A lot has been said regarding the revelation that the
Dayton Ohio shooter fronted a pornogrind band. What stood out to me was
how most of the coverage I read online in articles surrounded trying to
explain to everyday people what something called 'pornogrind' is
in a way which doesn't attack the genre or make pornogrind sound abominable.
It is folly to think that in 2019 we are trying to talk nice and matter
of factually about bands like Cock and Ball Torture while in 1985
Tipper Gore and the US Senate was chasing Dee Snider around for writing "We're Not Gonna
Take It" claiming it would cause violence and anarchy. At least
there are still some holdouts
with this mindset out there to do the bidding of what was once the
mission of pastors, priests, and clergy the world round. These
holy men and women retain an interest in engaging their enemy, the Dark Lord, wherever he appears - in our case: extreme music. Oddly
enough, while everyone that loves extreme music does their best to
defend it by downplaying it's extremity, this contingent of the conservative right furthers the cause of extreme music by maintaining that extreme
metal is in fact... well... extreme.
As critics of extreme music attempt to portray exactly how extreme it is -
in both sound and content by honing in on specific cases - fans and supporters of the art are quick to dismiss outlier cases and examples. Compare this to the way in which 'journalism' often operates: news cycles latch onto and leech dry specific events that are not representative of the whole to push whatever agenda is in mind. If this is the professional norm, shouldn't we want this methodology to apply to metal as well? Now that I think about it, maybe I'm actually pointing out the problem with the current methodology of professional journalists here. Either way, shouldn't the agenda of extreme metal and extreme music be one of maintaining and pushing extremity, instead of accessibility? Please, don't confuse this with your perspectives on inclusion: extremity is not in conflict with but a proponent of the much heralded virtue of inclusion.
I can't help but feel it is all
disingenuous. Why is it necessary to defend this extremity in a way that
softens the genre as a whole? If extreme metal - and extreme music in
general - is to exist on a plane which remains extreme it must be
supported in a way that does not normalize it. Has anyone else noticed
the preponderance of reaction videos on youtube to metal music videos
and live footage where a reviewer not normally involved or knowledgeable
with the genre does their best to raise their own credibility by
critiquing 'obscure' metal bands? The underground is seeping forth into
all avenues; the sewer has now become the one-foot section of road by the curb where runoff and wastewater is in full view of everyone. My mother asked me the other day, out of the blue, "Are
there really white supremacist metal bands? I am reading a book and the
character becomes involved in the white supremacist underground." It was interesting to have to explain
that there are still places where dangerous viewpoints are openly
harbored if not welcomed, but it was unnerving that a book-club book chosen by middle-aged women would be shining light on the dirty underbelly of something which shouldn't have light shown on it. My
response, after a quick explanation of the pagan and nationalistic
tendencies that simmer in the Eastern European Black Metal scene,
amounted to "within Metal there are all the extreme viewpoints expressed
globally as a whole, as the content is often a representation of the
existing most extreme positions."
While Pop-culture leeches, youtube stars, mainstream authors, and Antifa and their
black-scarved doppleganger groups do their best to raise a ruckus,
they're systematically proving that Heavy Metal is truly one of the few
holdouts of open dialogue and spread of ideas - of all types - there is. By my
reasoning, this is now the most extreme aspect of the genre; there has
not been a major stylistic increase in extremity in decades. As an
example of just how extreme the content can be, even in metal there is a
contingent of metal fans that feel that there must be some universally
acknowledged rule set which governs what is acceptable to sing about or
write about or base a band around. There are those fearful of other
people intellectually confronting and engaging with controversial,
racist, or taboo content which is already available to be digested and
investigated at large. Who are they protecting anyway? And how?
The attempt to boycott bands, the attempt to drive promoters hosting
bands into hiding, the attempt to cause financial harm to clubs is the
manner in which mainstreamers are actually normalizing extreme music.
These tactics serve only those whose music is superficially extreme and thus removes one of the few defining extreme elements
which separates underground extreme metal from mainstream rock groups.
In a short while, we will only be able to go see bands who sing love
songs. It'll be like the 1950's except with blastbeats and HM2 pedals. How extreme would a bunch of bands singing love songs over death
metal music be? I want to be able to go to a controversial show,
experience the band, and then determine my perspective on what I am
hearing. I grow stronger with intellectual conflict and do not want a
filter on information.
What happens when the accepted
conventions of thought swing the other way and it is now unspeakable to
defend those of the LGBTQ community, or promote the importance of
climate change science, or civil and human rights for minorities across
the globe? Extremity goes both ways, whether you are Napalm Death
singing about the monstrosity of corporate greed and other generally
left-leaning perspectives or Iced Earth imbuing albums with a decisively
patriotic and conservative flair. Listening to Orphaned Land recently, I
can't help but think that they are a perfect example of a band which
exemplifies the importance of free flow of thought in the genre; an
Israeli band tackling a number of religious and spiritual topics,
playing metal in a region not accepting of it, and espousing opinions on
the political quagmire that is the Israeli and Palestinian conflict.
The extreme stances held in situations like this foster discussion and,
potentially, resolutions between peoples and the self.
I
for one would rather have an open market for the trade of
perspectives, theories, and ideas. I am capable to confront ideas myself
and take responsibility for my viewpoints on them. The intellectually
capable should not remain passive about relying on someone else to
determine what information they can receive. Perhaps an argument can be
made that there are people out there who can't decide for themselves how
to interpret information. This is true and there are those who aren't
intellectually strong enough to deal with sensitive topics - we have all
heard of someone being 'triggered' by something, haven't we? I can't
help but find it ironic, though. Imagine an army of anemic unhealthy
individuals regulating how much weight
bodybuilders, weightlifters, athletes, and our soldiers across the
country could exercise with because they were 'triggered' by the
physique of these powerful men and women.
Ultimately, this would reduce the overall strength and health of the
population, would it not? Isn't the same true of content? We must
exercise our morality, intellect, and reason by coming into
confrontation with information and concepts which force us to exercise
our minds.
Extreme metal is a 'benchpress' for the mind, if you are looking for an
analogy. The people that can't rationally deal with information
interpretation on a personal level shouldn't be the ones to determine
what content can be disseminated on a societal scale. The lowest common denominator will only ever dip lower and lower under these circumstances.
And
so we must continue to defend extreme Metal and extreme music in a way
which does not water down the content which exists - even the most reprehensible, vulgar, and morally unacceptable. We must protect the
creative opportunities for terrible people to create terrible content so
that we, the intellectually stable, astute, and capable, can feed on
this conflicting material and grow stronger in our defense of what is
right. I am fearful of what I am seeing on a daily basis on the
internet: watered down articles and click bait leading to desensitization
towards extreme content and an apparent defense of extremity via
explaining how something isn't really extreme. I think a lot of this was
already a sketch deep in my brain somewhere, lines and shapes formed
from an increasing concern and dissatisfaction with the direction technology is
taking society, and I couldn't quite get the right proportions. Sometimes it takes a
mass shooting and a killer who played guitar in a pornogrind band to act as paintbrush.