So metal's been getting quite a bit of attention in academic circles recently, quite often from a philosophical (theoretical?) point of view, such as the Black Metal Symposium that took place a couple of years ago in NY, I believe, as well as from a musical standpoint (the recent Ne Obliviscaris thread here is what gave me the idea to post this).

This thread should serve to list more instances of metal's academic recognition as well as to answer the following question: How does everyone feel about this, as it's obviously a trend that's been picking up in recent years? Would you like to see more if it? If so, in what fields? How do other genres of popular music compare in your experience - in fact, is it still possible to call metal popular music?

Mind you, I'm not really looking for half-assed psychological or quasi-sociological studies on how metal affects adolescents or anything to that effect. Also, articles authored by members of bands/metal journos/fans themselves that fit a certain academic standard are perfectly fine.

In my opinion, it's awesome as long as it's done properly. For example, while Liturgy and their part in the whole Black Metal Symposium deal seem to have caused quite a fuss, I must say I was impressed by what Hunter had to say, how he put it and his entire vision, which is commendable at the very least, disregarding personal opinions of their music. While I don't really dig the Ne Obliviscaris track personally, I can definitely see why it would get picked for in-depth compositional analysis as it definitely holds quite a few musical qualities commonly associated with so-called "serious music".

What I think is great about metal getting the academic treatment is that it serves to give metal a more contemplative, even cerebral touch. It is stimulative in that it reinforces the more musical, artistic side of the scene as it brings forth the inherent complexity behind a lot of metal music (but not just musical complexity, mind you). Embracing this instead of the barbaric, party-hard attitude that is common with a lot of successful metal musicians today (ranging from Children of Bo(re)dom to the Korpiklaanis and the Finntrolls) or the apparent pop-mindedness of your Nightwishes and Epicas might just give rise to more quality music, or at least offer a beacon for newer, talented artists to come out of the woodwork. The apparent divide between the two worlds in metal music itself is an interesting one, and I have to admit that I really can't call it when it comes to putting a tag on metal - some of it is "legitimate/art" music while a lot of it is clearly popular music.

As for what I'd like to see more - I'm really looking forward to reading an in-depth analysis of Deathspell Omega, for example. I'm sure their lyrics offer quite a lot philosophically as well as theologically and I'm thinking of researching them when I have some time to spare.

So now metal has a massive inferiority complex and needs to be validated as "serious art" come oooon

I rather have my metal bone headed, thank you very much

Metal is serious art.

Korpiklaani says "Hi."

I don't really care about recognition as much as I care about good writing. There's a lot to dig into on the theory side, and having a NeO song in the mix is cool, although far from the first time metal has been the subject of theory analysis (I've read a dissertation on Dream Theater, and there's that semi-famous piece on Meshuggah). I'm not sure I would call Hunt-Hendrix's writing fully academic, although it certainly uses the language of an academic text, I doubt it had any kind of peer review. That essay struck me as a way for a smart, college-educated guy to justify being in a metal band after spending god knows how much money on getting a philosophy degree from Columbia University.

I'm also not that interested in drawing a line between "serious" art and "unserious" art. From where I'm standing, pretty much all music is worthy of academic inquiry, whether it be 20 minute long symphonic prog suites or braindead folk metal drinking anthems. It's all about asking the right questions.

Academic fuck off. Metal is shit for die hards only. Pussy college abercrombie stay out.
SEXUAL METAL HOLOCAUST WILL CRUSH POSER GAY !!!

Metal music is a fine wine. Just listen to the classic composers such as Geoff Tate; Beethoven, sit down, you've just got dethroned. It's wonderful. The melodies, the structure, just give me some cigars, a cozy chair, a fireplace, and we've got ourselves a night in with nothing but good ol classic American Soldier! There's nothing embarrassing about liking music such as this! It's something that all students should be exposed to! Pure art!

The issue is that there's very little worth reading in terms of academic writing in any subject, both in terms of straight quantity and as a proportion of the overall academic production. Then, metal fans as a whole I would guess are less likely to be academic than, say, fans of classical music. Further, there's still probably a certain stigma attached to discussion of metal in academia which will lead to papers being taken less seriously and thus being less likely to be printed in PRJs. Yet further, there's little chance of discussion of metal from a more social perspective by lauded academics than, say, hip-hop music (which has a whole load of social history to discuss as well as the music). So the chance of a *good* paper being written about metal is pretty slim.

i think the study of metal as a subculture - as an anthropological/sociological-type study, similar in the way people have analysed grunge as a phenomenon, may be worth a look. particularly in the sense of it being a collectivist subculture that exists primarily in individualist nations... there's something there, for sure. but if its going to come to fanboys writing essays on maiden's "rime of the ancient mariner", i'd rather it stopped before it began.

Definitely a good thing. Mainstream attention of metal music has grow rapidly over the last 15 years or so, and mostly bad has come out of it. However, what has not increased despite ongoing commercial exploitation of metal and metal culture is the ability of outsiders to take metal seriously as a major sub/countercultural movement. I see these recent developments as a sign that this is going to change.

One of the largest newspapers in the Netherlands reviewed DeafHeaven - Sungazer among other metal records in the past. They also sometimes review live metal performances, and just this week they had a pretty extensive interview with Johan Hegg from Amon Amarth. So that's pretty cool.

There are hundreds of papers already written about this, some even collected and published as books.

Some interesting points of view there, especially the one about quality and readability... I fully agree that this kind of reading is difficult at best to get through.

As for Geoff Tate and sipping wine, note that there are no social implications when it comes to looking at metal from this kind of perspective, and by that I mean you don't have to be a quasi-bourgeois douchelord to read or write this kind of stuff.



Interesting opinion, however what kind of answers would you be able to get about a brain-dead drinking anthem, regardless of questions asked?

Not that I'm necessarily implying that prog masterpieces are superior to other music, not at all; I find stuff such as Diocletian or Revenge just as, if not more interesting to think about, just as an example. As a side note, I also fully support sexual metal holocaust and throwing the beer bottle to poser face



I'm positive you don't live exclusively on "bone-headed" metal, you just interpret it that way. Either way, these kinds of reactions usually say much more about the listener than the music itself.

Well OP, if you've read through that Ne Obliviscaris thread then you should already know my view on these subjects. I'll try however to say something useful here.

Metal has always been underground, even when it's mainstream. Paradoxical little statement right?! Let me dissect it then. Metal as a form of music and social subculture has always been a movement that was supposed to go against the norm, against the instituted aspects of what the mainstream music and social behaviour was. Of course that there came a time eventually when it started being much bigger than just a DIY thing, with big labels supporting it and making a lot of money out of it. Some occasional media spotlight was handed down on some bands, resulting for instance in media inventions like the "Big Four" and whatnot. While that happened though, metal kept being seen (and to some point still is) as a "lesser than thou" style and an "inferior" musical stream filled with whatever scum of the earth you could think of. Now, the world has advanced and with the advent of the Internet and the easy access to information that nowadays exists, many myths have been dispelled and there's a more accurate social awareness about metal and what it means. People nowadays will more easily call it "different" than anything else because of said awareness. Sure it will still pass as satanic/noisy/horrible/"insert random demeanour comment" non-music in some circles and places, but that's part of human nature and the cited person's awareness (or lack of it for that matter) of individuality and different cultures/musical styles.

All of that to say that in a way metal is more easily accepted nowadays, in a way that it is more seen as a proper counter-culture rather than a creepy unknown cult of people dressed in black. However that may be true though, the self-awareness of the common person about its musical qualities hasn't changed all that much. What I mean is that people can get along more easily with metal's existence because it's not the bogeyman anymore, but at the same time most of the world still doesn't give a crap about it to see below the veil or to investigate further. So even though metal has gone to gain some mainstream love and appreciation it will still be an underground affair, forever and ever.

Now, I may sound reductive and closed minded with the following commentary, but that's actually the way I'd like it to be! I mean, does anyone really want for metal to be full on mainstream? A part of the everyday life of the world? People usually say and imagine how cool it would be for metal to appear on specific places, because that won't ever happen, but if that was really to happen as a regular thing would it really be that cool? I don't know if some people who advocate for a bigger integration of metal in the mainstream life have ever posed such a question to themselves. I've worked in the commerce for years now, in shops as a salesman or cashier or whatever, and I've always had to deal with the gigantic amount of crap coming out of the shopping mall/store/whatever work place loudspeakers. I mean, I can get along with an hour or two of mainstream music. But an eight hour shift with nothing but the worst "flavour of the week" house/electro pop/pop rock ever?! That's hard, real hard to get along with. I sometimes think how cool it would be to have those eight hours replaced by whatever metal they could put there. But then it hits me. Would I pay more attention to those "elevator tunes" is they were metal songs? Sure I'd be happy to hear one or another, but if you've worked in those kind of jobs before you'll know that when the work is on you don't even listen to the music that's playing! And the best part is that you can then leave at the end of the shift and hit your favourite music in your car stereo or back home. And that's why you (me) value the metal music you listen to, because it's NOT the crap you have to listen to all day long!

I think that having some media attention is cool, although it can come out as disastrous in the end, but still one likes when your favourite band gets under the spotlight. It's cool, but nothing more than that. The same's true for scholars "studying" metal. They'll approach a song/album/band and barely begin to scratch the surface, before coming out as "experts" in the given subject. It's one fucking song/album/band you stupid twats! Since when in any study ever made was that considered as a representative sample of anything? So yeah, what I'm going with this is that I really don't give a crap about metal being studied by scholars because it just won't matter! Metal will (hopefully) never be a mainstream thing, a musical or social culture recognized by most as having intrinsic value. It will only mean something for those that actually like it and go through the motions of exploring and learning about it. And that's the way it should be! Why would anyone want metal to be less than that?

To anyone saying that this is not a credible field of academic study this article may be of some interest http://www.cvltnation.com/the-new-heavy-metal-intelligentsia-death-metal-underground-interviews-dr-karl-spracklen/#more-76220 this guy's starting a metal studies journal open to basically anyone who can make a credible contribution.

That guy sounds at the same time like a fan whose love of the scene makes him want to show it properly to others, and a guy who's trying to make a career out of a controversial matter of study. And after attentively reading the whole thing I seriously can't decide in which corner he actually sits. Make of that what you will.

Interesting post androdion. I agree with you on everything but the final bit. But then again, like I said, I'm not particularly affected by metal as a social/cultural thing (never really felt the need for it to take that place in my life, to be honest), personally I wouldn't like metal any less if it carried no such implications. For example, I don't look at it as "not-eurodance" or "not-teen pop", it's just quality music I enjoy and is a musical preference of mine, along with other genres.

I totally get what you mean by metal always being "underground", its musical obscurity is definitely a defining quality, but I honestly think that exploring metal and writing about it wouldn't do much in the way of bringing it closer to sounding mainstream or even being mainstream in a social sense, but could make light of or explore certain musical/philosophical/[insert whatever field interests you] intricacies within metal.

Unmaker, thanks for the link - looks interesting for sure!

Although it may read like it I don't solely listen to metal and nothing else, it was just a comparison really. Metal is "supposed" to be different, and it is indeed, thus being "other than not the pop/rock/electro" stuff. I think that good music is there to be found in each and every genre (well, mostly, since I'm sure there are some joke genres) but I also think that each one should stay in its "place" that defines it. Because how different would punk be if they wasn't a DIY scene? Or if rock artists decided not to have electric guitars? Or if Black Sabbath never played music with blues influence? Each musical genre has its defining characteristics that are supposed to differentiate it from the rest. So in a way, yeah, metal is something other than the mundane music you put up with on an everyday basis. But that isn't its sole redeeming characteristic, and honestly, thinking that would be very closed-minded.

I get what you're saying about it being studied, but again I say that it can do more worse than good. A fan's view will be skewed because of his/her love for a specific subset of bands/styles (see Sam Dunn for reference), while on the other hand someone who has no basis on metal will treat it as something alien. There's hardly a middle ground between the ardent passion of being a fan trying to show the beauty of it to the world, and the ignorance of someone who's approaching it for the first time. That's why I think that properly studying it will hardly make an impact in the scene, let alone a positive one.

Thanks for elaborating, makes much more sense now! As for your concerns, I must say that it did occur to me as well, however one question in Unmaker's link deals with this specifically and I gotta say I'm pretty convinced by the interviewee's answer. As for Dunn, his approach never really bothered me because I took it for granted his was a superficial approach, meaning it was probably more geared towards people who perhaps weren't that informed about metal. And I think he succeeded in presenting, say, Autopsy in a pretty positive manner to someone who'd have shunned the band otherwise.

I actually enjoy Dunn's quirky "OMG I'M INTERVIEWING BRUCE DIIIIIICK..." style. It's not to be taken very seriously though, but as you may know that's probably what happened. And thus confusion reigned among the non metal fans and he got bashed by the actual metal fans. It's that kind of gut response that may be the actual result of any academic study as well. Many will say "great" while others will scream "folly", you know?! Because each person's understanding of metal is its own thing, albeit inserted in the greater scheme of things.

Think of the genre tags of bands here in MA as opposed to in other websites. They differ, sometimes little or none at all, other times they do by a great distance. And to put things in perspective, the people doing these websites are actual fans with actual knowledge of the metal scene! Now imagine how it would be for someone without any of that knowledge to try and present it to someone who has it. Interesting train of thought isn't it?!

I think I must say this now in this thread and as a disclaimer no I'm not gay but you are a top top poster androdion, by far the best poster on this board your posts are always relevant and no matter how much you disagree with someones point of view, you never resort to belligerent posts or baiting. Once again heterosexual just saying

Back on topic: Isn't that documentary "Headbangers Journey" or something like that a dissertation by an anthropologist PhD student, I think the movement itself doesn't need peer recognition because we all know it is a valid genre of music with supremely talented individuals. It would be nice to see metal get serious academic attention but there is a stigma attached to metal music when it comes to proper musical research. One of my friends wasn't allowed to play metal for one of his music examinations simply because it was metal.

Thanks for the intense laughter you provoked on me (hey, I'm not gay! ), and the kind words of appreciation.

It was in fact, but it fell under what I mentioned above. Dunn's view, as informed (or not, that's debatable) as it was, and put together with an academic degree, still wasn't enough to make it widely accepted as a "be all end all" of what metal is about. It was pretty good in some aspects, especially where it came to show that metal is just another form of music. There's other bullshit in its midst sure, but that isn't really what metal is as much as it came attached to the individuals performing it (the church burnings for instance). I actually thought that was the biggest accomplishment the movie had, to show "normal" people that metal isn't as abnormal as they think, just different. Sure we could spend the rest of the day discussing how wrong some of the things he says are, and that's where it went south. Even with all his heart in it he still wasn't able to properly "dissect" (to use the current term of the discussion) what metal is all about. And at the expense of repetition, if a well informed and highly educated fan has so much trouble trying to do it, how about someone external to the entire scene? It makes you wonder how it would turn out...

The problem is we even as fans can't agree what "metal" is, sure literally speaking it is a music genre defined by a certain set of characteristics. But as a subculture what defines someone who listens to metal? an interesting anecdote and one apt to this discussion but I remember a friend of mine had a look at my CD's when he came over to my house for a drink and saw stuff like Death, Decapitated, Autopsy etc... and was completely shocked, not the actual subject matter but because I liked death metal. He just assumed I was into like Bob Dylan and other stuff like that. I don't look very metal(besides the tattoos) I wear like baby blue shirts(not gay I swear!!!! ) football jerseys and stuff like that most of the time. A lot of extreme metal fans are middle aged professionals now.

My point is that I don't conform to the social stereotypes that are lathered on us as a grouping. A lot of other people don't either, so how do you study such a diverse group. I reckon if you asked everyone here what their age is and what they do for a living you'd get stuff such as 14 years old angsty teenager to 50+ professional something with a family. Really diverse music and fans and even within fans of sub genres there's such diverging opinions. I loooooove death metal but I fucking hate brutal death metal. Someone could love brutal death metal but hate old school death metal, yet on the outside from a neutral perspective we're both death metal fans so we must be similar. The same can be applied to melodeath, prog/tech death. I'm sure black metal is the same etc... One thing you can say about metal is that is incredibly rich and diverse with something for everyone. I hope this makes sense

It does, at least to me it does. And I actually share your point of view on those subjects. And no, I'm not gay!

PS: If there's actually anyone gay out there please excuse me for the immense pseudo-homophobic humour in these posts.

Thus, it might take 100 articles about metal in order to find a good one?

I like the work Keith Kahn-Harris has done.

http://www.kahn-harris.org/category/metal-jew/

interesting ...

Even if you don't agree with them, people taking metal seriously are probably good for metal.

First, the outside world may understand it...

Second, metalheads may respect it more...

I don't think it matters one way or the other if the outside world understands metal. It really shouldn't matter to anyone who is a big fan of it, anyway.

It's cool to a degree. More people are getting exposed to the genre, but the newcomers will begin to see metal as a frilly technical contest instead of... anything metal. Alright, if you have some guitarists study Jeff Loomis and Tosin Abasi, how many of them are really going to end up appreciating darker, angrier, or more primitive stuff like, iunno, Dark Angel, Venom or Inquisition?

I blame prozak

He wishes.


Not really, technical or progressive metal styles are not really more academically interesting than "primitive" ones. Sure, structural complexity seems to translate to "more academic", but if you think about it for more than a second it really doesn't. Besides, the subject of study will rather be determined by what music people like. I don't think metal fans in academia listen to a significantly higher amount of progressive metal than everyone else.

I don't agree.

If it is not understood, it will be changed into what society needs: a signal to use in sitcoms that someone is extreme, on drugs, a life dropout, etc.

It shouldn't become just another flavor of pop. It is its own thing.

If they study Abasi, they'll figure metal is another offshoot of the jazz fusion genre and dismiss it as unimportant. I don't know anything about Loomis.

Exactly!


What are you on about? Since when is metal anything else but what its fans see it to be? Why should a metal fan even care about the opinion of people who can have no appreciation for other people's (different) tastes? I can listen to rock, pop or whatever and tell you if it's well played or rhythmically interesting, although I'll probably never listen to it again because it's not my kind of thing. You won't hear me outright despising the thing on principle of it not being metal because that's, well, stupid! Metal isn't meritoriously better than any other genre! I like it more than anything else sure, but it doesn't detract from the actual value that other styles of music may have. Now, if I see that shunning off attitude as stupid, why would I do it if the situation reversed and someone shitted on metal by the guiding principle of it being bad?

It's all about respect towards others really. And for those animals out there who don't understand the meaning of being human and respectful of others, why do you even care about their opinions?

And HOW exactly will "being understood by the mainstream" make it more of its own thing? If anything, being understood by the mainstream will turn it into exactly what you just said:



I don't even get where you're coming up with this logic. The fact that metal is by and large a niche, underground thing is what prevents it from NOT being that. Sure you'll get stereotypes, but if metal was more in the mainstream eye, you'd just get more stereotypes is all. If people want to understand metal they will come to it on their own.

I can't agree at all here.

The underground aspect has failed because what made the underground "underground" no longer exists. Now it's a contrivance.

Even more, the "underground" genres are the most polluted of all. Metalcore, deathcore, "trad" BM, etc. are at this point a wasteland.

The real problem is that metal fans are so self-fixated at this point that they ignore quality music in preference for novelty.

The result is plastic trash.

No, I think the underground has died. And good riddance! It can't compete with what it now must face, which is an era in which recording is cheap and everything can be cloned, thus what distinguishes music is composition.

We don't see much of that anymore.

Well, except in power metal. Although it's cheesy as all get out, it is what's kept metal alive.

Where else can Metal go though? Can new Metal uphold the spirit of the old while still expanding its musical language?

I think metal needs to build on the past and develop more complex and interesting material, instead of simply more complicated material (Animals as Leaders, Necrophagist, etc.) or more diverse material (all nu-core).

Where's the new Demilich?

I completely agree. I just don't know exactly how this can happen, extreme Metal did its best to write itself into a hole it seems. I for one, would like to see Metal being written on the scale of classical symphonies without being the usual wank of theory or cheese. Can you imagine a Black Metal symphony? Perhaps I shall work on this...

I hope you do. That would be awesome!

One thing that's tough is that guitars don't meld so well with other instruments, especially with drums in the mix.

I imagine something similar, like Metallica's "Orion," Burzum's "My Journey to the Stars," Atheist and Gorguts in a blender.

No nu-core :)