By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Music Discussion - Are metal heads just hipsters in black?

Psychotic said:

Think about it:

Anything gets popular, they suddenly don't like it... the elitism... the superiority complex... the way they're "non-conformist", yet still similar to each other in clothes and behavior (i. e. conforming)... the close-mindedness and their adamance in denying it... their insecurity...

Just a theory.

Nope. Metal is about rebellion against oppressive forces and fighting with clinched fists. Hipsters are pussies. They're basically emos without razors.



Around the Network
sundin13 said:


a. I never said that all metal is good...not sure where you got that from. In fact, I only really like a few bands that would be classified as metal (although the term metal is weirdly broad). I am praising the specific musicians that get it right, and saying that those musicians who make music for pop radio are almost never the same as those who get it right. 

I also never said the word "quality"...I said "qualities", which would be synonymous with "traits". I wouldn't really call that subjective. 

b. I don't have a link. Its just theres been a few times where someone on here has posted a thread like "Listen to this Taylor Swift song!" and I've gone in and said "here is a bunch of reasons why this song is garbage."

c. "the elitism... the superiority complex... the way they're "non-conformist", yet still similar to each other in clothes and behavior (i. e. conforming)... the close-mindedness and their adamance in denying it... their insecurity..."

Heres a piece of your OP...you may not have said "selfish" in so many words, but that is undeniably insulting


a) But you did say (or at least imply) all pop is bad? My point is all genres have good and bad songs.

But which traits you consider important and which are unimprotant is subjective.

b) Then you should have a link But that's okay.

c) I already conceded that ut was a touch insluting. How do you talk about negative things about a person on group without insulting them? If I sugarcoated it, some people wouldn't get what I meant.



Psychotic said:


a) But you did say (or at least imply) all pop is bad? My point is all genres have good and bad songs.

But which traits you consider important and which are unimprotant is subjective.

b) Then you should have a link But that's okay.

c) I already conceded that ut was a touch insluting. How do you talk about negative things about a person on group without insulting them? If I sugarcoated it, some people wouldn't get what I meant.

a. No I didn't...I even gave an example of one of the most popular songs out right now that I really like. 

You asked why metal heads don't like the majority of pop music as if they couldn't explain it, so I explained it. You seem to be forgetting what you were talking about @.@

Also, the assertion that there is no objective measure of quality is BS. Its not a linear number system, but if we compare two pieces, we can't say "we cant say anything about which is better" when one is just some guy droning on about butts and the other is a highly technical piece about the meaning of life (just as an example). You can certainly say that you like the songs about butts more than the technical pieces, but saying that it is higher quality? I don't think you have a leg to stand on there. 

c. Well you start by not using stereotypes. And well, thats pretty much it. Talking about "metal heads" like they are some hive mind who are all the same, just isn't a smart thing to say.



Not really, metal heads were alternative before it was mainstream :P



Norris2k said:

Yes, my first point is that this is for a large part nostalgia and feeling, so it's just in the head of who is listening.

Perfect.

Norris2k said:

My second point about "authenticity" is more prone to disagreement. Even if not on purpose, it's some kind of elitism. I agree any single group is a product. There are producers, money, organization, etc to produce disks.  But, let's take one example, a group I love, Motorhead (which is indeed a product).

You know Lemmy from Motorhead, he was a road crew for the beatles in the 60's, most of his life is about music, he lived in squats and talked with Sid Vicious, he's like an encyclopedia that can talk about music, blues, rock for hours, he has a collection of rare vynils and CD, most of his friends are related to music, he started in a "indy experimental" group, was fired and started Motorhead, for which he plays a quite unique bass style, he's the main compositor for songs, and have some stubborn ideas about what he want to sounds like. He was never been really successful but still he plays the music he seems to like for 30 years.

Can you tell this is exactly the same thing than a producer that puts together 3 hot chicks that want to be stars, that makes they sing one song that some other guy produced, in a style chosen based on market analysis, and that uses a lot of money to get on the TV ? Would the producer get a result as good as Motorhead if they happened to play the same genre ? Can you say you can't feel the difference just by listening to it ? Can you say you don't feel when a group is playing outside the genre they like to get more money ? So you can say that's elitism, especially if someone is loud and stubborn about it, but I think saying "authentic" is not absurd, it something you can feel, it's something for which you can set a  personal minimum standard.

I agree that this Lenny has something more than a regular pop star and more power to him. But is it important? Does it make his music better? Have can be proud of himself for making it where he is now, but I'm not in it for the story, I'm in in for the music. Of couse you can choose to value it, but you can't say the music - or even your opinions about music - is better than someone else's because they don't.

Besides, maybe some popular rap artists went through similar stuff... or even worse?

Norris2k said:

I know that nowadays a lot of people think any idea of hierarchy, authenticity, objectivity, quality is elitism, and that elitism is bad. I know by experience you can't argue with someone that feels that way. But for me it's like saying that the worst and cheapest vinegar is exactly the same thing as an expensive wine made by experts from the finest grape : everything is a product, and that's question of taste, nothing is better. I'm fine if someone prefer the vinegar I would only use to clean my toilets, like what you like. But let's be clear, I believe the expensive wine is better.

Some people maybe think hierarchy etc, is elitism, I don't. I only consider a subjective opinion treated as better than another equally subjective opinion. And in art, there is no objectivity.

The best and most expensive wine is considered the best and most valuable because people like it. Or at least people agree that it has value. There is a clear hierarchy of wine from worst to best, so one can objectively say one kind of wine is better than another - even though this quality is based on arbitrary traits. Just like I can generally say a $100 banknote is more vaulable than a $5 dollar banknote, even though it's just pieces of paper. We agree that is has value and so it does. We don't have this kind of agreement in music.



Around the Network
freebs2 said:
Not really, metal heads were alternative before it was mainstream :P




Psychotic said:

I agree that this Lenny has something more than a regular pop star and more power to him. But is it important? Does it make his music better? Have can be proud of himself for making it where he is now, but I'm not in it for the story, I'm in in for the music. Of couse you can choose to value it, but you can't say the music - or even your opinions about music - is better than someone else's because they don't.

Besides, maybe some popular rap artists went through similar stuff... or even worse?

Some people maybe think hierarchy etc, is elitism, I don't. I only consider a subjective opinion treated as better than another equally subjective opinion. And in art, there is no objectivity.

The best and most expensive wine is considered the best and most valuable because people like it. Or at least people agree that it has value. There is a clear hierarchy of wine from worst to best, so one can objectively say one kind of wine is better than another - even though this quality is based on arbitrary traits. Just like I can generally say a $100 banknote is more vaulable than a $5 dollar banknote, even though it's just pieces of paper. We agree that is has value and so it does. We don't have this kind of agreement in music.

About rap, I agree. I kind of liked Public Enemy, would they have a guitar it would have fit my tastes. In fact they did a few experiments with guitars that are quite enjoyable for someone like me. That's subjective, I'm not trashing genre i don't like, I don't really like jazz either, or classic, and I'm OK someone don't like Rock.

But if I think there is a lot of subjectivity, I don't think there is no objectivity in music, I mean not at all. I still believe you can't sound as good as someone that live for music, have been listening music for several thousand of hours, play for 40 years. And that you would feel it if he tried to play something he doesn't like to expand his audience. Also, about agreement it depend who we are talking about. If that's the average guy, I can't tell, but for someone that likes music, I mean : Chuck Berry. He had so much influence, so many people grew up listening to him and take him for a reference... I mean I disagree with some friend about punk and metal, but we agree on Chuck Berry. It's not about liking it or not, myself I'm not so much of a fan. But I agree he's on a different level. I could talk about Robert Johnson, Elvis Presley, etc. Their value is not the price you will pay their CD, it's about influencing for 50 years music, and being the influence of about any group I like... and even groups I don't like.



Norris2k said:

But if I think there is a lot of subjectivity, I don't think there is no objectivity in music, I mean not at all. I still believe you can't sound as good as someone that live for music, have been listening music for several thousand of hours, play for 40 years.

Damn it, I wanted to include this in my reply as an exception (art done by someone who knows what they're doing can be regarded as objectively better than an amateur's art), but I left it out for briefness' sake. I totally agree with that. But I would consider it more of an exception than something that invalidates the entire argument about art being subjectve... 

Norris2k said:

 But I agree he's on a different level. I could talk about Robert Johnson, Elvis Presley, etc. Their value is not the price you will pay their CD, it's about influencing for 50 years music, and being the influence of about any group I like... and even groups I don't like.

I think this is a cognitive bias of some kind that a lot of people share I think. Overvaluing things that were influential and/pr first of their kind. I mean no matter how you look at it, most of modern romance is better than Romeo & Juliet in every way imaginable, yet still we all somehow consider Shakespeare's work valuable... it's strange, huh?



As a metalhead, I can only speak for myself, not for metal fans as a collective (because we're all individuals), but I don't stop liking something because it gets popular.  I stop liking something because a band stops making music that I like.  Plain and simple.  That being said, about 75% of the time, the reason a band rises in popularity with mainstream music fans is often the same reason I stop liking them. Usually a simplification of music, or conscious decision to start making music that appeals to the masses. And like clockwork, the band's image starts to follow suit. I know there's no accounting for taste, or a band's intentions, but often this comes across to older fans as chasing the almighty dollar...chasing the fame.

Please see In Flames for further reading and examples.



Metrium said:

Meanwhile bands like Metalica are extremely well known and popular but no one feel like they changed their sound and sold out to get to this point, so metal heads love them. 


Wait, what?

Metallica is one of the original "they sold out" bands. They were praised for their first 4 albums, and changed their sound quite a bit towards a more mainstream one with their 5th and 6th albums. They lost a ton of original fans and "underground credibility" while gaining mainstream fans tenfold.