Exploring the model of scene-based innovation and scarcity that characterised the 90s extreme metal underground, as eloquently outlined by Keith Kahn-Harris, this paper 

seeks to evaluate the extent to which its model of “eclipsed” symbolic capital accumulation is the key not to its success but relative failure to achieve innovation, development and change in metal music. Debating Lena and Peterson’s AgSIT model of genre trajectories, this paper argues such change in metal music have always been tied to the formation and demise of music “mainstreams.” The problem from this perspective is that NWOBHM, doom, power (including symphonic), thrash, grindcore, death and black metal did not mainstream enough (with the exception of some notable bands) to allow the next cycle of musical innovation to commence

Brown, A.R

In a striking series of recent posts, Keith Kahn-Harris has reflected on the question of Metal After Metal. Recalling the searching intelligence of a young Lawrence Grossberg and his anxious ruminations on whether rock was dead, dying or ‘going somewhere else’, Kahn-Harris reflects on the paradox of the abundance of metal music on the net and contrasts this with the 90s extreme metal underground, where the very scarcity of metal and the difficulty of accessing it, served to promote a musical economy – based on international tape-trading and eclipsed capital - that rewarded dedicated fandom with subcultural capital and discouraged casual consumption. This model is redolent of Bourdieu’s account of restricted (art) and large-scale (commercial) cultural production, except that the commerce of net music distribution is based on a subscription rather than a purchase model, so that economic accreditation is not guaranteed despite volume. It maybe that extreme metal, like indie and alt.rock, is an internalized avant-garde within the metal music field, meaning that aesthetic accreditation is only compatible with small to medium-scale success. Or that the impact of the net on the (exploitative) business model that used to underpin the reproduction of the music industry means that we may never see another hard-rock and metal dominated mainstream, as we have witnessed in the past. But maybe that past can offer clues as to why this is a desirable thing (despite the anti-mainstream rhetoric that currently abounds). Debating Lena and Peterson’s AgSIT model of genre trajectories (avant-garde, scene-based, industry-based and traditionalist-academic), this paper argues that innovation, development and change in metal music has always been tied to the formation and demise of music mainstreams: classic hard rock/metal 1969-1976, hard rock/glam metal, 1984-91 and nu-metal/rap-rock, 1997-2001.  The problem from this perspective is that NWOBHM, doom, power (including symphonic), thrash, grindcore, death and black metal did not mainstream enough (with the exception of notable bands, like Iron Maiden, Metallica, Pantera, etc) to allow the next cycle of musical innovation to commence. It may also be that the genre pool of classic metal has been over-fished or that what is currently missing is a catalyst-genre, such as hard-rock, punk or hip-hop

ResearchSPace - Bath Spa University

  Brown, A.R. (2015) ‘"Metal for the masses": or, will metal ever be mainstream again? (and why we should want it to be…)’, Modern Heavy Metal: Markets, Practices and Cultures - International Academic Research Conference, Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland, 8 - 12 June 2015.  ResearchSPAce http://researchspace.bathspa.ac.uk/  Your access and use of this document is based on your acceptance of the ResearchSPAce Metadata and Data Policies, as well as applicable law:- https://researchspace.bathspa.ac.uk/policies.html  Unless you accept the terms of these Policies in full, you do not have permission to download this document. This cover sheet may not be removed from the document. Please scroll down to view the document. MODERN HEAVY METAL: Markets, Practices and CulturesInternational Academic Research ConferenceHELSINKI * FINLANDJune 8-12, 2015Dr. Andy R. BrownBath Spa University UKa.brown@bathspa.ac.uk“Metal for the Masses”: Or, will metal ever be mainstream again (and why we should want it to be….)Metal “Pub” Quiz• The Severed Head, The Trooper’s Retreat, The Shredder’s Rest…• Q.666• In which period was metal mainstream?a. 1969-1976b. 1984-1991c. 1999-2001Metal “pub” quiz• Q. What is mainstream metal?• A. Types of metal music that suck!!!• Q. Why was it popular?• A. Because metal that sucks is liked by people who don’t like ‘real’ metal• It’s pop, lite, over-produced, watered-down• It’s also bands that sell-out and make music that sucks …..for big bucks!Mainstreaming• Q. Are these fan-centered discourses adequate as explanations?• A. No. But they makes us feel better!• Wallach, Berger and Greene (2011) describe as heavy metal’s: “complex, volatile relationship with the mainstream music industry” (p. 21). • Proposal: • Mainstreaming and “cross-over” are not the end-point of the process – they are part of it. They need more study.• Aesthetic innovation and musical change in heavy metal are tied-up with the formation and demise of music “mainstreams.” • They are essential elements within a process that governs the formation and demise of musical fields and the levels of commerce and exchange that operate within themArgument• Theorization of value & capital accumulation• In popular music scenes (heavy metal)• Extreme metal global underground scene (KKH)• AgSIT model (Lena & Peterson)• Relationship to mainstream• “Controversial” industry phase• Evaluation via application to “mainstreaming”• Cycle of innovation and sub-genre change?Global Metal Scene (KKH)• “standing” or prestige within the scene is not primarily determined by economic success. Indeed, significant commercial success is often controversial:  • the institutions of the extreme metal scene [letter-writing and tape-trading, distros, record labels, bands and musicians, fanzines and niche magazines] provide the infrastructure through which members interact and through which capital flows and is accumulated. The key questions in assessing how the scene refracts power and capital are how far participation in the scene’s institutions requires resources from outside the scene and how far capital accrued within scenic institutions is convertible into forms of capital outside the scene (2007: 78). • Slow metal=innovation• This model is clearly redolent of Bourdieu”s (1993) account of the cultural field of restricted (art) and large-scale (commercial) cultural production, in that mainstream or economically successful heavy metal is relegated to the commercial field (where accreditation is based on volume of unit sales) and extreme metal is located in an art-culture field (where accreditation is based on accumulation of symbolically specific capitals either through adherence to the aesthetic rules of the field (“mundane” sub-cultural capital) or by mounting an avant-garde challenge to those values (“transgressive” sub-cultural capital). KeySocial space ____…Field of power ____Field of cultural production ………Subfield of small-scale production ----CE Capital –economicCC Capital –culturalCSs Capital –symbolic, specificAUTON+ High degree of autonomyAUTON– Low degree of autonomyThe HM Cultural Field• Metal• Consecrated Avant-garde• E.g. Black SabbathSmall-scale production • Extreme metal:• Thrash• Death• Black• EC- SSCC+• Avant-garde Bohemia• Heavy Metal• Commercial Popular Metal• Large-scale production • Hard rock• Lite or glam metal• E.g. Motley Crue, Def Leppard, etc.• Nu-metal• SSCC- EC+ • Genre, formulaic, market-orientedIdentity Crisis Phase• Precipitated by the breakthrough of the thrash bands, Slayer, Anthrax, Megadeth and Metallica• “assisted by the institutions of the heavy metal scene” (p.95); • the near “commercial breakthrough” (p.83) of death metal bands, Morbid Angel, Cannibal Corpse, Carcass, Deicide, Obituary and Sepultura• The latter, the only death/thrash metal band to break the UK Top 40 with Arise (1991) and the UK & US Top 20 with Chaos AD (1993) and Roots (1996), before imploding shortly thereafter…. Heavy metal “most closely resembles” bebop, old-school rap, punk rock, and rockabilly “in the spectacular and contentious Industry-based phase of their trajectories”(Lena & Peterson 2008:709). Genres that experience the explosive growth and aesthetic dilution characteristic of an Industry-based genre tend to suffer a crisis as their many casual fans find a new focus of attention […] In response, some musicians explore new ways to revitalize a genre ideal, and new Avant-garde genres emerge from these efforts. For example, Bebop artists helped to spawn Hard bop, Cool jazz, Free jazz, psychedelic jazz, and third stream genres (p. 707).

"Metal for the masses": or, will metal ever be mainstream again? (and why we should want it to be…)

http://researchspace.bathspa.ac.uk/13563/1/13563.pdf

"Metal for the masses": or, will metal ever be mainstream again? (and why we should want it to be…)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ResearchSPace - Bath Spa University

ResearchSPace - Bath Spa University