Comparing Genres: Punk vs Metal (Long Preamble)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
"Punk Rock? Ick! I hate all that Heavy Metal Hard Rock Junk. Its all greasy guys yelling about Satan and how much money they have...."
Grrr.
The only thing more annoying than a smug pseudo-Aristotle who shoehorns all music into "Genres"....is the ignoramus who can't tell two obviously different styles of music apart.

Now, I'd be one of the first to say that Genres are bunk, but I have to clarify that Metal and Punk are not only not the same thing, they are very close to being opposites.
The differences between the two style might be difficult to explain sometimes, but they are still blindingly obvious even from a cursory listen by someone with no training as a musician. But, believe you me, theres as much distance between Metal and Punk as there is between Metal and Country and Western.

Metal is the Blues...in Technicolor. Punk is garage rockabilly played by anarchists (but with a Rasta Reggae tinge to the bass). Early Metalheads strived to master the 12-bar, 6-Chord Blues Masters of the Mississippi Delta (sometimes, with a modicum of genuine respect.); Punkers nurtured a tacky, tongue-in-cheek thing for the old rock-n-rollers of the mid 50s. Hence, rather than warping Muddy Waters riffs into uncomfortable shapes, the Punkers stuck to the "Chuck Berry Chords". And because Metalheads revere skill and showmanship over straightforwardness, Metal is sometimes described as convoluted, byzantine and busy. But Punk gets labeled 'stark' or 'minimalist'.
Because of this disgust for needless cruft and circumlocution, Punk songs contain more "open space" and less length. Average Punk song length: 2'10" in length. Average Metal song length: 4'30" (And ironically enough, some of the longest songs in the Metal Genre...are usually from "Speed Metal" bands like Metallica. Average Speed Metal song length: 7'11".)
Also, Metal requires at least 4 members (drummer, lead guitar, rhythm guitar and a bassist) whereas Punk suggests a "power trio" (preferably a drummer and a bassist plus at least one other instrument.) And would sooner give up their guitarist than their bassist. You can't put that Jamaican Skank into your sound with no bass, y'see.
This stubborn simplicity has an upside. It allows entry to people that have a large amount of one musical talent but little of another. Hence, Punk Rock is littered with witty showmen with great lyrics...and terrible singing voices or primitive guitar playing. Metalhead frontmen are generally big-voiced pretty boys. With the exception of Ozzy Osbourne, Robert Plant and Axl Rose (and Roger Daltrey and Freddy Mercury if you consider them to be Metal enough) all the Metalhead Frontmen are generally same-old same-old. Contrast this with Punker frontmen and frontwomen. Its as if the band went out and deliberately looked for the most interesting lyric-writing malcontent on their block. Hence, Punk-rock bands boast colorful characters. From the acid addled Julian Cope to the menacingly bloozy Nick Cave. From the sultry dominitrix/chanteuse Siouxsie Sioux to the stumpy, brace-toothed hare krishna Poly Styrene; From the monstrous 6'11" Aussie ex-lawyer Peter Garrett to the vampirically suave, pencil thin Peter Murphy; From the gangly ragmopped head of Joey Ramone to the smarmy lounge singer that is Lux Interior. This is definitely a memorable group. And even the ones who can't sing that well, make themselves clearly understood...and they are easy and fun to imitate.

The style of the vocals differ as well. Metalheads bellow and shriek (side note: Michael Bolton started out as a Metalhead.); Punkers chant, mutter or bark accusations. I can't think of any Punker who tries the operatic shriek, and I've never heard any Metalheads mumble all the lyrics in a monotone. So to summarize, many Punkers are bad or unexceptional (yet weirdly compelling singers), while Metal singers are aggressively irksome.

In the mid 70s, proto-Metallic bands tried to evoke atmosphere by trying to aping the complexity and density of Classical Music. This created a lot of laughably pretentious double albums...but little good music. Punk went ultra-exclusively in the other direction. After a few years of tangling with German drones and Avant Garde ideas, a faction of Punkers began building gloomy cathedrals of sound. This was the roots of "Goth" music. Which created a lot of laughably pretentious people...but very few decent poets.

Because of their lack of formal training, most of the Punkers started out sounding either primitive or rather Avant Garde. Songs can be in strange keys or include mangled, thuggish sonics...because the Punker is doing this all by ear. This also opened up another great renaissance in sonic experimentation. The entire New Wave pop movement grew in the ashes of the Punk. Even the continued existence of Metal owes a debt to Punk. The only two truly useful Metal bands of the 80s (Metallica and Guns'n'Roses) were able to make their mark because they sounded different. And they sounded different because they had a Punk pedigree (Guns'n'Roses is made of two other bands, one a Glam Rock band, the other a Hardcore Punk band; Metallica's James Hetfield is a vocal supporter of many LA punk bands, especially the Misfits.) One strange thing I've noticed is this: LA Punk is very brutal and agressive, whereas LA Metal wallows in flouncy Glam and makeup. Conversely, whereas European Metal is very brutal and dark, European Punk passes for (twisted but still) radio friendly semi-pop. Hence, while some of the American Hardcore Punk bands transformed over time until Metal, all the groundbreaking European Pop of the Late-80s (U2, The Cure, Psychedelic Furs, Siouxsie and the Banshees) were bands that started out as Punks.
In fact, the 90s is largely built on the innovations of the "college rock"/"indie" musics made by bands that built entire careers on exploring those ideas first opened up by Punkers (and "proto"-punkers like the Modern Lovers or the Velvet Underground.)

The attitude towards sex strikes me as wildly different as well. Robert Plant wants you to "squeeze my lemon/ 'til the juice runs down my leg..." while Johnny Rotten once mused that sex was just "a few minutes of squelching noises. splish splash."; Punkers are more even-handed with women. An all-girl Metal band is a novelty act. The Patti Smith Group are revered as genuine artists.
This also spotlights another important difference. Metal (and I'm not trying to be mean-spirited, I'm just stating a provable fact.) has more than its fair share of high school drop-outs in the bands. Punk has more than its fair share of college-educated intellectuals. Theres a couple doctorate degrees floating around in there, too. Now you know why a band with a Punk pedigree might use the writings of Albert Camus as an inspiration whereas the Metalhead will title his album "C'mon Feel the Noize." Probably writing in Crayon.

Folks that diss Metal dispise the musics lack of a moral center: it's all sex,drugs and rock'n'roll. Folks that diss Punk can't stand the sometimes preachy tone. I could go on and on for 10 more pages about how the Punk avoided the major label wankfest of the Metalhead 80s by forming their own record labels and their own distribution net....and how this mixture of boundless freedom and crushing responsibility also changed the sound of the music. But it all really boils down to the final goal of these two most anti-social of Western Musics: Metals holy grail is a fun, blues-based form of Wagnerian Opera that you could drunkenly play air guitar to; Punks goal is something more grandiose: A rootsy, reggae-ish protest music that bows to no authority figures. And at the best of times, I think both succeded.

Lord Custos 2.0 beta, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

testing testing.

Lord Custos 2.0 beta, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

OK, who's going to be the first to bring up Motorhead? (Oops. Me.)

Nate Patrin, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

sorry. that's too much to read. I'm lazy as hell. But it reminds me of the punxploitation thread from awhile back. What was the show where the jocks and the freaks were fighting "punk is junk! metal rules!" -vs- "uh, er, no way man, punk. yeah. fuck off!" (sorry, I can't remember what the punks were saying.)

Dave225, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Nope. Thats sounds about right, Dave. "Why don't you Metalhead dweebs go home and beat off over your copy of Slippery When Wet?" would be my personal fave.

Lord Custos 2.0 beta, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"...and Take Yer Farrah Fawcett Hair With You, you blonde Chewbacca-ass posuer twit!"

Lord Custos 2.0 beta, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Why does your analysis of metal stop in 1984? Where do you place the shedding of the blues legacy that took place after the speed/thrash wave of the early 80s - the move towards atonality and chromatic scales, syncopated riffs and tempi, the turn to classical and folk structures, themes and melodies instead of the established pentatonics and the classic verse-chorus-solo-verse rock structures, and the voice-as-distorted-instrument, developments that started with Slayer and Terrorizer, through Morbid Angel, Suffocation, Cryptopsy, Gorguts et al?

Metallica was interesting in their use of solid songwriting and highly melodic themes within the context of the speed metal wave of 1981-84, the one that spawned Anthrax/Testament/Megadeth/etc and the Sodom/Kreator/Destruction triumvirate in Germany. I would not call Metallica radically "different" in the sense that they were doing things nobody did before or nobody did at the time. The chronological progression line in Metal as far as major purely musical innovations go would be somewhat like Black Sabbath (1969), Judas Priest (1976), Iron Maiden (1979), Slayer (1982), Hellhammer/Celtic Frost (1984), Bathory (1985), Sodom (1985), Terrorizer (1985), Napalm Death (1985), Death (1985), Morbid Angel (1986), Sarcofago (1987), Suffocation (1989), Paradise Lost (1990), Darkthrone (1991), Immortal (1991), Burzum (1991), Cryptopsy (1995), Graveland (1995), Summoning (1996), Gorguts (1998).

And Guns 'n Roses a Metal band? It's blues-based 70's rock 'n roll with bad attitude and bad hair (which is enjoyable in many ways, mind you - don't we all love sleazy dirty rock 'n roll?)...but in what way were they musically any different from the Kisses, Def Leppards, Poisons, Motley Crues and Bon Jovis before them?

But the punk connection is obvious. Metal and punk have crossed each others' paths often in history. Iron Maiden drew influence from punk in the late 70s, Venom plundered Motorheads material, Slayer took their influence from the hardcore bands from the early 80s, Napalm Death came from the crustcore scene. Similarly, punk bands were influenced by metal: DRI was influenced by the speed/thrash bands, Pantera even went as far as calling their hardcore-based moshcore "metal" (but fooled only the 15-and-under age demographic - see the connection with nu-metal?), not to mention Sick of it All, and later Metal bands like Entombed went punk, Machine Head plundered the 80s thrash riffs in 1994, bands like Slipknot redid Pantera's trick again, this time adding late 80s Death Metal tempi into their mix of Pantera/Machine Head hardcore-based moshcore.

Siegbran Hetteson, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Holy shit!

Kris, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Why does your analysis of metal stop in 1984?
Um. I don't remember setting *any* timeframe whatsoever.
Where do you place the shedding of the blues legacy that took place after the speed/thrash wave of the early 80s - the move towards atonality and chromatic scales, syncopated riffs and tempi, the turn to classical and folk structures, themes and melodies instead of the established pentatonics and the classic verse-chorus-solo-verse rock structures, and the voice-as-distorted-instrument, developments that started with Slayer and Terrorizer, through Morbid Angel, Suffocation, Cryptopsy, Gorguts et al?
Whoah whoah whoah, Sparky. This essay (of which you are reading is the "Beta" version) isn't an in depth critique of the genres themselves, but a quick and dirty, NON-TECHNICAL overview of how they differ. Besides: remember the two people I wrote this for are
a) a Teacher whose area of expertise is Composition and Shakespeare, and not Music. and
b) some ninny who make a remark very much like the one at the very begginning of the essay. In other words, Metal/Punk Virgins.
Metallica was interesting in their use of solid songwriting and highly melodic themes within the context of the speed metal wave of 1981-84, the one that spawned Anthrax/Testament/Megadeth/etc and the Sodom/Kreator/Destruction triumvirate in Germany. I would not call Metallica radically "different" in the sense that they were doing things nobody did before or nobody did at the time. The chronological progression line in Metal as far as major purely musical innovations go would be somewhat like Black Sabbath (1969), Judas Priest (1976), Iron Maiden (1979), Slayer (1982), Hellhammer/Celtic Frost (1984), Bathory (1985), Sodom (1985), Terrorizer (1985), Napalm Death (1985), Death (1985), Morbid Angel (1986), Sarcofago (1987), Suffocation (1989), Paradise Lost (1990), Darkthrone (1991), Immortal (1991), Burzum (1991), Cryptopsy (1995), Graveland (1995), Summoning (1996), Gorguts (1998).
...What he said. I'm impressed at your knowledge. Tell us more.
And Guns 'n Roses a Metal band?
Yes. Nine out of ten people on the street would place them somewhere in the metal category. It's a veeeerrryy big category.
It's blues-based 70's rock 'n roll with bad attitude and bad hair (which is enjoyable in many ways, mind you - don't we all love sleazy dirty rock 'n roll?)...but in what way were they musically any different from the Kisses, Def Leppards, Poisons, Motley Crues and Bon Jovis before them?
Because those bands bit the big beef bratwurst and G'n'R didn't. Next question.
But the punk connection is obvious. Metal and punk have crossed each others' paths often in history. Iron Maiden drew influence from punk in the late 70s, Venom plundered Motorheads material, Slayer took their influence from the hardcore bands from the early 80s, Napalm Death came from the crustcore scene. Ummm. "Crustcore?" I thought they were "Grindcore." Or is one just a subset of the other?
Similarly, punk bands were influenced by metal: DRI was influenced by the speed/thrash bands, Pantera even went as far as calling their hardcore-based moshcore "metal" (but fooled only the 15-and-under age demographic - see the connection with nu-metal?), not to mention Sick of it All, and later Metal bands like Entombed went punk, Machine Head plundered the 80s thrash riffs in 1994, bands like Slipknot redid Pantera's trick again, this time adding late 80s Death Metal tempi into their mix of Pantera/Machine Head hardcore-based moshcore.
In a roundabout way, I did *briefly* address this, though now as clearly or in as much detail.

Lord Custos 2.0 beta, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

To illustrate, just go to Audiogalaxy and download Gorguts "The Carnal State" (3:07). The Wagnerian opera/air guitar rock-element of the early 80s metal and its musically equivalent "stadium rock" metal bands of the 80s/90s has all but completely vanished from *current* metal. I would say Metal only got *really* interesting once it had shed its blues/rock 'n roll legacy and started going into atonal/anti-aesthetic nomansland (ie, the developments in the past 15, 20 years), coupled with the abandoning of the "fun" factor in metal.

Siegbran Hetteson, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Well, I don't think completely abandoning "fun" as a goal is a wise idea. I'm glad they got rid of the 80s poodle rockers, but if we get too far away from "fun" of some kind, the music could end up becoming a hopeless drag.

Lord Custos 2.0 beta, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Seems like the process of "abandoning the 'fun' factor" is well underway in other genres, too. Duty now for the fun-free future!

briania, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Siegbran, it seems as though the move towards atonality and manic syncopation in metal reached its peak (in different ways) with Cryptopsy "None So Vile" and Gorguts "Obscura", but even the last Gorguts album seemed to back off a bit from what "Obscura" implied, and I haven't followed much contemporary death metal. I assume there have been no musical leaps since then? Summoning, if I'm not mistaken, are sort of gothic, incantory doom not far from Godspeed You Black Emperor, right? How do they compare with the woozy psychedelic doom of bands like Esoteric and Skepticism? Should these bands be considered as innovators in a separate realm? On a certain level, the only thing that makes these bands "metal" at all is their song titles and their record labels, correct? What's the difference between modern doom metal and dark ambient noise?

Kris, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

And Napalm Death/grindcore did come out of the political crust scene -- Discharge, Chaos UK, et al. The whole genre is certainly a punk/metal hybrid.

Kris, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

how does all the 'nu skool' punk (pennywise, nofx, fat wreckchords, lookout) fit into all this? obviously bad religion started it but now its all about surfing!

chaki, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Seems like the process of "abandoning the 'fun' factor" is well underway in other genres, too.

You said it, sister.

Sean, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Siegbran, it seems as though the move towards atonality and manic syncopation in metal reached its peak (in different ways) with Cryptopsy "None So Vile" and Gorguts "Obscura", but even the last Gorguts album seemed to back off a bit from what "Obscura" implied, and I haven't followed much contemporary death metal. I assume there have been no musical leaps since then?

Sadly, no. Somehow everything is really, really stagnated in metal in the last four, five years. Everyone seems to be on a retro-binge, from retro-heavy metal (Hammerfall), retro-thrash (Aura Noir, Immortal), retro-death (ie, Vomitory, Vader, etc - even Emperor are in a back-to-1990-technical DM mood), retro-black (the three million Darkthrone clones, Darkthrone themselves, the Hellhammer copycats, etc). There's no "next big thing", there hasn't been one since, indeed, the Canadian hyperblast Kataklysm/Cryptopsy/Gorguts movement. And that was four, five years ago.

It's one of those "what next?" situations. Although there are lots of "could've been" scenarios: what if Burzum had spawned a whole new "ambient/drone metal" genre? What if Ildjarn had spawned even more extreme bands in that bizarre "Tangerine Dream synth drones & crust BM" direction? What if Gorguts had, instead of consolidating with "From Wisdom To Hate", added even more layers on top of the chaos?

Perhaps the development of Metal is finally "complete" and it will get the status of jazz or folk or rock 'n roll or drum 'n bass, where the major innovations are already behind us and the genre is kept alive merely on behalf of "curators" rather than that it attracts innovators.

Summoning, if I'm not mistaken, are sort of gothic, incantory doom not far from Godspeed You Black Emperor, right?

Well, not exactly. Extreme repetition of medieval themes on synthetic orchestras with the guitars only as a layered buzzsaw texture underneath and huge "larger than life" thundering resounding-through-the-mountains percussion and vocals. Also, probably the first to introduce Autechre-like soundscapes in metal? (the intro of "Dol Guldur" for example). Very inspirational music at least, although their last two albums do add a bit too much saccharine to the mix.

How do they compare with the woozy psychedelic doom of bands like Esoteric and Skepticism? Should these bands be considered as innovators in a separate realm? On a certain level, the only thing that makes these bands "metal" at all is their song titles and their record labels, correct? What's the difference between modern doom metal and dark ambient noise?

Difficult to say, indeed. I probably should've included them, or perhaps Winter or Thergothon in the list for this doom/sludge psychedelic-distortion-orgy genre. What makes them metal? Or rather, what makes them not metal? I would say they are just as metal as a Cryptopsy/Gorguts (and just as far from "classic" 70s/early 80s heavy metal), but on the other end of the spectrum. Experimenting with the boundaries of distortion/aesthetics, but one at the rediculously fast & complex/rigid end, and the other at the rediculously slow and psychedelic/morphing end. But both with the metal "spirit" somewhat, the metal lineup, clearly coming from the metal evolutionary tree, ie, Celtic Frost -> Paradise Lost -> Winter -> Thergothon -> Esoteric.

Siegbran Hetteson, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Punk has more than its fair share of college-educated intellectuals. Theres a couple doctorate degrees floating around in there, too. Now you know why a band with a Punk pedigree might use the writings of Albert Camus as an inspiration whereas the Metalhead will title his album "C'mon Feel the Noize." Probably writing in Crayon.

This would also be quite subjective. Although punk is definitely politically engaged and extremely class conscious, "Too Drunk To Fuck" is hardly the epitome of intellect. Metal does tend to be more based on historical themes. Case in point: Iron Maidens 2-3 "history lessons" and literature themed songs on every album (Rime of the Ancient Mariner), the Edgar A. Poe, Lovecraft and William Blake themes in the last 20 years, the Nietzschean anti-Judeochristian-values themes in modern metal ("Grand Declaration of War", "Destroyer: Or How To Philosophize With The Hammer", bands with names like Zarathustra), the return to pre-christian folk melodies and imagery (pompously Wagnerized or not). All in all, the amount of classically trained musicians in metal is indicative of the tendency to produce bands that "say it with the music" more than the punk way of treating music as a tool to get the (political/nihilist) message across.

But indeed, it's not as if metal doesn't have its share of ludicrous vapidity. "Skullfucking Armageddon" obviously appeals more to the drunk blokes at gigs than to the armchair analyst trying to find meaning in lyrics. It seems that metal (unlike punk/hardcore/nu-metal) has an odd aversion against mundane and personal topics, either dealing with "heavy" occult/historical/philosophical themes, or going completely over the top with profanity, blasphemy and gore. Which is what probably saves metal from disappearing into its own pretentious arse a la progrock.

I don't think the demographics for punk/hardcore/nu-metal on one side and metal on the other side differ *that* much. Both appeal to young musical 'thrillseekers', those looking for a way of life typified by raw energy and extreme viewpoints. Scores of punkers like metal and vice versa. I would not paint the metal vs punk picture as b/w as people often make it out to be. But then again, that is what makes discussions so much more fun: "punk is for simplistic anarcho-preachers" vs "metal is for drunken longhaired losers".

Siegbran Hetteson, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Chaki, it was always all about surfing.

John Darnielle, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

People looking for extreme energy in music could gravitate towards either punk or metal.

A Nairn, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

** all the groundbreaking European Pop of the Late-80s (U2, The Cure, Psychedelic Furs, Siouxsie and the Banshees)**

These were GROUNDBREAKING POP??????? More evidence that Custos inhabits a parallel universe.

Dr. C, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I think metal is for kids who are angry but are too young and inexperienced to know what they're angry about. This is why many metal songs have fantasy/mythological devil figures representing a nameless darkness in their songs. Punk is for the same kids a few years later when they know exactly what's pissing them off, the songs are about specific experiences and states of being. Too drunk to fuck isn't intellectual but it is something many of us have experenced, not many of us have had a pint with Zarathusa.

Bluegerm, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Siegbran I am floored and amazed... this is a whole universe of music I'd been unaware of until this moment and you brought the knowledge like fucking FedEx. Thank you!

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Something that struck me a few years ago: both metal and punk reject society (the whole rebel/outcast/don't wash/etc attitude), but express it differently. Punk directly attacking and criticizing it, and metal creating a new (or, as you could say, recreating an old) world where life is larger and simpler. Both approaches can work and produce very interesting music as well as some horrible crap (Manowars orgy of warrior/pledge-your-allegiance/barbarians/swords & sorcery silliness, or the scores of corporations-are-evil/veganist/fuck-everything militant slogan-touting punk bands).

Siegbran Hetteson, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i also am in awe of the information bulk on this thread. i know less than nothing about metal but always imagined that the lyrics were an almost formal element of the genre; you sing many-syllable synonyms for rotting flesh, etc., because that's the way it works. i am probably wrong about this; is there a more sensible connection between the lyrics and the clearly-well-planned music?

dave k, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Between Siegbran, Kris and John Darnielle I've learned more about recent metal than I could have found out on my own, and for that reason I thank them all. :-)

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i also am in awe of the information bulk on this thread. i know less than nothing about metal but always imagined that the lyrics were an almost formal element of the genre; you sing many-syllable synonyms for rotting flesh, etc., because that's the way it works. i am probably wrong about this; is there a more sensible connection between the lyrics and the clearly-well-planned music?

No, this is pretty much how it works for death metal. The vocal conventions of the genre were put in place by Death, Morbid Angel, Cannibal Corpse, in the late 80's and haven't changed much since. Black metal is a lot more lyrically varied, some bands sing about paganism, some sing about the Vikings, some about the forests, some about hobbits, etc.

Kris, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

This would also be quite subjective. Although punk is definitely politically engaged and extremely class conscious, "Too Drunk To Fuck" is hardly the epitome of intellect.
The song itself is muuuccchhh more subtle than the title suggests.
Metal does tend to be more based on historical themes.
Huh?
Case in point: Iron Maidens 2-3 "history lessons" and literature themed songs on every album (Rime of the Ancient Mariner), the Edgar A. Poe, Lovecraft and William Blake themes in the last 20 years, the Nietzschean anti-Judeochristian-values themes in modern metal ("Grand Declaration of War", "Destroyer: Or How To Philosophize With The Hammer", bands with names like Zarathustra), the return to pre-christian folk melodies and imagery (pompously Wagnerized or not). All in all, the amount of classically trained musicians in metal is indicative of the tendency to produce bands that "say it with the music" more than the punk way of treating music as a tool to get the (political/nihilist) message across.
"To Tame a Land"! Best Dune Song evah! (Ummm. ONLY Dune Song evah...)
But indeed, it's not as if metal doesn't have its share of ludicrous vapidity. "Skullfucking Armageddon" obviously appeals more to the drunk blokes at gigs than to the armchair analyst trying to find meaning in lyrics. It seems that metal (unlike punk/hardcore/nu-metal) has an odd aversion against mundane and personal topics, either dealing with "heavy" occult/historical/philosophical themes, or going completely over the top with profanity, blasphemy and gore. Which is what probably saves metal from disappearing into its own pretentious arse a la progrock.
Or turning into self-parody a la GWAR or Spinal Tap.
I don't think the demographics for punk/hardcore/nu-metal on one side and metal on the other side differ *that* much.
There are rabid fans of one genre that *intensely* dislike the other genre, and that minority tends to me the most vocal. Or at least thats how it seems to me.
Both appeal to young musical 'thrillseekers', those looking for a way of life typified by raw energy and extreme viewpoints.
Not anymore. I think all the USDA Grade A Prime Cut posuers are all now running around in baggy pants goin' "yo yo yo whasssupppp, G?!"
Scores of punkers like metal and vice versa. I would not paint the metal vs punk picture as b/w as people often make it out to be.
Again, the essay was meant as a primer in how these two genres differ. I had no intention of making any moral judgements or critical analysis (though I do notice my own pro-punk bias is a bittle obvious, but thats just because I wanted to clarify to the reader WHY I like Punk and WHY the "bad parts" of Metal have absolutely FUCK-ALL to do with it. Again re-read the very first line to see what set me off in the first place.)
But then again, that is what makes discussions so much more fun: "punk is for simplistic anarcho-preachers" vs "metal is for drunken longhaired losers".
Well, these are the two oversimplified cliches I had to use as a foothold for the uninitiated. If I had been more detailed, the essay would've become too complex for the newbie. (Granted, no-one here at Freakytrigger/ILM is a newbie. Thats why I posted it. To get some ideas for my second draft.)

Lord Custos 2.0 beta, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Dr C.: These were GROUNDBREAKING POP??????? More evidence that Custos inhabits a parallel universe.
The newbies don't know who MBV, the Cocteau Twins or Sonic Youth are, much less Lush or XTC. The reference would've been lost on them.

Lord Custos 2.0 beta, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Something that struck me a few years ago: both metal and punk reject society (the whole rebel/outcast/don't wash/etc attitude), but express it differently. Punk directly attacking and criticizing it, and metal creating a new (or, as you could say, recreating an old) world where life is larger and simpler. Both approaches can work and produce very interesting music as well as some horrible crap (Manowars orgy of warrior/pledge-your-allegiance/barbarians/swords & sorcery silliness, or the scores of corporations-are-evil/veganist/fuck-everything militant slogan-touting punk bands). Formula of Kitschy Greatness: "Orgy of evil corporate warriors/fuck your allegiance/veganist barbarian/militant sorcerer" shtick. If you could set it to a Hip-Hop beat and have Eminem and Rob Zombie guest vocalize a couple tracks...damn you'd be swimming in money!
"Orgy of evil corporate warriors/fuck your allegiance/veganist barbarian/militant sorcerer" sounds like a line of lyrics from one of Voivod's rock operas, don't it?

Lord Custos 2.0 beta, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Between Siegbran, Kris and John Darnielle I've learned more about recent metal than I could have found out on my own, and for that reason I thank them all.
Available from Amazon Martin Popoff's 'The Collectors Guide to Heavy Metal'; It twice as good as Stairway to Hell, and contains 10x as much info (in a very small typeface); Comes with a CD of goodies at the end. All for $13!

Lord Custos 2.0 beta, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

It twice as good as Stairway to Hell

How could anything be better than the Bible? ;-)

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Well, for one Chuck Eddy writes in English. And very few people have killed each other over anything Chuck Eddy has said. Poked out and eye here or there, maybe kicked someone in the crotch...but never actually killed anybody.
Or at least it never got on the news.

Lord Custos 2.0 beta, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

'SON OF CHUCK' CAPTURED

The infamous 'Son of Chuck' was captured last night after beating a hippee to death with a Gold Ultradisk version of Kix's Hot Wire; The killer confessed to numerous "Heavy Metal" inspired slayings.

Lord Custos 2.0 beta, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

kris, to go back to my lyrics question, then, are lyrics completely irrelevant to most fans of death metal then? are there bands that, in terms of music, are death metal bands but instead sing about, say, politics or jelly beans? i am intrigued by what sounds like a pretty massive gap in the amount of care/craft/whatever that goes into the different parts of these songs.

dave k, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Of course there are exceptions to every rule. There are certainly political offshoots of death metal, such as grindcore (Napalm Death, Discordance Axis, Agathocles, Creation is Crucifixion) but these bands tend also to be heavily influenced by punk or noise, either structurally (shorter songs, much less emphasis on instrumental complexity) or culturally (crustier looking, artsier packaging). I'm not sure how much your typical hesher gets into lyrics; part of the problem is that due to the highly percussive, syncopated structure of death metal, there really isn't much room for traditional vocals. Death metal is, by its nature, pretty much anti-melodic (unlike progressive metal, some black metal, and other kinds of metal). Also, death metal vocalists are generally not frontpeople in the typical sense; they're generally instrumentalists who are able to grunt along while playing their complicated parts. I think part of the death/dismemberment theme is simply that the whole genre pretty much promotes a sexless, juvenile atavism -- a boys will be boys aesthetic that is probably on some level analogous to Oi, except far less democratic (anyone can play in an Oi band, hardly anyone can play like Cryptopsy) and much harier. The kids like it because the adults don't, etc. Boys like drawing skulls. There are death metal fans who swear they can understand the lyrics, and there are death metal bands who don't even have lyrics. The metal nation has always been a strange one, with its own rules; the rules just seem to be getting progressively weirder and more narrow as the music gets progressively more exploratory and avant garde. Probably also just to signify what is and isn't metal, on some level.

Kris, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

RFI re "atonality" in modern non-mainstream metal. This sounds intriguing because I don't think I've ever heard a totally atonal piece of rock music. What do you mean by this? Do these bands actually write songs with no tonal centre? Or do they have atonal breakdowns in their songs? Do you mean more that they use a lot of dissonant chords? Are they into RIO or U Totem-style prog bands? What kinds of tunings do they use? What are some good recordings of this? Please be as technical as possible.

sundar subramanian, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Do what Siegbran suggested earlier and download "The Carnal State" by Gorguts. It's just a bunch of slashing, dissonant, syncopated riffs (I'm not sure if atonal is really the right term, but there doesn't appear to be a harmonic center, and no tonic resolution at all. All tension, no release. Perhaps hyper-chromaticism made logical by repetition would be more accurate. Sort of a more punishing type of no-wave.) The whole Gorguts album "Obscura" is like this. I'd be interested what you think of it.

Kris, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Siegbran,
I'm another one who's going to have to rush off to the shops after reading this thread and discover all these unknown worlds of ambient metal with synthetic orchestras. You listed which years bands had made a significant stylistic leap - could you do us metal-ignoramuses a favour and list which cds you think best epitomise these leaps? Would be v. grateful...

jacob, Friday, 17 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

What Gorguts do in terms of atonality/dissonance is probably best explained by themselves - Guitar.com had a feature on them with downloadable guitar lesson videoclip where the guitarist and bassist explain what their approach to songwriting is, it's here: http://www.guitar.com/features/viewfeature.asp?featureID=2

Siegbran Hetteson, Friday, 17 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Jacob,

Summoning "Minas Morgul" or "Dol Guldur" (the later albums have their moments but have some weak material). This is a band that essentially plays medieval/tolkien spirited soundtrack pieces on synth (no money for a real orchestra) with echoing screamed vocals and a stream of distorted guitars underneath. On their latest album they've got this huge spectacle piece "Farewell" (for the downloaders, 6:58) where they wheel everything out but the kitchen sink, choirs and all, HUGE thundering production - with the guitars somewhere in the back as a wall of background distortion. Also try the songs "Angbans Schmieden" and "Dagor Bragollach".

Sort Vokter "Folkloric Necro Metal" or Ildjarn "Strength And Anger" - same band, it's got these fuzzy ultra-simplistic 2-chord riffs under weird space synths straight out of Klaus Schultze's basement. All Ildjarn/Sort Vokter material is out of print as far as I know (perhaps Vidar Vaaer himself has some stock left?), but if you download Sort Vokter "Kveldstimer" you'll get an idea. Or this review

Gorguts "Obscura" and Cryptopsy "None So Vile" - these are the pinnacles of the whole chaos/dissonance/complexity race. Both should not be too hard to find...a nice review of "Obscura" here

Esoteric "Metamorphogenesis" - well, just read this review. This might not be easy to find...

Darkthrone "Transilvanian Hunger" - review here and Burzum "Hvis Lyset Tar Oss" - review Both are still available, the Darkthrone is recently reissued I believe.

Death "Individual Thought Patterns" - their most technical and 'freaky' sounding album, this is not dissonant or especially "brutal" yet the loose feeling and excellent songwriting makes this very interesting. Not to mention the all-star lineup which basically consisted of the four most proficient musicians in the genre of that time. On a big label, i.e. easy to find.

Graveland "Thousand Swords", "Following The Voice Of Blood" or "Immortal Pride". Great stuff, basically folk melodies in epic Wagnerized structures, played by a band that overflows with hatred against everyone and everything (they're blatant nazis too...). Best of it all is the strange 'looseness' with which everything is played. Tracks to download: "Thurisaz", "Sons Of Fire And Steel", "Thousand Swords".

Siegbran Hetteson, Friday, 17 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Actually, the Gorguts feature on Guitar.com is here...

Siegbran Hetteson, Friday, 17 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

jess i now have to rewrite my NOISE piece AGAIN!!

mark s, Saturday, 18 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I second (or eighth) the omigodyougottahearthis rave for Gorguts' _Obscura_. And I don't even _like_ metal (in general). I basically think of it as a great lost no-wave album, like if Mars rocked a lot harder.

Douglas, Sunday, 19 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

three years pass...
Did Mark S ever write his noise piece?

Dario, Friday, 13 January 2006 14:08 (twenty years ago)

one year passes...
go to Audiogalaxy

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 25 February 2007 17:47 (nineteen years ago)

But seriously thread kicks knowledge.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 25 February 2007 17:51 (nineteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.