Technical Extreme Metal Thread

I�m pretty sure most "regular" metal listeners would characterize their music as extreme. Ask metalheads who usually don�t listen to music with raw distorted vocals (which more or less is the feature that defines extreme metal IMO) and they�ll think of Meshuggah as extreme. For you and I who are accustomed to listening to much more extreme music they might not be the most extreme acts out there, but it�s my feeling that the majority of metalheads consider them extreme.

Edited by UMUR - 10 Aug 2012 at 2:50pm

UMUR wrote: raw distorted vocals (which more or less is the feature that defines extreme metal IMO)

bartosso wrote: Time Signature wrote: I guess it depends on the degree of purism/elitism one adopts. There is also a historical dimension that could be taken into account. A lot of bands that do not sound extreme today, were considered to be really extreme back in the day, and I am sure this applies to the likes of Meshuggah in the 90s, just like Celtic Frost and Venom were insanely extreme in the 80s. Personally, I don't give a fuck what other people try to force down my throat in terms of what should or should not be considered extreme. If I consider something extreme, then I consider it extreme regardless of what the purists, elitists, mainstreamers, mallcore kids or anyone else says. But I do respect the opinions of other people, so, if somebody considers Meshuggah to be an extreme metal band, although I do not (which I actually don't), I don't see any reason to start lecturing them on what they should consider extreme or not. I mean, why should I force my views down their throat? I checked twice and I couldn't find anyone lecturing anybody in this thread. Meshuggah IS an extreme metal band from an objective point of view, I can't see why we don't have an agreement about something so obvious. Compared to the majority of metal bands, Meshuggah ends up in the end of the "extreme" spectrum. There are actually bands less heavy than Meshuggah yet still considered to be extreme (e.g. all death and black metal bands). I mean it may sound less extreme than, I don't know, De Magia Veterum or DO. But remember guys, Iron Maiden is metal too so... I hope you know what I mean. It's not a discussion about tastes or personal opinions, I don't want to lecture anyone. It's just about practical use and dictionary meaning of the word "extreme".

First off, I am not accusing you of lecturing, so maybe you misunderstood me - or maybe I am misunderstanding you right now.

As for tastes and personal opinions, I do not think we can have this discussion without taking them into account, and I would also avoid taking the ditcionary meaning of "extreme" or any other word for granted, since I do not believe that dictionary meanings capture more than a very small portion of the actual use of the word in question. What we are really discussing, I think, is what the word "extreme" covers when it collocates with the word "metal", and even here I do not think that we can really find an objective point of view which everybody can agree on because of a number of cognitive, social, and linguistic factors. I better stop before I myself end up lecturing about language and discourse, but my point is that I do not think that there is such a thing a true objectivity when it comes to genre in music, or any other type of artform - it is just a matter of social constructions.

bartosso wrote: I just think that there's a reason behind the fact  that everywhere you look (wikipedia, prog archives etc.) Meshuggah are tagged "extreme metal".

I totally agree with you on that point. I just think that the reason lies in social constructions and conventionalization of an experience of music through conventionalization of a linguistic expression... as in the moderate version of the so-called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. As you point out yourself, our experience of metal is different from that of, dare I say, lay people and, because of our experience of metal. It is not, I think, unlike the theory of folk-vs-expert taxonomies from cognitive anthropology. I would argue that even expert taxonomies are a matter of social constructions and conventionalization... in fact something I'd love to actually do some research into is the discourse of metal elitism.

Nice with a fellow linguist here on the MMA btw :-)

Because I used terminology from linguistics and cognitive science - I assume that Bartosso with his background in linguistics understand it and I had a suspicion that everyone else would not understand it.

And that's exactly the same thing that happens when we metalheads talk about metal and use all our genre terms and all the other words that we use when talking about metal... then metal noobies and non-metalheads do not really understand what we are talking about because the do not have access to all the details of the terminology we use (and most of the terms we use, they do not even know). So, when we talk about "extreme" metal, we do so in accordance to our expert metalhead terminology in which "extreme" has a very specific meaning which the noobs and non-metalheads do not even know about, so when they use "extreme", it means something different to them. Just like both you and Bartosso have pointed out. I just think that it is important to keep in mind that "extreme" means what it means to us, because we have the insider's view on the metal terminology (we are experts in that sense), and non-metalheads do not have the insider's view. And then my point is that, even our expert terminology is something that is constructed by people and shared socially and made into a conventional system of terms - it is not a set of objective truths - but we tend to consider it a set of objective truths because we have made it part of our way of viewing and experiencing metal.

And, don't worry, I always explain all the difficult words and terms to my students before I start using them. But when they do get the terms, then talking about language and discourse is much easier than trying to talk about it without using terminologies. So, yes, I am pro-terminology, and this is where the academic in me rears its ugly clean-shaven bespectacled eyebrow-raising head.

bartosso wrote: Oh Jonas, cognitive linguistics terminology is nothing compared to Chomsky's generativism, believe me *___*

X-bar, theta roles, VP shells, I-language, and all that shit. Generative Linguistics is incredibly abstract and its terminology can be incredibly difficult to grasp. Linguistics is generally split into functional linguistics and formal linguistics. Functional linguists are interested in how language functions as a communicative and cognitive system, and I find that the functional linguistic terminologies are much easier to grasp - because they are based on more tangible and less abstract concepts.

bartosso wrote: You just have that Sapir-Whorf hypothesis which basically says that the structure of your language influences the way you perceive the world around you. Therefore, I don't perceive the world around me in the same way as you do, because my native language is Polish, its Slavic structure is different etc. I'll go even further and say, that even if we both use the english word "extreme", the way we understand it is influenced by our native languages. At least I guess so

Exactly... and there are two versions of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, or the hypothesis of linguistic relativity,: 1) the strong one, aka. linguistic determinism, which states that language actually determines out behavior, and 2) the weak one which states that language influences behavior and cognition (and that cognition and behavior also influences language). The strong version is easy to refute because it does not take into account basic and universal human experiences, but the weak one is very compelling. And, it may well be that even though we all use the English word 'extreme', we understand it slightly different because of influence from our native languages.

I mentioned the term 'collocate' before (collocation is when two or more words often show up together), and I think that collocation is extremely important in the understanding of what 'extreme' means, because linguists have found that a word changes its meaning according to the word(s) it collocates with. 'Extreme' has a different meaning in the collocation 'extreme metal' than in 'extreme sports' or 'extreme makeover' - the central meaning might be the same, but the details are different. The collocational meaning (the meaning that a word gets when it collocates with another word) of 'extreme' in 'extreme metal' seems to be different to those who are into metal terminology and those who are not. The the former 'extreme metal' covers a complex network of genre features while to the latter, it seems to just cover harsh vocals, very heavily distorted guitars etc. Which understanding of 'extreme' in 'extreme metal' is correct? Well, to us metalheads, the former understanding is the correct one, but that is only because of the view on music that we have accepted as our worldview in the metal community.

Metal Linguistics 101.