversion to anything that doesn't strictly adhere to some unwritten set of "metal rules" is exactly what keeps other genres and followers stagnant and moronic.

One thing that really bugs me can be highlighted in relation to so called retro-thrash.

Now, just to provide brief info on my general take on old-modern distinction. I do enjoy the hell out of the old school, either in actual 80s releases or in good renditions of the style in contemporary metal. Though, I'm not opposed to groove in principle.

That being said, it's baffling how sections of metal fans who are old-school-or-no-school bash on retro-thrash bands while simultaneously lamenting, nay, shedding croc tears over the historical death of thrash metal (and all that anti-modernist vitriol that goes with it; yeah, I don't enjoy much 90s groove, next to nothing really, but c'mon). It's blatantly contradictory when it's not really based on an honest assessment of this music (and yes much of it is derivative as all hell) but rather on an a priori rejection - it's not 80s therefore it sucks and is only a parody of the real deal.

I'd venture to guess that such folks would be super happy to be able to enjoy more renditions of their beloved genre, but no.

Yeah, there's some "old school or no school, leave the hall" bullshit going on there, but from what I'm seen, people hate pizza thrash because it is boring, derivative, and frequently plagiarized garbage. Back during the retro-thrash craze (2006-early 2010), Earache, Nuclear Blast, and Metal Blade were snatching up shitty bands left and right and horribly oversaturating the market, and people got sick of all those shitty Exodus or Anthrax clones playing a bunch of stolen riffs while singing about beer, zombies, partying, killing posers, and 80s action movies. It was sometime after that that the craze died off and all those shitty bands that should have never gone anywhere started dropping like flies, while the bands that either did something new (Vektor, Exmortus) or didn't break the mold but did what they did well (Havok, Warbringer) were the ones who survived.

Oh yeah, agree wholeheartedly with the assessment of music - much of that scene did in fact suck (most of all for being boring as fuck, at least for me) and luckily those band you mention who did indeed survive are more or less quality stuff (though, I never could get into Havok, for some reason), with Vektor being supernova quality stuff (bit of a fanboy here ). I'd also add Hexen, maybe not for breaking the mold, but for going in an interesting direction.

As for the phenomena I tried to highlight, these people are smug as hell and a general annoyance to either be around in social situations or discuss music with. There's actually next to none experience with retro-thrash here since this attitude rests on a very simple procedure - it's new therefore it sucks and HOW COULD ANYTHING TOP THE GLORIOUS 80S OMG LOLZ.

Love that word filter

We have the opposite problem around my area. Lots of the old thrashers just accept anything that plays thrash regardless of the quality and have that "OMG STOP BEING SO ELITIST JESUS CHRIST PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE THE REASON WHY THE SCENE ISN'T BIGGER" attitude towards anyone who doesn't blindly accept every last pizza thrash act. I can name maybe two or three modern thrash acts around here that are decent; the rest are either your standard shitty Bay Area clones or quasi-groove garbage ala later-era Shadows Fall or Lazarus A.D., especially since the Five Colleges area (where KSE and their ilk came from) is practically in my backyard.