Regarding The Defense of Extreme Music Through Normalization

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.