'Authentic' metal? help with research wanted...
Printed From: MetalMusicArchives.com
Category: Metal Music Lounges
Forum Name: Metal Music Lounge
Forum Description: General metal music discussions (no polls)
URL: http://www.MetalMusicArchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1713
Printed Date: 21 Dec 2024 at 11:49pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 10.16 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 'Authentic' metal? help with research wanted...
Posted By: TheCroust
Subject: 'Authentic' metal? help with research wanted...
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2011 at 6:57am
|
Hello, I'm currently doing some research for a MA music course and wondered if anyone would be up for contributing? All I need people to do is talk about what they consider to be 'authentic', 'true', 'proper', 'real' metal, you get what I mean, then say a few words about why. It could be because you think it's not commercial, or it's a minority music, whatever, just some ideas about what you think makes it 'authentic'. I've been a drummer for about 20 years and at the moment play in a grindcore band. I have my own ideas about metal, but I know there are many with other ideas, so let me know.. I'll also be talking about techno in the same piece of work (I'm also a DJ), doing some comparisons etc, so if anyone wants to say anything about that, or any other forms of music that they might consider 'authentic' (or 'inauthentic'), please feel free. The more, the merrier. Lastly, I may need to quote what (if anything) has been said, so if you have any objection to your words appearing in the work, please say so. Thanks, looking forward to an interesting discussion... 
|
Replies:
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2011 at 8:15am
I consider music to be "authentic" if I feel the artist/artists have put their heart and soul into creating the music. Blood, sweat and tears in other words. I often find that it�s the early releases by struggling musicians that meet that criteria, but I guess that�s old news. Starving and struggling artists have always made the greatest art  . While later releases by more established artists can also be really great, the nerve and attitude of youth is often missing.------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: Time Signature
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2011 at 8:52am
|
I don't believe in the concepts "true metal" and "false metal" - I consider them social constructs which are as much part of the establishment of the individual's identity as they are of the actual stylistic features of the music in question. Identity construction is at play throughout one's entire life, but it's most prominent in the teens and early twenties, which is why I think that there is a correlation between focus on "authentic"/"true" metal and age. [and I certainly think that you should somehow operationalize age as a factor in your study] To me, metal has always been evolving, and part of the metal evolution has always been influences from other genres, so I think that the dichotomy between "true" and "false" metal is a false dichotomy. If we differentiate between "true" and "authentic", then I pretty much agree with UMUR's definition of authentic metal. ------------- 
|
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2011 at 8:59am
|
I most certainly differentiate between the so-called "true" metal term ( Like Kim I don�t appreciate that term) and the term authentic. ------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: Time Signature
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2011 at 9:59am
|
Yeah, we're getting too old for that sort of shit ;-)
-------------
|
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2011 at 10:20am
|
^Yep ------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: FusionKing
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2011 at 1:25pm
I know this is going to get my butt kicked for all eternity...
But you want my opinion.
So here it is...
Authentic Metal to me is essentially the classic metal genres combined.
Heavy Metal/ N.W.O.B.H.M
Power Metal
Glam Metal (and for that you shall all hunt me down...I know!)
Doom Metal
Prog Metal
Thrash Metal
They all have in a very obvious respect the feeling and ambience generated by classic rock.
Metal is a subgenre of classic rock, thus if a metal band does not give off that vibe it is not authentic, it is not metal in and of itself, it is an entirely new genre evolved FROM metal.
The same way that indie, new wave and punk are derived in part from rock but are not subgenres by any means. For example, an authentic metal band is one whom you can also call Classic Rock. It would sound and feel right to call Metallica, or Iron Maiden, Dream Theater or Ratt etc. 'Classic Rock, but not really, Lacuna Coil, or Slipknot, or Rammstein...
Too much about the music feels unrelated to what came before to seem authentic. The feeling required to make a band authentic metal is the feeling of the connection to Classic Rock, the mother genre, if you will. If that is not present I don't believe it to be metal.
BUT THAT'S JUST MY OPINION...
 |
Posted By: TheCroust
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2011 at 2:54pm
|
Thanks people, we're getting going here, just what I was hoping for. Time Signature, you are, of course, correct about 'authenticity' being a constructed device created by people in order to validate their own tastes/opinions/identities etc (however I'm not sure many people realise this, judging from what I've found so far). It should go without saying that all music is 'authentic' or 'true' or whatever, to someone, somewhere, proving the 'real/fake' dichotomy to be false, but the arguments still rage nonetheless. It does seem to be the younger age groups that argue the most about this kind of thing, (I typed 'why do so many people hate metalcore?' into google - man, was there some bitching there. Youtube comments are another great one for that kind of thing). I reckon I will be including that idea. As you say, this is when identity construction is at its most active, there is definitely a correlation there. FusionKing - where do you stand on the various forms of extreme metal, then? They have, after all, lost many of the characteristics of classic rock - the traces of blues, for example, are virtually non-existent in much of it - one guy on youtube even dismissed completely that blues was ever an influence on metal (I think he was justifying a very racist position, though it was still pretty weird to actually read it). I'm not disagreeing with you here, just wondered where you would place death metal, black metal etc? Anyway, thanks for your replies, keep 'em coming! |
Posted By: Stooge
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2011 at 2:56pm
|
^^^ Interesting view, FusionKing. I actually don't care for the term "true metal" or "Authentic metal" either, especially since I no longer strive to be an all-out metalhead and my musical horizons have expanded. There's basically metal I like and metal I dislike. To differ from FusionKing's post, it seems that these days that several metalheads want to put more extreme forms of metal (black and death metal mainly) as what is "true/authentic". Even more traditional/proto metal bands like Sabbath or Rainbow are often labeled as not really metal because it isn't as "heavy" or "extreme" as many bands of today. "False metal", which would be the opposite I guess, seems to be applied to the bands that have been accepted by the mainstream and/or have taken on more pop sensibilities. Groups such as Avenged Sevenfold, Metallica since 1991, and Korn (and with them most nu-metal/alt-metal bands) spring to mind. Some people see "authentic" metal as bands that stick to their guns in spite of trends, and who for the most part, maintain the same sound throughout their careers. Groups like Motorhead, Iron Maiden and Slayer could be among this lot. An interesting thing to consider is artists that change their sound from album to album who never want to repeat themselves. When done the right way, this could be met with fan/critical praise and legend status. A constantly evolving band could also be heavily criticized too, depending on the direction taken. Hard to tell whether such artists could be considered "authentic" metal artists or not. I guess it depends on whther or not they make a "sell-out" (another term I hate) album in the process  .Best to not worry about it.  ------------- https://armchairmaestro.com/" rel="nofollow - My Music Blog |
Posted By: The Block
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2011 at 3:20pm
Authentic metal in my opinion would be the first metal bands, mostly because they were the ones who so called "created the genre". For me those would include the likes of Black Sabbath, and other bands of the sort. Also, bands that were pioneers in their specific genre, take Iron Maiden for example, I think should be included as "Authentic" because they didn't copy other bands, they created their own unique style.
And on this topic, if a certain Glam Metal band, such as Kiss, were a pioneer in the world of metal, which they were, then of course I think they should be added under the quite broad topic of "authentic metal". Most bands that occur to me when I think of "authentic" are the already mentioned Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, and Kiss- and also Metallica, Van Halen, Dream Theater, Savatage, and most other traditional heavy metal bands. To go along with a common theme here, I truly don't like the term "true metal" either, just for the fact that if it's metal it's metal, there's no "well it's not real metal". That last sentence was a rant of sorts, but whatever .
Same here... Any way hope I was of some help... ------------- 
|
FusionKing wrote:Posted By: Time Signature
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2011 at 3:38pm
You are right that people don't seem to realize that it's just a social construction, but that's because social constructions very much form reality as we experience it. To to people it's real, and to different people different things are real, and that's probably why there are so many versions of what's 'true' metal and what isn't. I wasn't aware of this till I started studying cognitive linguistics and discourse analysis and got acquainted with the theories of social constructivism. The arguments still rage, and that's where things get interesting. A lot of social constructs are created and maintained in discourse, and I guess we can agree that arguments/discussions about music are discourses. So it's in the arguments that the concepts of 'false' and 'true' metal are created, maintained and changed. That's why I think that it's very important to look at people's discourse about genres of music when doing music genre studies. I actually think that we can learn a lot about identity construction and genres by looking at those arguments.
I think so. But it's difficult to operationalize age on the basis of YouTube comments, because, well, we don't know how old people are. Age is easier to take into account in ethnographic interviews and questionnaire studies, but real uncontrolled discourse like flaming wars on YouTube etc. that's where you can really see the concepts of what's 'true' or 'false' being negotiated in discourse. -------------
|
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2011 at 3:38pm
|
I don't care a lot about the "true metal" and "false metal" stuff... lots of metal is crap and lots of metal is awesome. I listen to way too many genres of music to confine myself to the whole "real metal" concept. With that said, there are a few things that make for a good (or great) metal album IMO. The music should be passionate, aggressive, and have a "balls out" attitude - if a metal album is only about making money and not quality music, then that takes away the spirit of heavy metal. This was a genre formed by people who (as Jonas said) put their blood, sweat, and tears into their art and made some of the heaviest music out there - although I don't think metal needs to be particularly heavy to be "true metal", taking away that energetic attitude in favor of a commercialized sound isn't at all what metal (or most good music) is about. Just my opinion.  ------------- Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2011 at 3:44pm
I'm one of the people who doesn't hate metalcore on principle.... there is a good amount of really kick-ass metalcore out there (even though it's not my favorite genre). My issue is mainly related to my earlier post - too many of the bands in that genre are about making money and not actually about creating quality music. There are exceptions (hell, I love Avenged Sevenfold!  ), but that tends to be my general experience with that type of music. It's a shame people generalize the entire genre of metalcore based on a few bands they dislike. ------------- Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: TheCroust
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2011 at 4:08pm
Oops, I just meant there's a lot of bitching on youtube - my mistake, didn't read quite the way I wanted it to. But yes, the youtube 'wars' are going to be one of my main ports of call for this piece. Part of it involves looking at how the internet has enabled fans to take control of authenticating work, which previously would have been in the hands of, say, critics and the like. It's fascinating watching the discourse develop (or degenerate), and personally I think if you're going to write about a music, it's fan discourse which is where you have to look for meanings. It seems to me that too much literature is based on theorising on the part of academics. I noticed the dreaded phrase 'sellout' has already put in an appearance - I know it hasn't been used unreflexively but I would say, from what I've seen so far, it's the most common way people differentiate 'good' from 'bad' / 'real' from 'fake' musics, whatever the genre it seems to be a universal marker of authenticity. Probably the most awkward to discuss as well.. anyone fancy it? The Block - just out of interest, would you include Venom in that list? I only ask because they're going to form one of the main points of my dissertation (I'll hopefully be interviewing some of them soon, they live here in Newcastle). I've noticed that they don't seem to get quite the same acknowledgment as some other bands, despite their undeniable influence (I'm talking mainly about academic literature). Summer's going to be great - 16,000 words about the Newcastle metal scene....  |
Posted By: FusionKing
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2011 at 5:19pm
|
I believe you wished for my stance on the more extreme forms of metal, (excluding thrash for the reasons in my above post). In accordance with my previous post, my feelings on grindcore, death and black metal are as such...I consider them as genres created with metal as a great influence but not metal subgenres in themselves because as you have correctly stated, the genres in question are so different that they no longer resemble the pure/original/precursor genre that is classic rock. In all honesty I feel that the seriously extreme metal is an entirely stand alone genre (or at least should be for the reasons I have stated) In saying that, I don't mean 'this metal is false! hate it now!'
 , what I actually mean is it should be classed as something totally different because it only takes a quick listen to know for a fact that it is. Death, Black and Grindcore together should really be under it's own personalised category entirely as I said, like indie or new wave, also the more commercial modern metal (Nu, Gothic, Metalcore, Industrial etc.) should be in yet another entirely different genre also. Until this is done, classic rock will continue to appear bitty and messy in regards to its makeup as musical forms which do not resemble classic rock are put under the banner of one of its main subgenres which we know as metal. |
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2011 at 11:52pm
I like his perspective |
Posted By: Balthamel
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2011 at 2:53am
|
Mastodon is Authentic metal IMO ------------- 
|
Posted By: The Angry Scotsman
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2011 at 3:35am
|
It is authentic if the musicians are so. For me, it is that simple. A lot of people consider nu metal and metalcore as not "true" metal. While I am not a fan of those genres (especially the former) if the band set out with honest intentions and doing what they want, it is 100% "true". If a metalcore band goes out to solely to make it big and be famous by playing something they think will be popular, than no it's not authentic. But that could be said for any genre of metal and music in general. Hell, it can be said for any form of art! If the musician is making what they want and truly believe in what they do, regardless of style...then it is true/authentic/real ------------- Megadeth, Metallica, Slayer and Testament. The real Big Four of thrash metal! Listen to doom metal, worship Satan |
Posted By: TheCroust
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2011 at 5:58am
Good points. Do you think maybe the reason people might consider the more extreme forms to be more 'authentic' (sorry I have to keep using that term), could be to do with minority status? A common way in which people seem to validate their music is through scale, i.e. smaller = more authentic. I can't remember where I read it, which is annoying, but somewhere it said 'as music grows in popularity, the piece of ourselves that we have invested in it, or that bit of the music we feel 'belongs to us' in some way', shrinks'. It becomes less personal, and maybe one way of dealing with what feels like a loss is to attack it with charges of (uh-oh) 'selling out', or such like. It's funny how definintions change over time, relative to new sounds. As you've said, Rainbow etc. not being considered metal any more. If you told some kid today that Van Halen were a metal band, I think they'd just laugh at you. Historical context needs to be borne in mind, unfortunately people don't seem to see this. Also know what you mean about those that change their sound, it's interesting how some can pull it off whilst others just get shot down for it. It's that 'original vs. evolved' argument; detractors of the new, changed version will say things like, 'they've lost touch with their roots', defenders counter with 'music is always evolving'.As you say, it depends on which direction has been taken. I would imagine it's very tempting to go with 'broadening your audience' and writing something more 'accessible', if you've had a taste of the big time. Also the longer a style's been around, the harder it must be to break away and create something new and unique, and many bands appear not to have the inclination anyway. On the other hand, I suppose there's nothing wrong with playing a generic style if that's what you like. |
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2011 at 2:30pm
I agree with everything you've said there!  ------------- Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: Time Signature
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 9:40am
That certainly seems to fit in with the identity-building we've discussed. By affiliating oneself with a sort of exclusive and difficult to understand kind of music - which a lot of extreme metal is to mainstream people - one becomes part of a sort of exclusive and elitist group... and I am sure we see similar patterns in youth subcultures associated with other genres of music. -------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2011 at 1:34am
|
I deliberately haven't read what others have posted to avoid colouring my response, so please excuse any duplicate comments - I will go back for a good read later!
Authentic, as opposed to "true" or "troo" metal to me is simply a form of hard rock with an unmistakable metallic edge to it.
It meets the following criteria;
1. The lyrics are nihilistic, occult or extreme. They will tend to avoid areas of sex and relationships, excepting the most sleazy and direct forms, as metal lyricists explore taboo areas with glee - this gives the music as a whole an authentic nature, as the darker side of the soul is expressed. No subject is left untouched, and even dark humour can be found.
2. There will typically be an absence of "swing" in the music, if there is any, it tends more towards the brawny, macho swagger, as metal is and has always been a predominantly masculine form of music.
3. No musical styles are left unexplored - metal started out as a bastardisation of other genres, and has continued to pillage and rape other genres for new ideas, just as other genres have attempted to add metallic elements to their sound, generally with limited success.
4. No metal band has to adhere to any of these rules or any other rules that anyone makes up. If it sounds like metal and has metal attitude, then it's authentic. It can sound traditional or entirely new - it only has to sound and be metal from its very core - metal at heart, you might say.
5. There will be LOUD GUITAR!!!!!!!! (although this is actually optional, and not specific to metal - see item 3).
Non-authentic metal is a bit harder to put your finger on, but you know it when you hear it, or particularly when you see a band playing it live.
The difference is strongest in item 4 above. While a metal band can play what it likes, if it just sounds like its jumping on the bandwagon, playing metal music to get attention or money, etc rather than playing it for the sheer heartfelt pleasure of playing metal music, then that comes across - quite strongly sometimes.
"True" and "False" metal differ in one respect only.
True metal is true metal to metal fans, and false metal is false only to the gang or bigmouth with friends who goes around saying it is. It's a kind of musical gang warfare, and the "false" metal will usually be a specific subgenre. Glam tends to get a lot of stick in this department. However, referring back to non-authentic metal, false metal does exist - just not where a lot of people say it does.
Some people will say anything for attention!
|
Posted By: Colt
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2011 at 4:58am
|
^
I was hoping you would see this thread Mark, I knew you would put it into words far better than me and I couldn't agree with your comments more. I would maybe add that lyrically some of the great bands have explored fantasy too. I guess though you could call this an extension to the occult.
Funnily enough, over at PA there is a thread asking if Riverside are Prog Metal or Heavy Prog. The posts really show peoples lack of understanding of what makes music truly "metal".
Obviously, there are also the purists who would argue that metal is only metal if you add death as a precursor - and most people here know my thoughts on that.
Metal has been around for 40 years not just the last decade or so.
...and here's some witches brew for you:
Hemispheres, Waves and Pictures were played alongside Iron Maiden and Motorhead. At the time we saw no difference.
King Crimson were inscribed on my college folder amongst all the classic metal bands - go figure! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112" rel="nofollow - http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112 
|
Posted By: goskoski
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2011 at 6:10pm
| Bands who attend Wacken Open Air and similar festivals are metal, be they gold, iron, copper, or mercury. |
Posted By: TheCroust
Date Posted: 11 Apr 2011 at 12:43pm
|
@Cert1fied, some interesting points there. The idea of taboo subject matter and exploring the 'darker' sides of life making art more 'authentic' is something that crops up a fair bit. This of course means that happy or optimistic art must somehow be 'inauthentic', a criticism often made of commercial pop (along with being, er, commercial). Weirdly, although I know that this argument can't work, I kind of agree with it... it's almost as though by being all happy and fluffy, people are trying to disguise the realities of the world. But then, optimism can be dark as hell sometimes. The other big one is obviously the question of why it's bad for artists to have money and/or fame as a priority. Compromising artistic integrity is the normal explanation, but then you have to ask, what is artistic integrity? If they set out to try and make money from their music and then do so, surely they have done what they intended? Just playing devil's advocate here, but technically all popular music has always been commercially motivated (I know Gaahl reckons black metal was never intended to reach an audience, but I would ask, why release a record then?), so really how do we decide who has 'integrity' and who doesn't? @Colt, funny how the meaning of 'metal' has changed so much with time. I'm not sure 'rock' has experienced the same shift in meaning - it probably includes more genres now but I can't think of a band that used to be called 'rock' and isn't any more. Metal though, used to include Van Halen and Def Leppard (did I mention that earlier?), but I'm not sure they're generally referred to as such any more - or maybe its just a generational thing? |
Posted By: goskoski
Date Posted: 11 Apr 2011 at 10:59pm
|
I still can remember from the 1980s when I listened to a radio program called "Nightmare" and "Wildside". It was a metal show, but they played Slayer next to Journey and TNT. From AOR to Thrash/Death all facets of Hard n Heavy were played and not just one. I remember that there was once a Bon Jovi and on another day a Mordred special. They were invited as guests to the show. A few weeks later they had Testament in their studio. Even the metal magazine, Metal Hammer Crash was very tolerant to different styles of hard rockmusic. They even had a Bon Jovi section and a Meat Loaf special. Even musicians such as Rick Springfield and bands such as Triumph and Foreigner were present.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: 12 Apr 2011 at 1:54am
Certainly for metal music, the darker aspects have always been a defining factor - and the "obsession" with it is something that separates it from hard/heavy rock, which will happily explore the lighter, fluffier sides as well - hence the difficulty with categorising bands like Led Zeppelin. I wouldn't apply this to all areas of art - I recently visited the Doge's Palace in Venice, and was stunned at the art dedicated to religious themes, and Bach was known to have dedicated all his work to the glory of God. This latter approaches your next point - the motivation behind art is important to those who enjoy the artistic merits in their own right, as opposed to simply enjoying art as a consumable. There's nothing wrong in either approach - I've heard many pop songs I enjoy which fit the Zeitgeist of a moment in time - but, like most fans of artistic music, I tend to enjoy music which has a lasting quality far more - and most often it's music created with some kind of integrity that lasts. Metal is very interesting from this point of view; I grew up with the NWoBHM, which featured musicians of all abilities, from the musically near-hopeless to extreme talent. The exciting thing about metal to me back then was that ability was only a single factor - if it came "from the heart", it didn't matter if you were Ritchie Blackmore or Joe Smith from the pub who'd just gone out and bought his first guitar. Somehow you could feel in your gut if someone was relying on something other than feeling to create the music - Holocaust are one of my favourite bands from that time; Songs like "Heavy Metal Mania", "Smoking Valves" and the legendary "Small Hours" are testament to extreme passion for a growing musical movement and all it stands for, backed by pretty simplistic musical backgrounds. On the other hand, it's difficult, if not impossible to name a band as lacking this kind of integrity, as music always finds its own level - this is probably best left to the ear of the beholder. Or beerholder, preferably. I don't think there are any scientific measurements we can take to prove anything here - it's down to opinions and straw-man polls at the end of the day. One personal example I can give is Muse, who I saw a couple of years ago at Wembley Stadium. The show was amazing, the sound was lousy unless you were at the front, but Muse seemed to go through the motions on all the songs - there was no "life" in the music, and I felt I could have just as well stayed at home and listened to the CD - or waited for the DVD release. I felt that Muse were cynically funding their next batch of recording sessions through extortionate ticket prices and merch. But a lot of others who were there really enjoyed the experience. A few years earlier, I saw them at Glastonbury, and can safely say that it was one of the best, most "authentic" performances I've ever witnessed. I'd say THE most "authentic" and least commercially oriented band I've ever seen is either Hawkwind or, more likely, Here and Now. The latter used to do a lot of free gigs and festivals - small wonder their record label went bust, and I used to see the former at free festivals, where they'd pass a bucket or two around during the many encores to collect "donations". Metal is a perpetually evolving sub-genre of popular music, and one of the longest lasting. People who grew up with more recent incarnations are going to hear the older styles as somewhat faded in comparison. To my mind, what was metal during the NWoBHeavy Metal is still metal (and that includes Def Leppard, of course) - so yes, it's almost definitely a generational thing. Mind you, a lot of people are coming round to Proto metal, and all the exciting "proto-doom" bands like Iron Claw, Possessed (not the thrash band!) and Dies Irae. As different and less extreme forms of metal become popular, the older acts are slowly becoming re-recognised for the pioneers they were. Def Leppard and particularly Van Halen's earliest outings are constant sources of surprise for those who only know their recent material - but then there's confusion about the lyrical content, and the fact that Halen especially enjoyed mixing it up and covering soul tunes and other esoterica. There's plenty of really heavy stuff too - especially on albums like Fair Warning. Ultimately, metal is where you find it - hence we get discussions about Boston and suchlike. Authenticity and integrity have always played an important part in the music and with its fans, but defining what those are is proably best left to someone with a Psychology degree - or simply go with your gut.
|
Posted By: TheCroust
Date Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 8:30am
Heh heh, I think this is the central point here - defining them is something that can only be done by the listener. We all take what we want from art, it means something different to everyone. I try and think of it in (very simplistic) terms like everyone having a slightly different view of the stage. Although there may be such a thing as a definition, it can only ever be an individual, subjective thing. The debate is one that can never end, as everyone competes to validate and reinforce their own opinions, tastes - identities. What's good (or bad, depending on your view), about the internet is that it has enabled 'normal' people to voice their opinions and get them heard (read), rather than 'authenticating power' resting with critics and such like. It's a bit of a shame most of what's on the web isn't very articulate, but then most people don't tend to spend too much time thinking about and trying to explain why they like something or not. |
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 8:48am
|
The why issue is very much a subjective emotional thing IMO. It�s hard to define why something moves you more than other things do. It�s probably got something to do with your nature, your history and how you perceive things but I�m not always sure it�s a conscious thing. Certain sounds or progression of sounds wake various feelings in you. ------------- http://www.lyngby-boldklub.dk/" rel="nofollow - Forever TRUE - Forever BLUE! https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 9:14am
|
It'd be interesting to explore what makes metal authentic - using some great examples, naturally!
After all, that was the original question, and, if it's for an MA, it's going to be largely hypothetical anyway - so my suggestion is to dig out a song that we can discuss the authenticity - or otherwise. Or just drink more beer and headbang to it. Either way, we all win.
It don't get more authentic than this, IMHO;
|
Posted By: Colt
Date Posted: 14 Apr 2011 at 11:58am
|
^^Metal Gods, indeed they were and still are ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112" rel="nofollow - http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112
|
Posted By: TheCroust
Date Posted: 16 Apr 2011 at 2:23pm
|
Thanks to everyone who contributed on this thread, currently writing up the piece. I assume people are happy for me to quote them? No-one seems to have registered any objections...
|
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: 16 Apr 2011 at 3:39pm
Feel free to use any quotes from me. ------------- Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: 16 Apr 2011 at 4:03pm
|
I'm likewise very happy to be quoted - but at my college, it was a bit like Wikipedia - our sources had to be verifiable and "recognised", meaning the source had to be someone who had published work and was a recognised authority in the chosen field.
I can't speak for others here, but I have no work published in my name, so that may be something to bear in mind for any kind of authoritative souce in an academic thesis.
As far as I'm concerned, I've "worked" with most of the guys on this site for quite a few years now, and can safely say it don't get much more authoritative - depends on how you present it, or how important that is to your college, I guess.
I'd be interested in seeing the finished result!
|
Posted By: TheCroust
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2011 at 2:16am
|
I'll email anyone who wants to see it with the piece, no problem. It's kind of a strange question now though, morphed slightly over the last week or so. It'll deal with a range a musics with examples from different forums and comment pages, and talk about how, even though the place of critics etc may have been slightly eroded due to the internet, the values and 'authenticating strategies' used by fans are pretty much along the same lines as the western 'canonical' values which have been in place for hundreds of years...nothing changes. Anyway, thanks again - let me know if you actually want to read it. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2011 at 3:11am
 I'd be very interested to read it.
|
Posted By: Colt
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2011 at 3:47pm
|
Maybe you can either post the article or the link so we can all read it ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112" rel="nofollow - http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112
|