MaxFaust

The Harvest Floor, by Cattle Decapitation.

I don't think excessive meanderings in music is connected with music theory. We find that sort of thing all over the place. Imagine for instance someone who's really good at wood carvings, leading him to get off on "decoration" rather than focusing on what that thing was originally meant for ... to such an expent that you dare not even touch the fucking thing. It's overdone. Out of your league. Many people get too good for their own good. It's a freakish technical brilliance sort of thing, which is unrelated to theory. Personally, I approach music theory in a somewhat Pythagorean manner. ("There's mathematics in there!") It's useful for a lot of mind loops you have to jump through in order to figure out what's what when you start researching all that which lies beyond the more reptilian response of either liking or disliking something based in whether or not it's pleasing you in the here and now. Not all people are built for theory though. Many prefer to judge life and everything purely on the "pleasure principle". They see no point in trying to understand what's going on at a level that doesn't interest them anyway. Not being a musician myself -- I just like to play with instruments and "make sound" -- my curiosity tend to move in the theoretical direction. For instance, I had a great time figuring out all the weird and cool things you could do with a Mini-Moog, back when that was a bit of a novelty. The "theory" bit would have to be that it forced me to start thinking in ADSR terms ... which never really left me since. (To be sure, there's a lot of sustain going on in the world of metal.)

Like I mentioned somewhere else, you get a lot of good stuff for cheap these days. People seem to be dumping their CDs, so you can find some pretty rare material if you're lucky. I bought the entire Metallica catalogue for 1€ a piece, for example. They were just sitting there on the shelf in the Salvation Army shop one day. It took me 0.1 second to grab it all. But there are many "unknowns". Obscure bands I've never heard of ... and TONS of power and hair metal.

"The Age of Quarrel" ... Cro-Mags, 1986.

That's some real 80s sounding material ... I don't like the synth, but the rest works fine, so 6.5/10. For some more 70s stuff ... this says 1970, but I think it's supposed to be 72. Childhood memories.

Infrasound has been shown to have some interesting properties like that. There are a number of artificial and natural sources that may produce infrasound, for instance due to mechanical stress, wind conditions, air pressure, that sort of thing.

This only reminds me of that old problem with Judas Priest and album covers. Scream for Vengeance is easily one of the best metal album covers ever ... whereas this sucks six different kinds of ass. Musically, it isn't all there either. They are definitely "at work" and doing a decent enough job as such ... meaning that it may not be a great Priest album, but it's still way above the "lesser" bands. I'm gonna give that song, on its own merits, a 7/10. Okay ... now for something completely different:

I never liked that "fab four" construct. For instance, Slayer shouldn't be in that category at all. Metallica and Megadeth seems related, which they are ... for obvious reasons ... whereas Anthrax seems more like a metallish skatepunk act. In my opinion, Slayer is more "German" in style, more akin to Sodom and Kreator. Metallica became a totally different band after they lost Cliff. Generally speaking, there are two different and opposite opinions about that. Some claim that Metallica didn't come into their own until that black album thing, others that only the Cliff years were "real Metallica". Megadeth has been steadily plodding along with their "prog-thrash" style ... but nobody would lump those four together if somebody hadn't already done so. I don't know when and why that first happened. It's stupid. My personal favourite of the four is Slayer. I can do without the other three.

There is this "coming together" -- convergence -- of great musical styles and attitudes ... that seems to lead a parallel life to "metal proper" ... as in sweaty, over the hills and far away rock'n'roll, most like what you find in the thrash genre I suppose ... but also related to death, black, doom, whatever. Make no mistake about it: This is club music ... not ever meant to be recorsded and distributed like that ... such as for instance Doctor Feelgood: This thing has of course "always" been around ... as a little of that pumping rhythms to get the beer sales going ... as in the bar circuit, the less than noble tour guide through some really nasty -- but very real -- territory. They will pay whatever band a fistful of cash to carry the night. That how "proper pub rock" came to be. The Scandinavian scene has always been very "rock" oriented. Nothing short of properly losing you mind will do. Just look at the drinking habits. Also. look at what are the most metal countries in this world. There is Finland, Sweden and Norway ... way above the rest. What does that mean? I don't know. But I find it hard to not associate it with the general level of public freedom to be however crazy that they are, just rock out with you cock out ... and let glorious Monday handle the fallout. However much of a regret. Many say that Finland is the first country in the world to have reached a stage of evolution where metal is the dominant, mainstream form of music. Sweden and Norwayb aren't far behind. Can it be the water? Informed people will know that Shagrath -- singer in Dimmu Borgir -- is handling the guitar in this band. It's about RAWK of course ... the Scandinavian staple. They may make money from various symphonic black metal fans ... but the real love is RAWK. They like that uncompromising, in your face attitude music. Which is why there are many such hybrids: Observant people may recognise several quite famous metal musicians in this video. Why are they doing it? Because this type of music gives them pleasure. It's fun. They do it because they like it. Everybody wants to kiss the edge, so to speak, in the greater punk'n'roll circus ... whatever this amounts to in terms of personal experience and testimony. Be that as it may, the big honcho in Scandinavian RAWK is of course Turbonegro. They call the shots. Nuff said.

Resty, you are quite right. That's some weird shit. 4/10. Next, I offer a 1970 relic from the 60s ... a psych masterpiece in my mind ... but we shall see.

Literally ... my first and quite immediate association:

It's Slayer. Old Slayer, which is better than new Slayer. 8/10. Over to some obscure Greek blackish death stuff from back in the day:

Releasing an album today is nothing like it was in "ye aulde days". Any fool with a home computer has access to what would amount to a million dollar studio back in the 80s ... so technically speaking, it's hard to get away with any excuses for poor production these days. It would have to be by choice ... as an aesthetic and artistic preference, because -- as many do -- they like that somewhat rotten, analog sound that you'll typically find on older records (before the music industry went digital). But sound is only one dimension of the release. There's also vision. Those who can remember Carcass's debut album might also remembet the "debate". How far is too far? Many of us studied the cover art, listened to the album, and went ... hmmm ... I'm not sure what this package is about, but these guys definitely mean business. "Worth keeping an eye on" (although the production was awful) ... and they hit home with the next one. However, the cover art was still a bridge too far for many. As was indeed much of the rest that was being released in the budding new genre of death-black-grind-thrash-whatever that was manifesting at the time. Many could deal just fine with the music, but were freaked out by the lyrics and the cover art. I think they were missing the point. Digitalisation started picking up pace by the mid 80s ... and ten years later it would be the norm. Nowadays I suppose there are "retro" studios out there, making a gimmick out of only having various vintage equipment ... but other than that, we are at a point in time when it has never been easier to record and release your own material, on account of the low prices on the technical side (although, to be fair, you can still get rid of quite a lot of money if you get into equipment fetishism). Amounting to a lot of people releasing a lot of stuff. A thing that never changes is talent, though. Even among the more talented, there are levels. My opinion is that high level talent will show ... even in the cover art. Which means its opposite will also show. Which brings me to my point: By the year 1988 -- to stick with the Carcass example -- using various "autopsy shots" and whatnot was fairly common, at least along the edgier sides of music. Numerous hardcore bands had used the death motive to death, so to speak ... so it didn't really have the shock value it would have held ten years prior to its release date. What was new was that this sort of thing was seeping into the mainstream. As far as art goes, it's very very hard indeed to come up with anything that's genuinely new. It would have to be contingent on technology that's new. More to the point: What seems shocking to people is highly relative. It's also a phenomenon that holds high interest in metal. There are certain "tropes" that keep repeating themselves. Often, you can tell what kind of metal this is going to be by looking at the band's name, the album title, the cover art, and so forth. Hammer Smashed Face by Cannibal Corpse isn't going to be symphonic prog metal, for instance. You can just tell. They are trying hard to warn you away if this sort of thing upsets you. (For the same reason, many should probably not watch horror movies, particularly not those on the sick edge.) I have no idea how many death metal albums there are with cover art orbiting various "horror" images of murder and mutilation, death and insanity. The short answer is, too many. So many that I've started to feel dismissive ... it seems too predictable ... not at all bad, that's not what I'm saying, but it comes with an aura of "been there, done that" so what have you got? Oh, another Morbid Death Obituary tribute band ... wonderful. Anyway, enough ranting. I'm fishing for some thoughts about "judging an album by its cover" ... do you feel that you are mostly right if and when you do that? My experience is that sometimes I am wrong ... but more often than not, I'm right on the money about what to expect, musically, after examining what went into making the cover, artistically. Especially death and thrash bands seem to come in any number of clones that all sound pretty much the same ... which is also true in the stoner genre ... which makes it all a little tedious, even though most of these bands are very good at what they do. The problem with "discovering a new band every day" is that as you get older, there will have been a lot of days. Time may be infinite, but life isn't. Have you developed an "ech" tendency to dismiss things yet ... judging by the cover ... or does the greater metal genre seem open and exciting to you?

They do, because it's fucking stupid. These ridiculous nancy boys can take their nazi fantasies and stuff them up their poop shoot. WTF. Either they are real nazis, in which case they deserve a solid beating every day for the rest of their lives, or they're just common morons who think this is a valid way of making yourself interesting. Either way, I'm not gonna start crying when that nazi ass is getting kicked. Creating art is a valid reason to break the normal rules for acceptable conduct and good taste. Morality isn't even an argument. However, this must not be confused for a free pass to be as stupid as you want, and get away with it. Nazi propaganda is not okay. Pretending to be into that stuff isn't cool. Nazis are no better than child molesters, when it comes to how much respect they deserve. Why even try to communicate? Better to just punch them on the nose without any further ado.

Oh look! A zombie thread. Albeit a good one. The obvious problem is that you have two elements colliding here. The lyrics and the song. The lyrics can be stupid as fuck without really taking much away from the song, as long as they are well sung. However, this doesn't work the other way around. No amount of text cleverness will help you if the song sounds like shit. Which leaves us with the obvious conclusion that form is more important than content. Like I said to this friend of mine just the other day: "I'm willing to put up with a lot of weird shit in people's personality as long as it's a smart person. Less so if they are stupid." Meaning that if it sounds really good, you don't care so very much about the lyrics, do you? Songs about drinking, fighting and fucking is really all I myself want from my rock'n'roll ... but opinions differ. Generally speaking, it seems people get the overall better results when they write lyrics to fit the "money riff" rather than the other way around ... and to be honest, the better songs seem to be bordering the completely meaningless, in terms of "lyrical contents". Something that got improvised on the spot, to fit the rhythm and the melody, or whatever.

Great act. I believe he worked for Joe Meek, as did also Richie Blackmore. I don't know if Richie ever sessioned for Arhur Brown, but he was definitely in with Screaming Lord Such. Joe Meek was a bit of a character. His attitude was somewhere in the area of "anything goes". There can be no reasonable doubt that he made a lasting impression on Richie Blackmore. Anyway -- Tony Iommi once said that he never cared much for Hendrix and the "psych" part of the fuzz guitar tree of evolution. He was into Hank Marvin, except he liked distortion. In my opinion, you can "kind of " hear that there is some DNA from the Shadows in Black Sabbath's guitar sound. Tony's riffing seem to follow the Hank Marvin logic in choice of meandering notes on the scale. I mean ... if Black Sabbath had gone for a more twangy surf guitar sound, it would pretty much be Shadows, right? A lot more small diddely-doo meanderings on the fretboard ... but if you're able to imagine a surf guitar doing the "Iron Man" riff, you whould be able to turn that on its head and imagine Kip Tyler working with Black Sabbath style guitar sound: Let me be a little clearer on Hank Marvin vs. Tony Iommi. Compare these two songs: Work a little with me. Try to "filter" away the fuzz.

In my opinion, properly obscure material would have to be 60s or 70s stuff. The name "doom metal" wasn't invented until Candlemass came along, I think. At least during the early half of the 80s they called that sort of thing "Sabbath worship" and it wasn't considered cool. On the other hand, you have bands such as Pentagram who got into the game not long after Sabbath, so they're definitely "grandfathers" as well. Thing is, the typical sound of that doomsy woomsy stuff hangs a lot on sustain ... which they would normally use keyboards for, until they figured out how to manage the fuzzbox, in the late 60s. Which is why I think there's lots of "doomsy" material from the era of psychedelia, it's just that they used organ where we now would use fuzz guitar. Structurally speaking, if we start to look at the boad picture of pentatone scales and drop tuning and all that jazz ... we can trace "the spirit of doom metal" back to Bach and medieval church music. Anyway, some things are obscure because they never made it, for "obscure" reasons (because they are good and it seems they "ought to have" become a big name, or something) whereas others are obscure simply because they never were any good ... or they were too "out there" ... or something like that. Enjoy my three examples:

I don't know when (or even if) I got into "death metal". Apparently, I'd been listening to it without being aware of it. Earliest? Probably Death, Obituary or Morbid Angel. Or why not Cannibal Corpse? I remember the band name from before having even heard any of their music. At the time I was more "black" oriented. An album worth mentioning though, is Heartwork, by Carcass.

Should I for any reason feel aggravated, I like to take the edge off with a little blues:

Of course it is. It sells, doesn't it?

As you probably know, Norway has two official written languages, that are pretty much identical in the eyes of foreigners. "Noregs Vaapen" is a grand mal violation of the boundaries between them. (Vaapen being an archaic "conservative" form, whereas Noreg is radical "neo-Norwegian". People get killed over that shit.) It's also perhaps a point that "vaapen" in normal use will translate into "coat of arms" more often than "weapons". Context is everything. The way it is written up is best translated as "this is the real symbol of Norway" ... if you want to know what it means, that is. That being said, great fucking album!

It would seem you have made up your mind already, so there's probably no point in going any further down this road. I'd still urge you to consider your "vantage point". Reality may become distorted due to the distances of time and space these "news" have traversed in order to reach your biased ass. There were a couple of actual murders around those times (not just Euronymous). Also, lots of criminal behaviour of the more material vandalism kind, which was associated with the black metal scene. All that shit featured pretty heavily in various media at the time. So no joke there.

Clearly at least 7/10 ... Tom Waits (what is he waiting for?) definitely means business. This is pretty "pissed off" both from the angle of musical structure and in the lyrics. But now for something completely different (it's Norwegian pop music from the 90s ... that is to say, popular among "non black-metalheads"):

I've been listening a little to IN FLAMES lately, after picking up a couple of CDs at a thrift store. I haven't made my verdict yet, as to whether or not I like this stuff ... but they seem to have some interesting ideas here and there. This isn't the kind of stuff that hits home with me right off the bat, but there is potential.

You can safely assume that there's a fat tongue in that particular cheek, and also that you won't "get it" unless you're Norwegian. Let's just say there was a bit of public debate going on for a while. When it comes to Jimmy Page and Lemmy protesting the "metal" label, you have to consider when they got into the game. Both are guys who remember an age when there wasn't even any Elvis or Buddy Holly, let alone any dirty rotten fuzz sounds worth mentioning (except for oddities like this) ... which means that they -- correctly -- viewed the whole heavy metal thing that started popping up in the late 70s as the record industry moving to create a particular market segment, for specialized financial exploitation of "youth rebellion". Be that as it may, my particular distaste for the phenomenon is due to how it creates artificial barriers between ever more specialized and elaborate genre fanatics. For instance, you may have people wanting to start a "death metal band" rather than just a band ... thereby limiting their own creative process to a genre act, because this is what the crazy market demands.