Why or why not?

What do you mean? Accepted by who? Is it not accepted by someone?

I think he accidentally the whole question.

^

it's been accepted.
BALLS TO THE WALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, some kinds of metal are technically accepted as a form of currency...

If the OP manifests himself there's still hope for the thread, I think

Written by Karlabos on 22.11.2015 at 14:47

What do you mean? Accepted by who? Is it not accepted by someone?

As a music genre by the masses.

It depends on the sub-genre of metal. You might hear some heavy metal on the hard rock station or TV commercials, but you're unlikely to hear any death/black metal. At least not on popular, mass media outlets in the states.

Still, "accept" isn't quite the verb here. Questioning if it should be accepted as a genre kind of make it sound like people nowadays don't accept that metal is a genre just as they don't accept that Pluto is a planet.

I still don't get exactly what the thread is about tho... Is it about TV and mainstream media not selecting metal as their particular choice of music? Or is it about most people "not getting" the music?
Either way, if it's one of those, if I think that people should listen to more metal, and if it should be played more in mainstream channels? Nah... Don't see the need for it. Some people believe it would be a better world... Speaking for me, I think it would be just an excuse for the apparition of more shitty bands copying the once big ones on their respective genres. Plus, since I'm somewhat averse to mainstream stuff, at least musically, I think it would bias my selection of bands to listen to =p
Speaking on what would happen if metal was among the most listened genres out there, well... I don't think many things would change much... Therefore I don't see the appeal in making it a more widely known genre. Let the ones who like it listen to it and that's it.

I think we should all just hit a bong and get along, personally. But only if it's this bong, of course

There. Problem solved.

Metal isn't mainstream because people don't like it. It is however accepted in most parts

Heavy metal, goth, doom etc ofc.
Black metal no. BM isnt BM if its accepted by the mainstream. Caladan Brood, Deafheaven and Summoning is not BM. The BM-tag is inflated here on MS. Thats my opinion until something else takes over BMs ideology and makes it a fixed genre.

Most metal wasn't accepted for years because of the same reason Hardcore wasn't.

It grew out of a 'rebel' culture, which 'normal' people don't like, and it frequently makes use of harsh vocals, which normal people don't like.

My hypothesis on the last point is that singing is something anyone can do, whether they have musical knowledge or not, because they have a voice. Singing appeals to people because of this, as well as the fact that for normal people songs are enhanced if they can hear and understand the lyrics, because it may be more relatable to them that way.

Or something. My random ramblings with no scientific proof.

Written by [user id=157444] on 26.11.2015 at 16:34

Black metal no. BM isnt BM if its accepted by the mainstream. Caladan Brood, Deafheaven and Summoning is not BM

Yeah, as much as I'm not one of those trve kvlt elitists on about "sound like old Mayhem or you're not black metal," I pretty much have to agree with this. The very ideology of black metal rests upon challenging commonly accepted conventions, essentially the modern worldview as it is, flipping them on their heads in mockery, and then coming up with your own alternatives to them. If a band seeks mainstream acceptance and recognition, I don't really regard them as staying true to the BM ethos. Black metal is very different to me from other metal subgenres in this sense that it is more ideologically driven than stylistically driven. There's definitely a "black metal sound," of course, but I feel as though the maintenance of the attitude I mentioned is just as important, if not even more so

I would agree with you on Deafheaven, and maybe Caladan Brood, but Summoning I wouldn't exactly call "mainstream," even if they are quite popular here and elsewhere.

Written by Auntie Sahar on 30.11.2015 at 03:22

Written by [user id=157444] on 26.11.2015 at 16:34

Black metal no. BM isnt BM if its accepted by the mainstream. Caladan Brood, Deafheaven and Summoning is not BM

Yeah, as much as I'm not one of those trve kvlt elitists on about "sound like old Mayhem or you're not black metal," I pretty much have to agree with this. The very ideology of black metal rests upon challenging commonly accepted conventions, essentially the modern worldview as it is, flipping them on their heads in mockery, and then coming up with your own alternatives to them. If a band seeks mainstream acceptance and recognition, I don't really regard them as staying true to the BM ethos. Black metal is very different to me from other metal subgenres in this sense that it is more ideologically driven than stylistically driven. There's definitely a "black metal sound," of course, but I feel as though the maintenance of the attitude I mentioned is just as important, if not even more so

I would agree with you on Deafheaven, and maybe Caladan Brood, but Summoning I wouldn't exactly call "mainstream," even if they are quite popular here and elsewhere.

So he is saying that, despite their sonic similarities, those bands aren't Black Metal based on the fact that they do not follow the sociopolitical stance taken by the originators?

Doesn't that make Black Metal more of a social scene? Because if the musical aspect isn't what clearly defines it, then surely it can't be labelled a musical genre/subgrenre?

Saying that, I'm a fan of none of the three.

And what if the ideology you mentioned, the one that defines black metal, becomes the accepted ideology in the mainstream? at some point in the future?

Written by Doge of Venice on 30.11.2015 at 03:38

So he is saying that, despite their sonic similarities, those bands aren't Black Metal based on the fact that they do not follow the sociopolitical stance taken by the originators? Doesn't that make Black Metal more of a social scene? Because if the musical aspect isn't what clearly defines it, then surely it can't be labelled a musical genre/subgrenre? Saying that, I'm a fan of none of the three. And what if the ideology you mentioned, the one that defines black metal, becomes the accepted ideology in the mainstream? at some point in the future?

It's complicated, so let me elaborate a bit on my perspective

I don't think black metal is so much a matter of following the sociopolitical/ideological stances of the originators... but more so just taking that "challenge conventions, promote alternatives" type of mindset and building upon it. I think Aaron Weaver from WITTR really nailed what defines black metal the most when he said that "I think that black metal is an artistic movement that is critiquing modernity on a fundamental, almost metaphysical level. It is looking at our present era and saying that something we once had is now missing." It is very much to me about examining the things that one finds wrong with the current world around them from a very deep, almost epistemological perspective, and developing one's own value system as an alternative. It is fundamentally opposed to conventions in this sense.

Now here's the paradoxical part: because that's the spirit of black metal, opposition to conventions, that inevitably meant that in time, black metal as a whole would start to outgrow its own conventions. And this is why you've seen so many batshit bands such as Oranssi Pazuzu, The Meads Of Asphodel, Cloak Of Altering, etc. etc. pop up in the past 10 - 15 years. So it's difficult to say whether it's more defined in terms of music or in terms of ideology. Because the genre as a whole today is very open to interpretation and experimentation. Of course the bands I listed don't sound anything like the icy Scandinavian bands of the early 90s, but they can still be regarded as black metal, and it is still a musical subgenre. But I would say that it is more ideologically driven, because if that spirit of self exploration and innovation hadn't been present in BM from the get go, it would not be at the point that it's at today. And I don't see that spirit becoming "accepted mainstream ideology" anytime soon, or ever really... because "the mainstream" rests upon adhering to what is considered as common practice at a given moment in time. That attitude of needing to go through pre-established motions to fit a mold is virtually nonexistent in black metal.

Written by deadone on 30.11.2015 at 06:12

What spirit of self exploration and innovation from the get go? Black Metal's 2nd wave was a reactionary movement to innovation in metal and primarily to the latest trend at the time, death metal as well as metal in general. It was a throw back to Venom, Hellhammer, early Bathory and also early Sodom and Kreator and other rawer thrash. You're always trying to romanticise black metal be it its initial intolerant ideology or its musicial origins. It evolved into what you like, but its initial inspiration was an ugly intolerant throwback by a bunch of degenerate bigots who would sooner beat or even kill people like you and me on skin colour alone.

It is not "romanticizing," it is simply interpreting the things that you are referring to from a different point of view. And my friend, that diversity of viewpoints is part of the beauty of art.

Experimentation and branching out in forms of art does not just magically happen: the art form in question must possess some type of quality about if from the beginning that makes it inclined towards that. Compare the development of black metal, for example, to that of thrash metal. Why is there so little variation in thrash today, but so much in black metal? Because of the ideology present in BM that I'm talking about. The initial inspiration of black metal was ugly and intolerant... I've noticed that you tend to speak in superlatives quite a lot. As I said to you a while back, to say that is to focus on a very small (and brief) trend of extremity within black metal, blow it way the hell out of proportion, and generalize it as being what the entire movement was about. Which is absurd. Was every black metal musician in Norway in the early 90s a churchburning, racist bigot, and/or murderer? The fact that people such as Ihsahn, Hellhammer, the Enslaved guys, etc. have denounced that shit on numerous occasions proves otherwise.

Yes, early black metal was raw, it was grotesque, it was Satanically inspired, and it was quite dogmatic. BUT the reason that that occurred was just because Christianity was the obvious first target for that "challenge conventions, promote alternatives" type of mindset. Because what is the most common convention that one could think of as being a source of corruption in the modern world? Organized religion. That is quite likely why black metal bands went for that first. But that mindset I mention of has today evolved FAR beyond anti-Christianity within black metal. And it's because of its very nature, as I said to Doge. Opposition to convention was there from the start within black metal, and that eventually meant that it would inevitably move beyond its own initial conventions as well.... which it has.

Written by deadone on 30.11.2015 at 06:55

Plenty of Communists/Nazis "reformed" too. Indeed Ishahn and Hellhammer both counted a couple of psychos as friends/associates (ie Euronymous and Faust).

I just can't really take this discussion with you seriously because of the huge and extremely hasty jumps to conclusions that you're making. Especially with this statement. So where is the proof, exactly, that everyone in the early Norwegian scene was engaged in heinous acts and behavior, as you seem to be implying? Again, your speaking in superlatives just totally undercuts the validity that might be behind what you're trying to say. And, ok, so Ihsahn and Hellhammer knew and associated with a few scary boogeymen. Big deal. How does that automatically mean that they prescribed to the beliefs of the people in question as well, and themselves engaged in similar behavior? I really think this is something that is nothing more than speculation on your part, and speculation only takes you so far.

Written by deadone on 30.11.2015 at 06:55


When one looks into the BM underground one sees a lot of Mayhem worship.

Such as? In my years I've only found one band that sounded like Mayhem (aside from some early Kreator) and that was an Anaal Nathrakh spin off called Frost. Other than that it's Darkclones, not Mayhem clones. One was based in punk structures, the other wasn't. Both Mayhem's style and vocal approach is a fairly uncommon within BM, and always has been. And in fact Darkthrone worship has diminished immensely in the past years; bands these days ape Deathspell Omega and other so called "orthodox" modern bands (see the Iceland scene right now) or those that came from Wolves In The Throne or Alcest and that pursue the more "atmospheric" forms of black metal, which is still unquestionably black metal. You'd only have to have a very slight understanding of modern movements to see this. It helps if you're capable of understanding that Deathspell Omega don't actually sound like 90s black metal though. If you want to play cards it helps to have a full deck

Quote:
And indeed BM purists don't acknowledge BM's diversity. Their definition is stuck in Darkthrone/Mayhem and anything else is not BM.

You need to engage with the status quo, and stop relying on extremes (that haven't been relevant for a long time) as part of a broader argument because you keep making this same flaccid, tenuous statement that doesn't hold up to modern scrutiny. These purists are a minor group, relegated to ANUS and a few forums here and there (and even then they still worship DsO, Onskapt, Ofermod etc.) to the point where their relevance is little more than an amusement. Your vision of the black metal fandom is not actually what it is any more. At this point I think the populace are more concerned with Myrkur, though that's probably due to her perceived falseness with regard to accent, attitude, ideology, location etc. (haven't really been following it). If there was any significant truth to your claim then the black metal landscape would be quite a different one. There isn't any truth to it, because your claim is archaic and doesn't reflect black metal as a whole in the current day (which is observable if you care to look). Knowing a smattering of weirdo individuals here and there who conform to your belief is not veracity btw, in case you were going to go down the anecdotal route. My point is that there's very few people that tend to agree with claims that modern black metal is not black metal. "Purists" are a rare breed, and even they tend to agree that much modern black metal is still black metal. There is clearly something about modern derivations that lend itself well to what black metal was once like in some shape or form.

Quote:
Anything "raw" is black metal

Also false: most black metal of the past decade+ hasn't been raw. It's still regarded as black metal all the same. I think you're conflating "rawness" with other black metal components, whatever they may be, in an attempt to invalidate the application of "black metal" or "blackened" to certain bands by many people. Be that as it is, rawness is still a characteristic of black metal, though not one it is incumbent on displaying in order to qualify as such.

Quote:
So Deafhaven are both black metal and not black metal depending on which part of the game you play. The purists have a point if a strict genre definition approach is used whilst the looser definitions work if that approach is used.

Even those that loathe Deafheaven would still call them black metal, because it's fairly obvious that that is where their sound originates from. I would say most people who dislike Deafheaven do so because they realise it's popularist, derivative black metal that's been done before and has gained far more popularity than it necessarily deserves because of marketing and an unusual visual style (yes; it's overrated). To come to such a conclusion one would require them to be identified as black metal. I would also say "purists" (and most people in fact) are quicker to anger over stupid neologisms to describe such bands, as you would have people do. Categorising a band is really not the minefield you would have us believe it is. Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one, and most people (of any basic engagement) see that, which is why there is largely agreement across the board. Deafheaven have absolutely nothing new in their sound, just a mixture of black metal and post-rock (if I recall). Those that deny the obvious influences within Deafheaven are far more akin to the pleb that thinks Skipknot aren't metal, than a so-called black metal "purist," so not an issue with black metal for the most part, however much one might protest.

Quote:
new Tribulation has got nothing to do with death metal but people are calling it death metal.

Some people actually are in this instance, with regard to the most recent, which is an odd mistake. Like it or not Formulas of Death did have death metal components in, but also had elements of thrash, prog and black metal so that one is an understandably difficult one to pigeon-hole. Doesn't mean it deserves a whole new genre of its own though, because its components exist in purer forms elsewhere and can be identified as such. I've heard nothing in a long, long time that deserved its own area in the history books as being a new sub-genre. If I have it would be some kind of avant-garde metal which would be unlikely to ever propagate. I find people that take umbridge with terms like progressive, avant-garde etc. tend not to know how to use it, so adopt defensive attitudes, decrying it by forming primarily polemical attacks with little insight into what things should be instead.

Quote:
Given how worthless the term black metal has become, at some point they should've just come up with a new name for all the weirdo derivatives. Even Death Metal is becoming worthless.

Not really, because purer forms of those genres still exist (in great quantities; particularly death metal), and are typically identified as such. Getting upset because some bands with new influences and approaches are sharing the core name with some more basic ones seems a bit silly and I think speaks more to the disenfranchisement of the individual than it does to the music currently being made, or the general methodology used to categorise music. One even only glance at band names, album artworks, or even a couple of seconds of their music on Youtube, to see where they fall. Categorisation is perfectly fine and functional for those that have an interest in metal right now. There's as much reverence, or interest, for revivalist music as there is newer forms, so I don't see complaints as especially valid.

I have to admit I'm having trouble consolidating the irony of someone that refuses to accept metal vernacular such as "progressive," "avant-garde" or "blackened" and yet is promoting the use of words and phrases that don't exist yet, to describe music which already has sound, solid basis in convention. Just so basic forms of death and black metal can be, what, sheltered? Protected? Saved? Sounds like a positively mental overreaction if you ask me.

I don't really have much to say about old attitudes within black metal though. It's always just been a retrospective oddity for me, but a lot of the music is really good, and eventually paved the way to what it is today, which is to say infinitely broad minded (if not universally accepted) and interesting. That's good enough for me.

We've done this already: http://metalstorm.net/forum/topic.php?topic_id=30737

Written by deadone on 30.11.2015 at 16:38

My point was more the retarded concept of categorisation rather than black metal per se.

Why is that categorization retarded? If anything, it helps people keep track of things and makes it easier for one to find what they're looking for. Slight changes in a genre's sound are not MAJOR evolutions. If a band plays black metal, with an inclination towards ambiance and atmosphere (WITTR, Agalloch, etc.) it's not a new genre. If they play it with an inclination towards psychedelia (Oranssi Pazuzu, Wormlust, etc.), it's not a new genre. You're so hung up in what was the status quo 20 years ago. If we regarded something as a new genre every time a metal band changed up the formula of the original sound, then as far as black metal goes we'd probably be looking at over 30 new genres today.... which is ridiculous.

More of an issue with MS's inconsistent tagging system I'd wager.

Also, Mr Joe Bloggs sounds like Mr Thickee Thickerson too; pretty sure if someone wanted to find music that sounded like specific bands then they wouldn't type in "death metal 2014" either. He would probably look at the similar artists bit in the ms profile, or check Last.fm, or MA's, or Spotify's similar artist sections. Or examine specific labels that cater to specific sounds.

All you've proven is that music has a habit of sounding different, even within specific subsets. Fairly sure that's common knowledge.

Written by deadone on 01.12.2015 at 01:07

Bear in mind in the past even minor changes resulted in new genres in the past - e.g. heavy to speed (heavy metal played faster) or thrash to early death. Singing about Satan was enough to get Mercyful Fate, Bathory and Running Wild the black metal tag. Any tweaks to thrash metal became groove metal and crossover.

Yes, but so much has been done in the spectrum of music these days (not just metal), that at present it would appear as though the development of new sounds are driven more by combining pre-existing ones, not so much by taking something and adding to it, as was previously the norm. Musical development today, especially in metal, is more of a stylistic evolution than it is a development towards the creation of new genres. Mind you, this is simply one way of interpreting it... you could regard every minor tweak to black metal, death metal, thrash metal etc. as the creation of a new genre. To me, it takes far more than that though.... so I think it's safe to take everything that still bases itself in a core black metal sound, no matter what other external influences are mixed in, and just put it under the same umbrella. Broad interpretation, not a narrow one. And I can't help but noting the irony of the fact that you seem to be very opposed and critical of the rigidity and dogmatism of the early black metal scnee... yet are essentially applying the same attitude to your own interpretation of the subgenre: if it doesn't sound like something raw and unforgiving put out in Norway in the early 90s, it's "not black metal"

Written by deadone on 01.12.2015 at 01:07

So why not apply same to black metal or death metal especially when the change is radical (e.g. Nachtmystium's Black Meddle or Emperor around Prometheus)?

Do you not understand that it would get incredibly burdensome to create a new label for every band or album that deviates from the original sound of the genre/subgenre from which they come? Please don't tell me that you actually want people to start referring to Black Meddle as "Psychedelic electronic dance disco black metal," Prometheus as "Epic symphonic atmospheric melodic mythological black metal," and so forth and so on.

As much as I love BM these days, I disagree with having too much of emphasize on the "sprite"/ "idealogy"/ etc. Black metal to me is just a form of music with certain mood and musical characteristics. The reason that some styles are more diverse than the others is the structural rigidity imposed by the aesthetics of the genres. Take doom metal for example. I do not think that it idealogically promotes innovation and diversity, but it is probably the most diverse genre of metal now, even maybe more diverse than BM. Now, compare this to progressive metal, a style supposed to promote new ideas, which, while diverse in its own, is nowhere near doom metal when it comes to diversity. It is much easier to make a drone metal record which is not like anything done before than making a death metal record like that. Also, the most anti- convention form of metal, both in terms of music and lyrical content is grindcore I think, which also happens to be one of the least diverse ones.

Written by deadone on 01.12.2015 at 02:05

Actually they're arguably new genres or subgenres or nothing new at all depending on your perspective. If Black Meddle and Prometheus are just Black Metal then why isn't Vulgar Display Of Power or Dreaming Neon Black or Destroy, Erase Improve thrash metal?

And why is Black Sabbath just heavy metal but Black Sabbath clones are either Stoner Metal or Doom Metal or both? Oh and why is Napalm Death's mid period regarded as grindcore when it was either Florida style death metal (even recorded at Morrisound by Scott Burns) or groove metal? And what is sludge cause it seems to be anything?

I don't regard them as "nothing new"... I just don't think the variations are that huge for them to be classified as "new genres"... because to a musical genre isn't just about sound, it's about the mindset at work in it as well. New sounds also have to come with new mentalities/lyrical themes, otherwise it's just the same genre to me, but with a different sonic approach. I may just be saying that because I'm a writer, so I regard bands' lyrics as being as equally important as their lyrics, but I think it's something that should be taken into account. Yes, Nachtmystium, The Meads Of Asphodel, Oranssi Pazuzu, Emperor, etc. all sound pretty damn different from one another. But I think it's safe to say that the topics they touch upon all revolve either around deep introspection and self reflection, or something supernatural... and those are two ESSENTIAL facets of black metal that've been present in it from the very start, no matter which way you want to spin it. That's really why I look at all those bands as belonging to the same general category, despite their variations form each other.

You're definitely right that genre classifications can have their difficulties and inconsistencies. But as for the examples you gave... ummm, since when aren't Pantera, Nevermore, and Meshuggah regarded as thrash?
I'm pretty sure they all are, it's just that Pantera are groove thrash, Nevermore are progressive thrash, and Meshuggah are technical thrash. So same example as black metal: it's the same family, merely different techniques being applied.

Also, for sludge... Mike Williams from Eyehategod gave what I think is the best definition, that sludge is "Black Sabbath + Black Flag." Essentially regard it as stoner doom + hardcore punk influences. Even if people might sometimes define it a little more loosely than that, that's what it's really about at the core.

Written by mz on 01.12.2015 at 02:11

Doom metal for example. I do not think that it idealogically promotes innovation and diversity, but it is probably the most diverse genre of metal now, even maybe more diverse than BM.

Doom more diverse than BM? Sorry man, but no. There are indeed some pretty out there doom bands in existence at the moment, such as P.H.O.B.O.S., Dark Buddha Rising, The Body, and others, but on the whole (at least to me) doom metal is still very much plagued by a large majority of Sabbath, Pentagram, and Electric Wizard imitators. Gonna be pretty hard to break that mold because that still seems to largely be Doom Mantra at the moment.

Doom more diverse than BM? I only see two doom variants: The stoner and the funeral. After this the most you get is when they merge it with other genres.
I can't recall anything more varied than BM to be honest. Perhaps "rock"? But it's more like an umbrella term than a genre...

Anyway, this genre discussion has been carried over other times hasn't it?
I stand to the point that genres and subgenres are good because they help the listener to select what he wants by browsing such tags. I observed that often people that complain about too much subgenres on a certain genre and say that they are unnecessary are people not enough familiarized with the genre so that they can't hear much difference on it. Well, in that case they won't make much sense, yeah. The user doesn't know what to do with them...
If the subgenres are created based on the music then I can't see any harm on them, as long as they make some sense...
What doesn't seem to make any sense, though, is labeling music by ideology or lyrical themes, or also based on location. A band has to have an opposing attitude or something to be called black? Nah. It has to sound like black metal, that's it.

Written by Karlabos on 01.12.2015 at 03:05

I only see two doom variants: The stoner and the funeral. After this the most you get is when they merge it with other genres.

You really don't listen to much doom, do you?

Let me see:

traditional doom
epic doom
death doom (out of which funeral doom evolved)
funeral doom
stoner doom
sludge doom
progressive doom
black doom
drone doom
gothic doom

Written by deadone on 01.12.2015 at 01:07

Singing about Satan was enough to get Mercyful Fate, Bathory and Running Wild the black metal tag.

Don't know where you get the idea from that Running Wild were called called black metal. They were never called black metal at the time. Just heavy metal was the what they were called back in the day.