Go to content Go to navigation Go to search
The Big Takeover > essays

Die Hipster Metal, Die!

by Ari Abramowitz
15 March 2007

After a conversation I had last week, I want to bury the concept of “hipster metal” once and for all.

The term refers to any number of artists (and perhaps even an ethos) that may be nominally called “metal”—a genre usually despised, disparaged, and ridiculed—yet who are also enjoyed by “hipsters”—the self-appointed determiners of what is currently cool, rad, dope, and, of course, hip in the world of music at any point in time. The paradox is twofold: 1) hipsters are traditionally a group that has despised, disparaged, and ridiculed Metal, and 2) if Metal is so déclassé, why would any hipster—an arbiter of coolness—claim to like it?

As part of a week-long discussion, SIMON REYNOLDS offers some interesting thoughts at blissblog. He identifies the hipster engagement with Metal in three general forms: 1) as a genre itself; 2) as an ironic position; 3) as a claim that the exception proves the rule.

The “genre itself” currently pertains to certain bands that are presenting either “arty” takes on metal (SUNNO))), BORIS, etc.) or bands playing derivative retreads of earlier styles (WOLFMOTHER, EARLY MAN, THE SWORD, etc). In either case, the artists in question have somehow struck a chord with people who do not usually like (or admit to liking) Metal. The former are generally bands that have, at best, a tangential connection to Metal, allowing fans to claim that they like Metal while not actually listening to any Metal. The latter are generally unimaginative rehashings of earlier bands that serve to allow a person to dis the earlier bands as silly “dinosaurs” while simultaneously claiming to be hip to the new bands on the block, however redundant they may be.

Note: an artist’s music being based on earlier music and even being derivative is not the issue. After all, nothing comes from nowhere. It’s a question of what elements are referenced and what vision is applied to them that truly matter. Are subtle elements referenced, or are only the most obvious elements used for inspiration? One example of enlightened derivativeness that I frequently cite is SLEEP, which thickened BLACK SABBATH’s already monumentally doomy sound while also expanding upon Sabbath’s hints at psychedelia, all without losing Sabbath’s loose grooviness, thereby forging something more massive and more trippy in the process. Another favored example (this time, within hard rock) is the way KYUSS thickened the LED ZEPPELIN sound with its molten mountain of guitars while opening up that mass with an expanding desert horizon of spacious compositions, moods, and textures. In more recent Metal, SLOUGH FEG emphasizes the theatricality and baroque classicism of IRON MAIDEN while balancing that flashiness with a heavier and thrashier take of Maiden’s trademark harmonized, twin lead guitar attack.

The “ironic position” refers to the act of professing to like a band (often of a ‘heritage’ nature) while simultaneously laughing it off before anyone thinks the hipster may actually like that band (even if he/she actually does). That way, the hipster can have it both ways: stake his/her claim as an individual because, of course, none of his/her friends openly claims to like that band, but then claim it’s all a joke or that he/she only likes the band because it’s “hilarious,” so he/she can still be accepted without contempt. Meanwhile, the deepest contempt is hurled at the given artist’s real fans, those who don’t get how hilarious it all is and that it’s really all a big joke, if only the poor saps were smart enough to see. That is, the hipster will admit to liking a band or not liking a band depending on the perceived amount of cultural capital he/she will accumulate for doing so or not doing so. In short, it’s a cowardly position. Note: most of us have had experiences of liking a band while not necessarily relating to many other fans of that band. The issue is not that one has to be deep in the trenches in order to be one of the band. The issue is either using something that one holds in contempt to puff oneself up socially or hiding one’s true tastes behind a facade of jocularity and irony.

The “exception that proves the rule” claim states that one doesn’t really like a genre, except for a few, select bands. This is an obvious kind of stance in that the majority of performers in ANY style, almost by definition, are unexceptional. It can be a sincere and honest stance and it can be a stance that deliberately states one’s superiority to the genre. It depends on the person. However, what can be pernicious are the reasons WHY the exceptions are the exceptions. Reasonable people can differ on formal things: it’s too fast/slow, too complex/basic, engaging/uninteresting melodies, vocal tone, production quality, etc. What arouses suspicion (especially regarding those who claim to like Metal) are rationales that hinge around things such as politics, lyrics, image, the supposed erudition of a cult of personality type performer, the embodiment of certain cultural theories, etc. These elements usually have little or nothing to do with the actual music and power of Metal and everything to do with the packaging that surrounds it. At best, the focus with these extra-musical elements is on why an artist might be considered sociologically “important,” rather than musically “good.” It’s almost as if the list of criteria is a list of apologia or prepared excuses to be used preemptively in order to shield oneself from any peer backlash one might be expected to face.

I would add one more element to Reynolds’ basic three: the arms race. This is an idea that has been intriguingly described in Heath & Potter’s Nation of Rebels. Some people (and many hipsters) claim fandom to things in order to stick a flag in virgin soil that has not yet been despoiled by their hipster peers/competitors. For the hipster, the goal is to be hip, to know something that his peers don’t know, to get there first, to get the scoop and gain all of the perceived social prestige that comes with it. Of course, we all play and enjoy this game, to greater or lesser extents, to feel that our hard work to obtain knowledge pays off and somehow makes us special. We all build parts of our identity off the self-expression of others. But to the hipster (the “fanatical dilettante,” as Reynolds puts it), knowledge of music is part of a strategic arms race for more hipness, more coolness. This is problematic because it requires a social context. It cannot exist alone, between oneself and one’s personal relationship to music. That is, for the hipster, one’s tastes only matter to the extent that they are seen and acknowledged by others. The music itself does not matter as much as the privileged positioning within the arms race that it confers. This is what makes all of the extra-musical elements I mentioned earlier so important: those elements form the currency that enables fellow hipsters to keep score versus each other.

There’s not necessarily anything wrong with someone picking and choosing which bands/albums/songs he/she likes within various genres without necessarily subscribing to any of those genres wholesale. One can perfectly enjoy METALLICA without buying into the entire Metal ethos. One can be into the music of, say, FUGAZI, without buying into the indie rock ethos (with PAVEMENT, I’m less certain). Again, only a minority of artists within any genre are exceptional. It’s when one’s taste is worn as a token of superiority, exclusion—coolness—that it degenerates from passionate, sincere, personal taste into social status gamesmanship and the worship of packaging, marketing, and signifiers—mere fashion. This is the point at which one’s professed listening patterns are determined by other people, either actively or reactively. What can I stick a flag in that no one else has stuck a flag in, regardless of whether I like it or not? How can I frame it so that my peers will see why I was superior in claiming it before they did (even if millions of my non-peers were here earlier)?

Hipsterism, in general, flies directly in the face of much that is Metal: dedication, the battle of Life & Death, and a lack of irony. For the Metal faithful, you have to have put in your work, paid your dues, and proven true solidarity. No one likes a tourist, a poseur—especially within an ethos infused with the Life & Death struggle. A hipster will be there for you one day and mocking you the next (maybe both simultaneously, if given the right crowd). The major bone of contention is that hipsters do not actually like Metal, its essence, its spirit, and likely not even its sound. Yet they feel they can enjoy the exotic fruits of its superficial association whenever it’s convenient (PHIL FREEMAN has an insightful piece on this phenomenon of celebrities wearing rock/Metal T-shirts). Again, to the hipster, it’s all just fashion; something to wear for a spell and discard. So fashion begets more fashion, trend cycles, fads, posing, posturing. Any sense of tradition, which is holy in Metal, is there for the hipster merely for the purpose of insider referencing while everything else is simply disposable. Get ready for the next season.

The Big Quest(ion) regards the vitality of the music, in itself, without its coolness currency—precisely the elements that are least interesting to the hipster. What is it that remains after the sociology (“Black Sabbath is awesome because I think they embody the concepts put forth by Marcuse and Gramsci, not to mention Debord, of course”), after the packaging (“SunnO))) was, like, doing a ritual in druids’ robes, man”), after the pandering (“did you know that Boris listens to TERRY RILEY and TONY CONRAD?”), after the posturing (“Wolfmother represents the return of the real rock”), after the equivocation (“maybe I’d like metal if weren’t so, you know, violent”), after the pre-emptive excuses (“I don’t actually listen to Iron Maiden, but you gotta admit, my Piece of Mind shirt looks really cool”) and all the rest of the distractions and extra-musical sales pitches. What is the MUSIC that remains? It’s technically or theoretically there, in the grooves or binary code. But can it be experienced as itself, without all these distractions? Can we, as humans, with all of our interpretive faculties, associations, and inherent biases even experience music as music? I’m actually not that sure. But we’re never going to find out as long as hipsterism in Metal is alive.

Filed under

Comments

I have to dispute one of your points, that Metal lacks irony. Blue Oyster Cult is ironic (“Golden Age of Leather” is a good example). KISS is ironic – any time cartoons are involved in music, that’s a winking acknowledgement of exaggeration, which I think falls under the definition of irony as used by the general populace. (Speaking of cartoons, I could probably fit Metalocalypse in here.) Lawnmower Deth was definitely ironic.


— Steve Holtje    2007-03-15 17:17    #

Hi Steve,
I think that Metal can certainly be humorous. But that’s not quite the same thing as ironic. Metal can lovingly laugh at itself while being itself. Manowar comes to mind. F***ing Champs’ titles such as “Never Enough Neck” also apply. The end of an Exit-13 track when Bill Yurkewicz, still in cookie monster vocals, caughs out “my throat hurts” is another example. But irony is a means of distancing and remove, if not outright separation. It can feel akin to contrivance or even mockery. Worse, it betrays a lack of faith, belief, and commitment to standing for what you truly like. This is irony’s true sin against Metal.

KISS is an excellent example for you to bring up, and they are a strong bone of contention to many metal fans. What Kiss presented were easily recognizable, visual signifiers of “metal” while rarely engaging in the music, itself (which was closer to the hard glam of Sweet than to Sabbath or even Rainbow). They were a mistrel performance and I’m not even ready to say that what they were performing was “metal” as much as it was the circus spectrum of pre-pubescent fantasy. At least Manowar was anthemic, heroic, and heavy in sound, regardless of the loincloths. As for BOC, they were a good, early 70s, hard rock band. There were a few flashes of proto-metal (the opening riff of Transmaniacon, the solo in Reaper, maybe the riff of Cities on Flame), but their music, as a whole really wasn’t very heavy. Even among Long Islanders, Mountain was heavier. As for their irony, there is reason to question their sincerity (which is the door irony always opens) due to Sandy Pearlman’s deliberate, premeditated marketing of the band with the “cult” signifiers and black magic overtones. It was really too clever by half and not really supported by the general sound of the music.


— Ari Abramowitz    2007-03-15 20:04    #

Metal bands don’t have to always play metal, hard rock bands don’t always have to be hard. BOC is metal, just as Tony Iommi’s fancy bits in some Sabbath songs don’t make Sabbath not metal. And speaking of irony in metal, was Ozzy being sincere when he bit the heads off of various flying creatures?


— Steve Holtje    2007-03-15 23:13    #

Of course not. I would never suggest otherwise. Here, I’m primarily interested dedication and sincerity. But, as for sound, most every metal band from Sabbath to Metallica to Neurosis has acoustic pieces and softer, more delicate segments within their mostly metallic bodies of work. On the other hand, Motorhead leans more metallic on, say, “Iron Fist” than on most of their material. Zeppelin could get more metallic on tracks like “Immigrant Song” even thought they were primarily a stadium hard rock band. And BOC, taken as a whole, tends much more towards hard rock (and sometimes just plain rock) than to metal. As for Ozzy, when he bit the heads off of various flying creatures, I think he was just out of his mind.


— Ari Abramowitz    2007-03-16 00:53    #

Well, I don’t take BOC as a whole. There’s the stuff with Pearlman producing, which is metal (through Spectres and the live Some Enchanted Evening, and there’s the later stuff, when they were aiming for pop, even when Martin Birch (who had previously produced Sabbath!) was at the helm.

In the 1970s, before the metal genre had, uh, congealed, the definition of metal was broader and the dividing line between metal and hard rock was pretty much impossible to pin down. Zep is a good example. THEY said they weren’t metal, but their American fans sure thought they were.

Anyway, to retrospectively say that BOC wasn’t metal, three decades down the line, means using definitions of metal that weren’t used in the ‘70s. They were, in fact, the first band to be called heavy metal. Their lyric themes are classic metal tropes. “Don’t Fear the Reaper” got played on the radio and became a hit, but there’s no way it’s not metal.

This reminds me of a few months ago when I was talking with my teenage nephew in Florida. He considers Slayer too soft to be worth listening too. I didn’t bother arguing with him, partly because I was dumbstruck. Yet, the bands he likes are descended from Slayer. But this is how genres and subgenres evolve; a few aspects get emphasized and others are dropped.

And speaking of definitions, we’ve got to discuss irony. There are many definitions; the word’s use has expanded drastically since its origin in ancient Greek drama. Now the #1 definition in The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus (American Edition) is “an expression of meaning, often humorous or sarcastic, by the use of language of a different or opposite tendency.” For “ironically,” they say “see tongue-in-cheek.” If that’s not Manowar and “The Golden Age of Leather” I don’t know what is.


— Steve Holtje    2007-03-16 13:18    #

Forward: Steve, we might want to take this to email so we don’t monopolize this space. Let me know. Either way’s cool. Anyway….

Yes, current definitions are based on earlier definitions. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the earlier definition takes precedence. As time has gone on, we have evolved a more developed idea of what Metal embodies. From Metal’s primordial days, Black Sabbath is still universally acknowledged as the godfathers of the genre, regardless of the changes in sound brought forth by Priest, Maiden, Metallica, and Slayer. There is something about Sabbath (I’d call it the sense of power, force, and the foreboding or the heroic) that still resonates as Metal despite the evolution of the term.

BOC, on the other hand, does not. Their first four (i.e. best) albums—not the “pop” stuff—simply do not any longer hold up as metal, regardless of what they were dubbed at the time(King Crimson was called a “pop” band (as was nearly everyone) at the time of their first album. It doesn’t mean they were, indeed, a pop band. And it certainly doesn’t mean that we must continue to refer to them as such). Other than the Pearlman-conceived imagery and the several riffs I acknowledged earlier, there’s not much metal music there. The guitars are tuned pretty standard, they’re not particularly thick, not a lot of minor keys, very little in the melodies or rhythms that suggests power, force, the heroic or the foreboding. Even by the standards of the early 70s, there were other bands that more embodied the metal sound, as we now know it: Sabbath, Pentagram, some of Atomic Rooster, some of Deep Purple, the first Rovescio della Medaglia album, etc. They did have many good tunes, though (I’ve always been partial to Last Days of May and Teen Archer).

Note: it is the conjuring of those elements I mentioned that makes for Metal, in my mind, not merely the issue of hardness/softness, as your teenage nephew would have it. That’s why heroically melodic bands like Iron Maiden and epic-style composers like Metallica are Metal, every bit as much and often moreso, than the death/grind/black bands he might prefer.

Irony’s a bigger problem. With “Golden Age of Leather,” BOC’s questionable sincerity comes to the surface and pretty much confirms their schtick as a put-on. That probably contributes to why they could never make convincing metal in the first place—they never really believed in it. Manowar is totally different. I think each member of the group is heavily invested—personally, even spiritually—with the roles they inhabit when they don their loincloths. In short, it’s not tongue-in-cheek at all. I think they, and their fans all know that there is an element of the ridiculous in what they do, but they don’t care. They are not putting on a minstrel show to mock metal in front of people who do not like metal. They are performing a fun exaggeration of certain elements of the metal ethos to people who believe in that ethos with all of their heart, even if it has a silly side that can be heartily laughed with. But far more important is that much of Manowar’s music absolutely kicks butt as Metal (Hail to England, Blood of My Enemies, Gloves of Metal, etc) and embodies Metal musically rather than merely relying on signifiers to sell the show and merch. It is the dedication, commitment and, ultimately, the actual sounds that carry the Metal flag to victory.


— Ari Abramowitz    2007-03-16 15:38    #

As a hipster, I decry any attempt to regard metal as hip. I won’t allow it anywhere near my record collection. Except for that Quicksand EP I have on 7” vinyl.

I do like the Beatles, though, and John Lennon referred to “Ticket to Ride” as “one of the earliest heavy metal records ever made”, so maybe there is some good metal out there.


— Dan Holway    2007-03-18 00:31    #

Saying BOC isn’t metal because they aren’t metal now is like saying the earliest Christians weren’t really Christians because the current crop has views that are so different. Better yet, let’s fall back on a sports analogy: The neat thing about sports is you can wax hypothetical thinsg such as “How would Babe Ruth fare against Roger Clements,” but even if one decides that Ruth would be a career .240 hitter in an era with specialized relief pitching, the game integrated for black and Japanese players and a myriad of other factors, nothing will take away his title as The Sultan Of Swat. So of course BOC was metal at the time even if a band that sounds like them now isn’t. Most all of what passed for metal in the ‘80s mainstream had almost nothing to do with the roots of the music or where it would subsequently evolve so by that token hipster metal isn’t even metal because that stuff does embody stuff that in many generations was not metal. By debating the definitions as you are, you render your own story moot because in many generations, what passes for Hipster Metal was punk or hardcore or rock or whatever.


— Brian O'Neill    2007-03-19 20:28    #

Hi Brian,

The more baseball analogies, the better. Only two weeks to go till opening day! Two basics responses to your points: 1) The major thrust of my piece was on trying to separate the sincere from the opportunistic, the affirmative from the condescending. The BOC tangent and the focus on “who is metal” became more the focus in the post-writing discussion. 2) Having said that, and having readily acknowledged that I like a lot of BOC’s early material, and even having readily acknowledged that they touch on metal in several instances, their prime material (just listen to it) is generally not very metal, not even by the standards at the time (Sabbath, Pentagram, some of Bloodrock, some of Sir Lord Baltimore, some of Budgie, and the others I mentioned in a few responses above).

I do really like the point you’ve made about comparing things from different eras. However, I think I do it in a slightly different way than you do it. I don’t really grant the validity of a term (in this case “Metal”) when used at a time in which it really had no meaning. It was just too new of a term. Was it Steppenwolf, was it “You Really Got Me?” was it Burroughs, was it Sabbath? The term had barely been coined and was way too uncertain to mean anything specific or for it to carry on is a meaningful sense. To go back to baseball, “Metal” circa 1969-70, as a term, is the rough equivalent of “baseball,” circa 1880. The term existed, but not in a way that still carries much relevence or that even carried relevence a few years later. HOWEVER, the essence or soul of the term “Metal” was very real, even if its definition was only embyonic. The best I’ve been able to formulate that essence is “music which invokes strength and power through the heroic and/or foreboding.” I am open to amending this working definition if there’s is a good case made for doing so but, for the time being, this definition seems to be the steel thread that winds through all the most revered and archetypal Metal bands. That’s why Sabbath, Maiden, Metallica, and Slayer can all have different “sounds,” yet still share something of the same essential Metal fire burning inside them. That’s how the term Metal gets its very meaning and its power.


— Ari Abramowitz    2007-03-19 22:14    #

> The major thrust of my piece was on
> trying to separate the sincere from
> the opportunistic

Ah, well there’s the major rub for me. I don’t like to judge intentions. This doesn’t stop me from doing just that sometimes – like it annoys the fuck out of me how nobody gets that the Locust creeps are making fun of grind with Cattle Decapitation (I consider them ironic and metal though) – but it doesn’t bug me all that much that Early Man were once in noisy indie rock bands before discovering the almighty riff because – maybe – they were actually rediscovering said riff which is a whole different kettle of fish. But at the end of the day, if it rocks, it rocks. I leave the judgement of the souls of the musicians to those in a much better position to make that determination: Groupies. And I do have the idealistic view that eventually those who lack integrity will make shitty records so give all these bands time and the truth shall be revealed.


— Brian O'Neill    2007-03-20 16:23    #

Yes, the “BOC is/isn’t metal” debate is but a sidelight to the main thrust of the initial article. However, Ari you fight a losing battle here. Your working definition “music which invokes strength and power through the heroic and/or foreboding.” certainly fits BOC. You mention the Cult’s first four albums….”Cities On Flame”, “Dominance and Submission”, “Transmaniacon MC”, “Stairway To The Stars”, “Astronomy”, “Before The Kiss A Redcap”...as well as the blistering heaviness and power of The Cult’s first live album “On Your Feet Or On Your Knees” featuring “The Subhuman”, “Harvester Of Eyes”,and an apocalyptic rendition of “Cities On Flame” fairly dripped of power and “thickness.”

Whether they believed “it” or not, had their tongues in their cheeks, or whatever…they did it. P.S. Where did the idea come from that metal means non-standard tuning or detuned guitars?
— Evan Williams    2007-03-25 00:38    #