Newsgroups: bit.listserv.allmusic
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:42:08 EDT
From:         "Michael H. Bloom" <MHB@MITVMA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Metal Lists (fwd)
              10 Apr 1992 14:01:35 PDT from <hedberg@INFERENCE.COM>

On Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:01:35 PDT James Hedberg said:
>Here's my definition of "Metal"
>
>	1.	"Metal" cannot have keyboards
>
>		for some reason keyboards always change the musical
>		style "metal" becomes "hard rock" or something else as
>		soon as the keyboard "filler" comes in

Strongly disagree. Do you seriously mean to suggest that Deep Purple were not
metal? Blue Oyster Cult? King Crimson? (Hmm, all these bands with color names.)
I think of Emerson Lake & Palmer as often being metal in texture, and they were
almost entirely guitar-free.

>	2.	"Metal" must be LOUD
>
>		acoustic music cannot be "metal", "metal" did not
>		exist before electric guitar & _modern_ drums

Well, I kinda like somebody's comment about Holst's "Mars" as metal (it was one
of the first incarnation of King Crimson's big attractions in concert), and I'd
be tempted to include Beethoven's 9th, second movement, and the Rite of Spring
as well. But I'm probably stretching the definition. Shall we say that electric
guitar is pretty much the right tool for the job, but not essential?

>	3.	"Metal" cannot have too much tonality
>
>		those wierd jazz scales and stuff without names are
>		definatly out

Again, I must disagree. The really hyper European death-metal bands use sicko
diminished scales all the time. The tritone has been a crucial metal effect
since the first song on the first Black Sabbath album. Most of all our favorite
guitar heroes bend their strings and get notes that aren't even on the scale,
but someplace in between-- call them blue notes, microtonal intervals, or just
English, but they're important to your appreciation of the song-- and they are
not tonal.

>	4.	"Metal" must have solos
>
>		drums, guitar & bass "go fer it dude"

Seems to me I should be able to think of an exception to this-- does Voivod
eschew solos? Husker Du's solos were never worth a damn, but it didn't stop
Mould from trying, and certainly somebody will try and claim they weren't real
metal, despite that they did a real good record called _Metal Circus_.

>> mentioned do everything metal is supposed to do, except boost your
> testosterone
>
>Yeah, the testosterone thing is important, but I think of that as more
>of a gauge of the quality of the music not identifying the style.
>
>
>> >I've always thought of Hendrix starting this style - is that a point
>> >of general agreement?
>>
>> No, I'm not going to agree. I think the first genuine heavy metal
>band was the Yarbirds.
>
>I guess I'll have to plead ignorance.  I'm not that familiar with the
>Yarbirds thing.  Clapton, Page, Jeff Beck wasn't it?  Anyone see them live?

Yes, but not all at once! Clapton left early because he was a blues purist and
the rest of the band wanted to have hit singles, e.g. "For Your Love" (written
by Graham Gouldman, later of 10cc-- Clapton hated playing it, and he hated the
harpsichord in it too). Beck joined up and started in on the feedback and sound
effects aqnd general violence (don't know what he knew about the Who, but Beck
used to beat up his guitar pretty bad too). Original bassist Paul Samwell-Smith
quit to be a producer (made Cat Stevens records, among other things) and Jimmy
Page, a session player at the time, agreed to fill in on bass, then he swapped
with rhythm guitarist Chris Dreja. Then Beck quit, as the band was beginning to
crumble anyway, but Page carried it for another year-- eventually replacing the
previous members with the players he wanted for Zeppelin.

>And now that you mention it I remember hearing Jimi saying what an
>influence they were on his music.
>
>> but I think of the dual guitar thing as important-- it frees one
>> guitarist to concentrate on pure sound shaping
>
>So, "Metal" is pure sound shaping?

No, it's *applied* sound shaping :-)

>> I would also mention the Move, whose loud pop
>> songs kept getting louder and more strident.
>
>So, "Metal" is pure sound shaping in a loud, strident pop format?

Well, metal prides itself on not being pop. That's why you find power ballads
repugnant. It certainly fits several definitions of pop-- like being popular!

>> And Zappa was always metal, even when the Mothers were a soul band.
>
>Yeah! Zappa in those leather pants in the 70's.  A man ahead of his
>time!  I would agree _Apostrophe_ has some tunes that would fit my
>"Metal" criteria above.
>
>
>
>>
>> >I thought seeing _Yes_ mentioned was a little unusual as well.  I sure
>> >don't think of _Yes_ as doing anything "Metal".
>
>**See above (keyboards)
>
>> Well shit, what do you want metal to do??? I want POWER, I want IMAGINATION,
>I
>> want SPIFFY GUITAR LICKS!!! And while I grant you the current Yes tends to be
>> oriented toward selling sequencers to hobbits, the group as of _The Yes
>Album_
>> or _Fragile_ was hot shit. The guitar parts are quite elaborate and played
> with
>> a ferocity that, while not as showy as Ritchie Blackmore, still packs a
> wallop.
>> The lyrics, when they're not overly foppish (a continual problem with Yes),
> are
>> high-grade fantasy-- these guys had the whole galaxy to play with.
>
>Too upscale to be "metal", too much arranging, too much tonality.
>"Metal" has to be garage band copiable!!

No. Strongly disagree. I think part of metal is about hero worship-- we care
about Eddie Van Halen because he does stuff we could never touch in a million
years of practice, unless our initials were A.H. :-) Led Zeppelin's whole point
was to be larger than life, a semi-divine entity, an embodiment of fantasies we
didn't even know we had before they came along.

And I think the garage is a whole different philosophy. Nirvana is not metal--
too ironic, not enough ego or testosterone. They invite you to ask questions.
Real metal is about certainty. Real metal has no doubts in it at all, except
for the question of where your next fuck is coming from-- and the practitioners
who raise the issue let you know that they're so studly they won't have long to
wait. That's why Grand Funk, for all their bonehead populism, never quite made
it as metal, until the fuck scenes in "We're an American Band."

Besides, H'banger, you said above that tonality was a requirement, did you not?

>> Nowadays metal is more populist; with the exception of yer Metallicas and
>> Queensryches and Voivods, it lacks that galactic scope. I'd rather listen to
>> old Yes than state-of-the-art Guns'n'Roses any day.
>
>Agreed!

We're not disagreeing on much, I guess, but I want to be sure about a couple
points I want to get across. I don't necessarily demand that Yes be taken for
metal-- I think most metalheads think of Yes as being those effete weenies who
recorded "Owner of a Lonely Heart" and want nothing to do with them, and most
Yes fans don't want to associate with metalheads for classist reasons :-) And
ultimately only John McIntyre and I are gonna care about their exact taxonomy.
But I resolutely object to the unstated assumption that seems to enter into any
serious discussion of metal, which is that it has to be stoopid-- that any sort
of intellectual demand placed on a metalhead is going to tax what brains he's
got, and the ultimate enjoyment of metal is attained by out-drinking Bon Scott
until AC/DC sounds sophisticated. Metallica WANT you to use your noodle, and so
do Voivod and Queensryche, and Zappa too, for that matter.

And the other thing is, if somebody's gonna do a radio show about Here's What
Matters in Metal, I think you should include some sense of history. Of course
it's not gonna measure up to Metallica in sonic terms, but neither does a Model
T compete with a 'vette on the speedway-- yet which was the greater engineering
achievement? Where would Hetfield be today if there hadn't been Tony Iommi?
Would we have an Operation Mindcrime if there hadn't been a King Crimson?

I do wish I could give you a better definition of what I think heavy metal is
than what the Supreme Court said about pornography: "I know it when I see it."
Give me a few years (and a grant) and I'll come up with a better answer. But I
am sure of a few things: (1) Metal is about recognizing a higher plane-- either
spiritual enlightenment, or superior skill, or just a better quality of life as
evidenced by getting laid a lot more and taking better drugs. Hendrix, and Led
Zeppelin, were at various times all of the above. (2) Metal is about certain
sonic qualities that lead you to think of penetration-- penises, or knives, or
breaking through the veil of illusion, depending. (3) Metal is about autonomy,
being your own boss, answerable to no one, the final authority. I think that's
why so many kids like it-- it lets them escape their parents in their minds.

Actually I want to know what Epstein's book says about this stuff.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU