READ:
In light of my constant battles with Julian and a few others in terms of metal genres and history, I've decided to create this thread to concentrate and focus the discussion. That will leave the other threads open for what they are supposed to do, promote and chat about bands. The constant bandying about of pseudo-genres, the skewed views of metal's history, and the insistence by some to re-invent the wheel has spurred me to get my hands dirty and attempt to sort some of it out.

Look, if we take metal into account from it's beginning(we'll say 1970 for the genre's genesis, as this is agreed upon by most knowledgeable metalheads), then the gamut of metal fan's ages would run from roughly the age of 55 to today's modern teenager. Now, as each generation comes along, it's perception of what heavy metal is will vary to some degree due to the growth of the genre. What a 55 year old sees as metal is going to be different from the 45 year old, both different from the 35 year old, and so on. And it is also of note that because metal became progressively more "heavy" or "caustic", each generations tastes should concurrently become heavier, and thus his perception of what is metal is should also be heavier. So my first question is, because metal has progressed and become heavier, does that make what became before "less metal", or even "not metal"?

Another issue that constantly arises is perspective. Some, and this is directed at Julian in particular, as the proverb says, "cannot see the forest for the trees". His and others views are shaded and shaped by modern metal, and indeed their experience of the genre has come in reverse in many cases. Music is heard out of chronological order, and because of this, a twisted or skewed viewpoint of the genre is formed. His insistence to refer to bands from the '80's as "power metal" for instance, creates confusion and argument from experienced metalheads like myself due to the fact that these genre divisions simply didn't exist or have relevance at the time. Next question is, Is it necessary to "revise" metal's history in order for it to better suit ones own relationship to it? . Also, what is wrong with listening to someone who actually has lived it and has studied and understands it's history?

I ask the second question because I don't have a chip on my shoulder when it comes to finding out information from my knowledgeable elders about bands like Queen, Lizzy, older Priest, Purple and the like. The best place to find out what something was like is to go to the source, or at least someone privy to the origin. And I added this question because I'm sick of being accused of playing the age card in my debates. I know what I know not because I've been around longer than most here, but because I am a metal obsessive and spend quite a bit of time investigating the minutiae of the genre. Have done so most of my life. Because of this, I put my knowledge up against any and all metalheads not only here, but anywhere. I'm not saying I'm the MOST authoritative person in terms of metal knowledge on this planet. I am still learning all the time. What I am saying is that I know my shit. Tried, tested and true. So I added the last question as a challenge to those who use all of those lame quotes and philosophies about experience meaning little.

BRING IT THE FUCK ON!!!!!!!

AC/DC.

What?

Are they metal, yes or no? Personally, it's hard for me to actually see them as "metal" but can definitely see their influence.

Ok, you know i've tried to understand perspective but - certainly when it comes to my reviews - I cannot take that viewpoint. How can I without ever having lived through it?

I will have a modern interpretation of artists based on what is currently around and my own unique perspective on the genre in question, and the most I can hope for is not a black and white decision, but rather a comprehension of the time period (and this would be where the older amongst us comes in). This all becomes a lot more confusing when you consider that the viewpoint being considered is not as one, and regional variations will occur. Particularly given the old 'tape-trading' scenario - one tape may be common in one area but not in another. We already know of regional scenes (Gothenburg, Swedeath, Florideath, ESPM and USPM loosely showing an increased popularity in specific flavours of a genre for example. If I'd have grown up in Gothenburg I'd expect i'd to interpret melodeath rather differently). I know you and Joanne have had differing perspectives in the past based on your own experiences.

The bottom line is that its subjective. There is no underlying fact, no objective rigidity and if there was then it would change with time anyway. Only a general consensus of opinion can ultimately be formed.

How can the issue be resolved? My method of resolution is a fairly simple one; don't lose sight of the purpose of genre classification. They are there to describe the sound, and there will be overlap. Old example, Children of Bodom. Are they Neo-classical Melodeath or Extreme Power? Do both not describe the sound with a fair degree of accuracy?

So is it necessary to revise the history to better your relationship? Not to better your relationship no. It only becomes necessary when the old descriptor's no longer apply in a modern context.

Nautilus wrote:

AC/DC.

I say yes. They have all the ingredients that bands that were the building blocks of Metal have. Speed may be the only on they are lacking. Though Sabbath didn't have much of that either. If not Metal than what? Hard Rock. That then open another can of worms. Even the Beatles made some Hard Rock songs. But sound nothing like AC/DC. To be honest I don't really care. I think most genres hurt more than help. Just my opinion.

Quote :

[quote="Abominog"] because metal has progressed and become heavier, does that make what became before "less metal", or even "not metal"?

Not to me it doesn't. Why should a band suddenly lose the Metal tag because they sound nothing like Emperor. In fact I think we are better served to by calling bands like Deep Purple and AC/DC metal because it should be a reminder of where it started and how it has progressed. I mean to think that the day will come when Metallica and Slayer will be called classic rock(though not a real genre but you get my meaning), and they lose their "Metal " title. That is not a day I want to see. Unless the band themselves have ventured out of said genre(Metallica). Then there is no reason they should be stripped of it because of the prevailing winds of change.

Quote :

Is it necessary to "revise" metal's history in order for it to better suit ones own relationship to it? .

It is not necessary. But it will happen. But for those who do. If they are willing to learn more with an open mind from those who came before and were there for it. Then that view can be changed. But the two coming together is what is really necessary. To have the two sides compare notes can open up the eyes of both people to new ideas and perspectives. Finding that perhaps neither was 100% right but that it was somewhere in the middle.

Jesus, who was black by the way, discovered America and fought the dinosaurs for independence. Abe Lincoln was second in command.

Since it's essentially a historical question why not just approach it as a historian would and use both revisionism and perspectivism.

Kamikaze wrote:

Since it's essentially a historical question why not just approach it as a historian would and use both revisionism and perspectivism.

I was hoping you would show up. And yeah, that is a viable tact, and one I use to some extent. They aren't mutually exclusive, but revisionism IS reliant on perspective. But I have to go to work right now, so I'll read the thread and tackle points made tomorrow hopefully.

Rosalind wrote:

Ok, you know i've tried to understand perspective but - certainly when it comes to my reviews - I cannot take that viewpoint. How can I without ever having lived through it?

The bottom line is that its subjective. There is no underlying fact, no objective rigidity and if there was then it would change with time anyway. Only a general consensus of opinion can ultimately be formed.

Essentially what I was saying to John earlier (which prompted this thread). I can't adopt a perception that just isn't mine, so all I can do is acknowledge how it was seen back in the day. This may mean broadening the main sub-genres that exist now (Death, Trad, Black, Power, Thrash, Doom) however. For example, the whole discussion about 80's Helloween: I would put them under Power Metal (and no, not ESPM), despite PM only really coming into fruition in the 90's. I listen to music today, so it would only make sense to me to see them by today's standard.

Bidley wrote:

Rosalind wrote:

Ok, you know i've tried to understand perspective but - certainly when it comes to my reviews - I cannot take that viewpoint. How can I without ever having lived through it?

The bottom line is that its subjective. There is no underlying fact, no objective rigidity and if there was then it would change with time anyway. Only a general consensus of opinion can ultimately be formed.

Essentially what I was saying to John earlier (which prompted this thread). I can't adopt a perception that just isn't mine, so all I can do is acknowledge how it was seen back in the day. This may mean broadening the main sub-genres that exist now (Death, Trad, Black, Power, Thrash, Doom) however. For example, the whole discussion about 80's Helloween: I would put them under Power Metal (and no, not ESPM), despite PM only really coming into fruition in the 90's. I listen to music today, so it would only make sense to me to see them by today's standard.

*nods*

But I wouldn't argue if someone were to call them, say, Speed. It doesn't entirely fit with my own perspective but its not radically outside the boundaries of acceptability. There is an overlap. This isn't a bad thing.

AC/DC, Rock or metal? Whats wrong with Rock/Heavy Metal?

You old folks saw things one way back then and you still see it that way. Us kids see it a totally different way because the standards that formed your point of view were totally different 20, 30 years ago if that makes any sense. Some youngin's can understand your point of view, some can't. It's as plain and simple as that.

bleghman wrote:

You old folks saw things one way back then and you still see it that way. Us kids see it a totally different way because the standards that formed your point of view were totally different 20, 30 years ago if that makes any sense. Some youngin's can understand your point of view, some can't. It's as plain and simple as that.

I acknowledged that fact. See paragraph 2 of the first post. And that isn't entirely true either, at least not in my case. I understand the need of multiple classification in today's metal world. What I don't get, and do not accept, is what Julian does. And that's rewrite historical fact.

Rosalind wrote:

Quote :

But I wouldn't argue if someone were to call them, say, Speed. It doesn't entirely fit with my own perspective but its not radically outside the boundaries of acceptability. There is an overlap. This isn't a bad thing.

But as has been proven "Speed" is not a genre. If it was ever used it was to merely describe a band. Some may have been labeled it at one time. But once Thrash became the preferred word to use, "speed' was relegated to a descriptive term only. Now if I have missed the point you are trying to make excuse me. I am not totally sure what you meant.

Quote :

AC/DC, Rock or metal? Whats wrong with Rock/Heavy Metal?

I guess this would depend on your definition of Rock. Mountain for instance(since they came up in another topic). They are a Rock band, much in the same vein as Cream. But AC/DC bare VERY little resemblance to them. I know that you are combing Rock with Metal. But to call them that you will end trying to change all the classifications for many bands. Just doesn't seem worth it.

AarO)))n wrote:

Rosalind wrote:

Quote :

But I wouldn't argue if someone were to call them, say, Speed. It doesn't entirely fit with my own perspective but its not radically outside the boundaries of acceptability. There is an overlap. This isn't a bad thing.

But as has been proven "Speed" is not a genre. If it was ever used it was to merely describe a band. Some may have been labeled it at one time. But once Thrash became the preferred word to use, "speed' was relegated to a descriptive term only. Now if I have missed the point you are trying to make excuse me. I am not totally sure what you meant.

Quote :

AC/DC, Rock or metal? Whats wrong with Rock/Heavy Metal?

I guess this would depend on your definition of Rock. Mountain for instance(since they came up in another topic). They are a Rock band, much in the same vein as Cream. But AC/DC bare VERY little resemblance to them. I know that you are combing Rock with Metal. But to call them that you will end trying to change all the classifications for many bands. Just doesn't seem worth it.

Speed is descriptor. Probably "Power/Speed" would be more appropriate. My point was not to split hairs - if both terms can apply to describe a bands sound, then neither are incorrect. Perhaps inaccurate, but that is a matter of perspective.

As for AC/DC, there can be variation within a genre. Both can apply neither are truly wrong. Calling it DM for example, would be wrong as it doesn't describe their sound.

EDIT: Post #666

Rosalind wrote:

*nods*

But I wouldn't argue if someone were to call them, say, Speed. It doesn't entirely fit with my own perspective but its not radically outside the boundaries of acceptability. There is an overlap. This isn't a bad thing.

Yeah, I agree. What I was saying was that within the main sub-genres, they go under Power.

bleghman wrote:

You old folks saw things one way back then and you still see it that way. Us kids see it a totally different way because the standards that formed your point of view were totally different 20, 30 years ago if that makes any sense. Some youngin's can understand your point of view, some can't. It's as plain and simple as that.

I understand John and the other geriatric's () point of view, and it makes just as much sense as my perspective. Both are valid in their own way, I reckon.

As a historian I want to get into this but refuse. It comes down to those who were there claim to know because that's how it was, and those of us who are younger than 100 use logical revisionism.

Abominog wrote:

bleghman wrote:

You old folks saw things one way back then and you still see it that way. Us kids see it a totally different way because the standards that formed your point of view were totally different 20, 30 years ago if that makes any sense. Some youngin's can understand your point of view, some can't. It's as plain and simple as that.

I acknowledged that fact. See paragraph 2 of the first post. And that isn't entirely true either, at least not in my case. I understand the need of multiple classification in today's metal world. What I don't get, and do not accept, is what Julian does. And that's rewrite historical fact.

well Julian's way of thinking is totally wack
next thing you know, we'll be hearing how At the Gates is the biggest influence on black metal

son_ov_hades wrote:

As a historian I want to get into this but refuse. It comes down to those who were there claim to know because that's how it was, and those of us who are younger than 100 use logical revisionism.

bleghman wrote:

Abominog wrote:

bleghman wrote:

You old folks saw things one way back then and you still see it that way. Us kids see it a totally different way because the standards that formed your point of view were totally different 20, 30 years ago if that makes any sense. Some youngin's can understand your point of view, some can't. It's as plain and simple as that.

I acknowledged that fact. See paragraph 2 of the first post. And that isn't entirely true either, at least not in my case. I understand the need of multiple classification in today's metal world. What I don't get, and do not accept, is what Julian does. And that's rewrite historical fact.

well Julian's way of thinking is totally wack
next thing you know, we'll be hearing how At the Gates is the biggest influence on black metal

Or perhaps he'll up the ante and claim Gorgoroth basically paved the way for TRITSIO

Quote :

As a historian I want to get into this but refuse. It comes down to those who were there claim to know because that's how it was, and those of us who are younger than 100 use logical revisionism.

Oh yeah, beat up on the old man when he's not around to defend hisself!!!! Pissant!

I have no problem with logical revisionism. Now, give me an example..........

Abominog wrote:

Quote :

As a historian I want to get into this but refuse. It comes down to those who were there claim to know because that's how it was, and those of us who are younger than 100 use logical revisionism.

Oh yeah, beat up on the old man when he's not around to defend hisself!!!! Pissant!

I have no problem with logical revisionism. Now, give me an example..........

Example

I dont care what you say. There's no way this is metal. At all. I mean fuck, their named after a Disney fairytale

And to show im not ageist, neither is this, despite being commonly referred to as such.

Abominog wrote:

Quote :

As a historian I want to get into this but refuse. It comes down to those who were there claim to know because that's how it was, and those of us who are younger than 100 use logical revisionism.

Oh yeah, beat up on the old man when he's not around to defend hisself!!!! Pissant!

I have no problem with logical revisionism. Now, give me an example..........

Did I hit a sore spot?

No seriously, some bands that were considered metal so clearly are not. Poison, Bon Jovi, Deftones, Slipknot, Ted Nugent, Aerosmith.