So I've decided to add some pure opinion pieces to my repertoire. I love doing the reviews and much of my opinion comes out there but I like the idea of talking about the relative culture surrounding this music. The culture used to be very important to Metal... I'm not sure that's true anymore.
This article is going to be one of many pieces on my opinion on the good and bad about modern metal culture. Its going to focus on these two bands simply because they are seen as controversial in our music right now with many fans and detractors. I will discuss my opinion about both bands but this is not a hit piece on either project nor one of support. I see these bands as only a recent symptom to a decades old problem for metal music.
A quick intro to both bands, this will not be exhaustive as I don't have the space or knowledge for it to be:
Myrkur- Myrkur is Amalie Bruun. She was a pop singer and model prior to being Myrkur. Before I go further I want to make it clear that that has nothing to do with my opinion on her music nor does the fact that she is a woman. Both of these things are incidental to me. I will express my opinion later in a context that will clarify what I think and feel. I don't know her personal path to metal. All I know is she decided to play black metal and was able to enlist the dude from Ulver to produce it and, I believe, play on it. I may be wrong. If I am, feel free to correct me but with sources.
Sacred Son- Sacred Son is Dane Cross. I have no idea about him other than he released a black metal album last year that had a picture of him at the beach on the cover. It made people very angry, even upsetting the lead singer of Krieg. I'm sure you've read about this project by now. I'm sure you have an opinion. I will discuss mine but again with a context later in the article. Other than that I know nothing about this project. I have heard some of it, I will talk about that in a bit.
The reaction to these bands fascinates me. Metal is like any other microcosm. It has trends and certain trends become popular, ebb in popularity and then arise again. We've seen this in popular culture since the beginning of rock music in the 50's. Metal is certainly not immune. But before we continue we should define what Metal is as a culture if not a music form.
Metal, like many other subcultures, is supposed to stand apart from the mainstream culture. However, unlike many of its cousins, Metal is not founded on opposition to mainstream culture no matter how many people think it is. Metal was developed on staunch individualism. Punk wants to form a community separate from, and in opposition to, the mainstream. Metal is about an individual standing forth and telling the sea of voices around them to go to Hel. As Captain America put it, metalheads "plant their feet and tell the world 'you move'". Metal was always a loose coalition of individual brothers standing together in their individuality.
While this is the philosophical basis, we can certainly have a valid debate about the reality of this philosophy. Obviously there are plenty of "pro" examples and "con" examples. For all our claims of individuality, we are still humans and humans are flock animals. Flock animals don't actually like individuality in the majority. It can disrupt how a flock works and can be dangerous evolutionarily. And so, flocks tend to kill individuals who are different from the flock. Humans are no different, even the majority in such an "individual" subculture.
On top of that, Metal is a bit more amorphous as a subculture. Judas Priest, Bathory, Cannibal Corpse and Exodus are all welcomed and celebrated in the genre, which is supposed to be primarily about the music. Those bands all sound WILDLY different. There are some similarities, of course: Sonic extremity, powerchord usage, focus on all instruments playing the same riff, etc. But someone unfamiliar with the genre would never mistake most of those bands... well, maybe Bathory and Cannibal Corpse but not the others. And this is coming from a genre and subculture supposedly focused on music.
Let's take a look at that claim. Metal began roughly in 1969, with Black Sabbath's first record. I know there seems to be a debate about this now but that is EXTREMELY new. From there metal develops into fast and more dissonant sounds and adopts a look that some say, either, came from some intermingling with punk or from Rob Halford's excursion into fetish clubs. For me, I don't care. The look is appealing to me. From there, musicians start playing with the sound going in a generally faster direction.
What's fascinating is that the closer a sonic "trend" gets to the mainstream the faster they shed this look. All of the "trends" started out in leather, spikes and bullet belts but they all also move to more normal clothes when more people started liking them. For a subculture obsessed with "only music", we seem to be interested in a certain look and as bands spread beyond the headbanging mass they seem to drop that look real quick.
The presentation gets pretty tame as well. An example: Metallica's first record has an image of a sledge hammer covered in blood and then they're most popular thrash album :And Justice for All..." has an image of lady liberty falling. Pretty tame by comparison. Even the title is tamer than the first one. I could continue to bring up examples but I don't have the space.
I posit that two things are actually important to metal: sonically extreme music based on guitars and a presentation that puts us outside the mainstream and generally is considered scary by more mainstream audiences. This defines what I see as the common denominators in Metalheads. Though that changed in the 90s.
You see, something arrived that felt like it had, at least, one of those things; the sonically extreme music based on guitars. Grunge appeared and was aggressively sold by a music media that was never that comfortable with Metal, even the tame stuff that actually got popular. Metal is misanthropic and highly individual and, as I said, flock animals try to kill individuals in the flock. Grunge's presentation was far tamer than Metal's. It had a couple of things in common: sonic extremity in the form of heavy guitars and it was riff based like metal. That's about where the similarities end. Grunge was a socially progressive form of music. Metal is highly individualistic.
There began a campaign in the media. In non- Metal media, grunge artists would tear metal bands down. They would insult metalheads and bands constantly, making fun of everything about them. As there was some crossover there were many fans who enjoyed both. So some Metal mags would interview Grunge bands. Those same artists were very careful to not parade the same insulting behavior in those media outlets. To the point that Kurdt Vanderhoof, who was friendly with Cobain in Nirvana's pre rockstar days, was hurt and surprised to find just how cruel Cobain was to him in non metal media nearly 24 years after his death. If I were the tinfoil hat type, I might posit a conspiracy theory about the intentionality of this, and how far reaching it was, as a way of destroying the audience of Metal, but I'll hold on to that... You can decide that for yourself. This and the glut of utter shit thrash and glam acts led to the end of Metal as a popular form of music. Good, we needed the fat trimmed.
Yet there was a contingent of the Metal "scene" that longed for the days of "respect" and popularity, especially in extreme metal. We all believed we listened to the best music and we did, but most people didn't agree. One thing that helped Grunge was a claim of authenticity. You see, they sang about their life, drug use, not fitting in and other teen angst issues.. Metal was about escapist fantasy, even the dark stuff. If you sing about dragons and Satan and another group is singing about fighting with heroin, well... one seems more "authentic". I could debate that and I have but that's not the point of this article. That was part of the attack on Metal. "Metal could not be authentic because they didn't always sing about real life... not like us grunge kids do... " Also they just dressed like normal kids, t shirts and jeans.... Not the spikes and leather of days gone by. Metal's traditional look seemed ridiculous by comparison.
So Metal media decided to adopt that line as well and began to push bands that echoed it. That's why the sludgecore scene rose to prominence in America, why Pantera changed their look and sound and, eventually, why black metal appeared in the way it did as a reaction. Bands adopted a more normal look. Don't get me wrong they still looked rough and tumble. But they mostly just looked like dirty junkies with tattoos. The Southern metal scene and Doom scene rose to prominence and people traded in fast and technical for mid- or slow- paced and groove oriented. Obviously there were always bands that bucked this trend but that's how metal head kids have been raised in our subculture for 20 years. Anything with any theatricality was mercilessly mocked by the metal media and a few years later the fans joined in. Look, I love some of these bands. Good music is good music. Its still a paradigm shift and leads us to the modern metal culture... partially.
The other thing that happened was a paradigm shift in the philosophy behind Metal. As I stated before, Metal was primarily about pure individualism and Punk/Hardcore was about gathering a group of like minded individuals to change the Society/System. In the late 70's through the 80's they stood in opposition to each other. Punk thought Metal was shallow and Metal thought Punk was pretentious, even if they did borrow from each other constantly. But in the 90's metal bands and media started lionizing the ideas of the hardcore movement, even the straight edge stuff. Metal became faaaaaaarrr more about a brotherhood in the 90's than it was before. It comes from Harcore punk... Well, that and Manowar. Metal bands either started being far more political than they were, singing about drug use and abuse or singing about how we are all brothers and sisters "in metal".
With that, Metal became counter culture. Before, Metal was just not the Mainstream. It bent to us not us to it. And when a band did bend, they were derided, mocked and banished. But at this point, Metal became anti Mainstream. Metal actively attacked the mainstream. It stood diametrically opposed. Like most of this article, I'm not passing judgment. I'm simply noting it. The more anti mainstream we became the more concerned we became about how we were perceived. The more we let go of any "silly" looks and dress. I'm sure some of this was natural as the bands and fans just decided that's what they wanted. But some of it was intentional.
Slowly metal took on a more Authoritarian air. Yes, there were things early metalheads frowned upon but it got out of hand. Soon, everyone was accusing everyone else of being a "poser". It got so bad that the word has no meaning now except as a supposed dog whistle for musical intolerance. Rightly, people called out this behavior for what it was, scene police bullshit.
But even that swung too far. It got to a point if you didn't like a band and you said something you were called an "elitist". You had to accept bands in the scene no matter what. They could be the post- rock of Isis, progressive Yes worship of Mastodon, or the pop rock of Ghost, they were demanded entry. Just so I'm clear, I am not saying anything against any of these bands. However, I have witnessed people being put harshly "in their place" for simply not enjoying them and daring to voice that opinion. By the end of the 2010's any band that even claimed to play metal and had some fan base was forced to be accepted by all or the dreaded term "elitist" would be thrown at them and they would be hounded with it. I've been called "elitist" for not liking bands so many times I've lost track.
And this is the state of the modern scene. Dissent is harshly dealt with in a way it wasn't when i was a kid. If you dislike a "sacred cow", you are crucified on the cross of public opinion and mass consensus. For me, I hate a number of modern sacred cows. I try to be respectful of other opinions but its difficult when the first thing they do is to call you a name. It doesn't foster a place in which we can discuss openly a band and its worth. And Metal desperately needs that place.
As a point, I wouldn't call this a factual history. Others may have had different experiences. This is a representation of mine. I stand by it but I won't say its representative of the Metal experience, per se. It IS incredibly representative of my experience and a number of others I've spoken to. I'm sure others have had different experiences.
So let's talk about those two bands. My unvarnished opinion is: They're both shit.
Myrkur's first record was a shitty Bergtatt retread with zero originality, no aggression and boring norsecore riffs even straight up ripping off riffs from Ulver at times. For this opinion, I have been called a misogynist several times. I haven't even bothered with the second record.
Sacred Son is the shittiest Burzum retread I have ever heard. Its boring and incredibly generic. I've been told I am stupid and elitist for this opinion. Because how dare I like some black metal and not this! I mean, it all sounds the same, right?!? Well, no, actually it doesn't. Thornspawn sounds worlds different than Mayhem.
Really, the issue is simple. We've been given a narrative of metalheads as brothers but sought to segment the musical side in as many places as possible. Heavy Metal was once an outgrowth of rock music but now its not. It is a totally different genre with huge subgenres of its own. There is miles of difference between Black Metal, Death Metal and Thrash. They even have sub subgenres. Its huge and just a little crazy. But yet we're still supposed to "all get along". You can't argue about a certain band because you're an "elitist", a "misogynist" or worse. But in a genre of music that allows so many disparate styles there SHOULD be arguments. There should be disagreement because everyone won't agree and that's GOOD because it would be fucking boring otherwise.
My full unvarnished opinion is these bands are terrible. They are both completely unoriginal in every way. Except Sacred Son, I will admit that the presentation is pretty new to Metal and is, because of that, original. But musically they show a lot of the problem with Heavy Metal in 2017/2018.
Now, I know what some of you are thinking. You think I hate them because of a lack of originality. Well, actually, no I don't. I decided a long time ago that enjoying music was more important than finding something "new", which is virtually impossible now anyway. All music is based of some influence from someone. As Ozzy once said, everyone's ripping off somebody else. All that "experimental" stuff? Zappa perfected 40 years ago. You like this new post punk movement? You ever heard of Joy Division? They're better at it. And do you really think that Myrkur is going to make a better Black Metal record then Ulver, Mayhem or, for the love of the gods, Bathory?!?! You know you're wrong if you say, "yes".
No, i just look for enjoyment now. That can be a fickle beast because you can enjoy something that is fucking terrible and hate something that is well made and original. But that's a different essay...
I don't like these bands for the same reason I hate most popular music. They lie. They claim some originality and then sound exactly like what's come before. I don't believe the existence of Metal is predicated on some nonsense about "progressing" and having "new ideas" in the music. I think that's a bullshit pop meme (for those playing at home, meme originally meant 'thought'). I think the existence of Metal is predicated on the feeling. The rage coursing through the veins at the sound of the right riff. The power in the music itself and the power it fills the right listener with. Rock n roll is not predicated on "progress" or "keeping up with the times", its based on youthful rebellion. That's part of the reason it keeps holding on and why there's an upswing right now in traditional metal and hard rock.
These two bands, and many other "sacred cows" in modern "metal" music, are NOT rebellious. They are NOT original. They have NONE of the youthful exuberance that makes good Metal and indeed good Rock n roll. They are both boring and stale from the get go. Do I care that Sacred Son has a selfie on the cover of his record? No, I don't. Do I care that his music is rehashed shit pretending to originality? Absolutely! Do I care that it sounds like the safest and most boring thing I heard this year? Yes! It might as well be a Windham Hill record with how boring as fuck and paint by numbers it is. It might as well have debuted on NPR, for fucks sake.
Do I care that Myrkur is a woman? No, I don't. Do I care that she was a pop singer and model? Nope, I couldn't care less. Do I care that she's some sort of fashion maven? Nah, its not my way but we all have different interests. Do I care that her "black metal" is boring as fuck and tepid bullshit? Yes! Do I care that its getting sold as the future of Black Metal because its so "original" even though it COMPLETELY rips off early Ulver and has NONE of the power? Absolutely! Do I care that that record sees the further idiocy of dragging pop music sensibilities into a form of music that should be the furthest thing from pop imaginable? What do you think?
In the end, I care about the future of this music. I don't mind progression as long as it holds to the core of why Metal is important to me. The danger, the power... those are the things that matter. If you're ok with safe bullshit maybe you should ask yourself if this is a form of music for you. The music should be wild and untamed. Most modern "metal" sounds as tame as anything I've ever heard and that's a crying shame to me.
Of course, these might just be the ravings of a crazy old man. It may very well be the equivalent of demanding "you kids get off my lawn!". And that's kind of ok. Nothing stays the same except that everything changes and nothing changes. You may have a different opinion and... well, that's kinda the point here. That's a beautiful thing!
