Music in the news
May. 19th, 2007 12:05 am"Metal listeners might not be stupid after all", says the Telegraph. About two months ago, now that I look at it - I'd been meaning to comment on this article for absolutely ages and never got around to it. It seems to me that metal is experiencing something of a revival in British youth (if you'll allow me to use that frankly frightening term) now, and it's always nice to see mainstream media giving this underrepresented genre a chance.
But reading that article through, some problems begin to emerge. "Participants said they appreciated the complex and sometimes political themes of heavy metal music more than perhaps the average pop song" is pretty fantastic, and I could just about understand the section about using music "to help them deal with the stresses and strains of being gifted social outsiders". I can't say that that was my thinking behind the music at that age, but it might just about work.
I just feel that it's being portrayed as a good thing for the wrong reasons. I don't listen to music to work off anger or remind me how troubled and alienated I am. If you want that, you might as well give up and listen to Fall Out Boy. Presenting it that way in the article does still gives it a negative image - instead, I think metal has a huge amount of power and energy behind it that can be very positive and uplifting. Something that makes you want to sing out loud while feeling like you're being thrown across the room backwards. (Ignore the way that that last video was edited by a 10-year-old with Windows Movie Maker.) I know that sometimes you just need a bit of this, but it's not representative of the genre as a whole. Neither is anything, really.
Where the article cocks up completely is the example list of bands, "including System of a Down, Slipknot, Tool, Dragon Force" - No! I know you don't want me to go on about this, but "true" metal is something that's held as virtually sacred to a lot of fans, and System of a Down and Slipknot are definitely not it. And as far as I'm concerned, Tool's only contribution to the music world is to convince a group of people to label themselves accurately as such via the band's T-shirts. Before the accusations of elitism come flooding in, I should mention that I actually quite like some of System of a Down - Serj Tankian (or Սերժ Թանգյան if you want to show off) actually has a pretty good voice in between all the screaming and bizarre squawking noises that punctuate their music. I'm not even sure what I would call them - they're listed on my iPod as "Unclassifiable".
It also makes me finally realize why I don't like Dragonforce. Musically they're all right, if a little repetitive and a bit too much about WAAAARGH WE CAN PLAY THE GUITAR REALLY FAST rather than actual melody or coherence, but I thought for a while that I simply didn't like them because they were popular (which is stupid). Instead, it's because in a genre that should be imageless, I don't like their angry image - and the way it causes them to get lumped into lists like this. They almost seem to be this generation's version of Iron Maiden, something to annoy your parents with before you leave for university. And I, as much as I wish I wasn't, am a bit over the hill. Colon, open bracket.
But reading that article through, some problems begin to emerge. "Participants said they appreciated the complex and sometimes political themes of heavy metal music more than perhaps the average pop song" is pretty fantastic, and I could just about understand the section about using music "to help them deal with the stresses and strains of being gifted social outsiders". I can't say that that was my thinking behind the music at that age, but it might just about work.
I just feel that it's being portrayed as a good thing for the wrong reasons. I don't listen to music to work off anger or remind me how troubled and alienated I am. If you want that, you might as well give up and listen to Fall Out Boy. Presenting it that way in the article does still gives it a negative image - instead, I think metal has a huge amount of power and energy behind it that can be very positive and uplifting. Something that makes you want to sing out loud while feeling like you're being thrown across the room backwards. (Ignore the way that that last video was edited by a 10-year-old with Windows Movie Maker.) I know that sometimes you just need a bit of this, but it's not representative of the genre as a whole. Neither is anything, really.
Where the article cocks up completely is the example list of bands, "including System of a Down, Slipknot, Tool, Dragon Force" - No! I know you don't want me to go on about this, but "true" metal is something that's held as virtually sacred to a lot of fans, and System of a Down and Slipknot are definitely not it. And as far as I'm concerned, Tool's only contribution to the music world is to convince a group of people to label themselves accurately as such via the band's T-shirts. Before the accusations of elitism come flooding in, I should mention that I actually quite like some of System of a Down - Serj Tankian (or Սերժ Թանգյան if you want to show off) actually has a pretty good voice in between all the screaming and bizarre squawking noises that punctuate their music. I'm not even sure what I would call them - they're listed on my iPod as "Unclassifiable".
It also makes me finally realize why I don't like Dragonforce. Musically they're all right, if a little repetitive and a bit too much about WAAAARGH WE CAN PLAY THE GUITAR REALLY FAST rather than actual melody or coherence, but I thought for a while that I simply didn't like them because they were popular (which is stupid). Instead, it's because in a genre that should be imageless, I don't like their angry image - and the way it causes them to get lumped into lists like this. They almost seem to be this generation's version of Iron Maiden, something to annoy your parents with before you leave for university. And I, as much as I wish I wasn't, am a bit over the hill. Colon, open bracket.