originally written by Craig Hayes
This is the third installment in a five-part series. In Mainstreaming Metal, LR scribe Craig Hayes looks back on his experiences as a beacon for underground heavy metal within the confines of a mainstream-centric publication.
• • •
In the last part of Mainstreaming Metal, I put myself in front of the firing squad. I admitted that when I was writing about metal in the mainstream, I ended up feeling like a propaganda artist more than a music writer. Not because I was indulging in any underhand tactics, but simply because I mainly concentrated on writing positive reviews.
While I stand behind the truth of the specific reviews I wrote, you could make a case that my predilection for writing upbeat reviews misrepresented the metal scene. I think metal’s reputation is affected when writers covering the scene fail to point out both good and bad releases, especially on the large stage the mainstream media provides.
Obviously, I am aware that whatever dent I put in metal’s reputation was clearly mitigated by the fact that my writing in the mainstream wasn’t exactly the first choice for anyone. However, while my review count for poor albums was on the lower end of the scale, there are a lot of writers who seem incapable of ever turning in a negative review.
Some writers are obviously convinced that the best way to support the metal scene is to accentuate the positives and entirely eliminate the negatives. Others, perhaps, are feeling like they’re being held hostage by labels, wondering if a negative review might somehow restrict or kill off their access to promos. Or, maybe it’s simply a case of critical nerves, because some writers clearly don’t have the confidence or experience to, well, criticize.
Most likely of all, many writers who fail to turn in negative reviews are simply taking a few spare hours to write from the perspective of an enthusiastic metal fan first and foremost.
The vast majority of writers aren’t getting paid by anyone to critique anything, and we all want to support the scene.
Seems fair enough.
Or is it?
As well intentioned as that is–and I’m extremely guilty of indulging in that reasoning myself–if we’re spending our time in the specialist metal media presenting glowing reports 24/7, then you could well argue that not only does that misconstrue the reality of the metal scene to ourselves but to onlookers as well.
I’ve certainly had some feedback to suggest I was more of a crawling sycophant than a critic, someone guzzling from a pot of self-deluding bullshit alongside a few other writers. I understand that view too, because metal’s raison d’être doesn’t include much sympathy for weak-willed commentary, and I’m pretty sure that’s not how we want to represent metal to outsiders either. While I enjoyed the opportunity to rip the guts out of poor albums, I never really spent that much time getting my hands bloody, and I’m obviously not alone in leaning on reporting favorably from metal’s trenches.
• • •
THE SELF-AGGRANDIZING PARADE
The specialist metal media is rife with sites regurgitating press releases, writing hit-rate headlines with gossamer-thin content, and gushing on and on about their ‘likes’ and ‘retweets’ in a shameless, self-aggrandizing parade. Some of that behaviour is almost understandable, at least in terms of trying any avenue you can to get someone to read something you wrote in a media market already drowning in content.
However, more perplexing are the litany of sites where you’ll never see a negative review from any of their contributors. Imagine that: everyone agreeing that everything is grand, all of the time. What are the odds?
Obviously, some multi-author and single-author sites are very open about the fact that they do exist to promote bands their writers enjoy, and some include a caveat to explain just that. I don’t see that as problematic at all, because those sites are being honest about exactly what they’re doing.
For example, if you head over to Josh Haun’s well-respected musings on That’s How Kids Die and click on the site’s FAQs, you’ll see he clearly explains his site is, “…dedicated to covering the best in extreme metal.” That’s upfront, direct, and crystal clear. I say much the same on my own very neglected blog (“I’m here to talk about music I like”), and the multi-author site No Clean Singing has a lengthy section explaining its philosophy, including a clear statement about wanting to talk about music “…we can honestly recommend to you.”
Honestly recommend being the keywords there. If I want to find some great new tunes I’ll go to sites like That’s How Kids Die, because I know Haun is aiming to point me in the right direction. We know how any accounts are going to be framed on sites like That’s How Kids Die, No Clean Singing, and others, and you can dig into the knowledgeable, sharp-witted, and engaging work on those sites fully aware of that.
However, there are far more metal ‘review’ sites that mask any mention of a particular slant, while still loading their pages with favourable reviews. A couple of good examples of that would be The Metal Review and Metal Reviews, because aside from the odd review that dips below three stars, it’s seemingly all golden shores. I’m not questioning the honesty of those writers, but I’m asking: Does that seem like a realistic representation of the metal scene to you? Are we awash in four and five star releases every week? Or have we become so blinkered in our commentary that actual critical analysis is now a distant memory?
There are also sites that are packed to the gunnels with positivity–not even offering vaguely critical commentary–but that still take aim at the mainstream for dipping their toes into metal coverage. That leaves us in a really odd situation. We have sites within the metal community featuring nothing but back-slapping coverage. Yet, some mainstream sites that attract criticism for covering metal in the first place could be seen as writing about the genre with more transparency than many sites in the metal scene exhibit themselves.
That makes me think that maybe we should sort out our own backyard, before we worry too much about what the neighbours are doing.
• • •
A WHIFF OF SANCTIMONIOUSNESS
If we want to criticise mainstream coverage of metal–and there are clearly elements of it that should be questioned–then our own arguments will be strengthened if they lose the stench of hypocrisy.
Recently, writers and commentators have rightly pointed out that we shouldn’t tolerate exploitative garbage like Revolver’s wealth of sexist dribble, Metal Injection’s sensationalist coverage of Ian Watkins’ recent trial, or Metal Sucks’ lurid coverage of the murder of Samon “Avaejee” Traisattha. We should be criticizing click-bait commentary and news that demeans our scene, but we’ve also got plenty of room to talk about the music that lets the scene down.
It’s important that we’re noting metal’s successes and failures at home first of all, because self-serving reporting from within does more damage than whatever’s happening out in the mainstream. Ultimately, we’re defining how metal is represented before it’s presented to the wider world, and it’s the dubious tales being told right in front of us that the mainstream picks up on, presuming them to be the truth.
It’s not misrepresentative tales or critical bias being exhibited in the mainstream that we need to worry about. Take, as one example, the number of metal review sites with labels listed as their partners. We might like to ask ourselves: Where is the critical distance or impartiality in that? I know what I do with my partner, and I’m guessing there’s something just as unhygienic about that arrangement, and we really should consider if we want the result of those couplings to presented as the true face of heavy metal.
Also, you’d have to ask, what exactly is it that we’re protecting anyway? Is it our poor put-upon scene? Our easily bruised underground that needs to be safeguarded from the mainstream spotlight?
Fuck that.
The more I think about either of those scenarios, the less they make sense. If we’re not big enough and tough enough to represent ourselves honestly–all these years after Iommi kicked down the walls of reality–then we really should board up that hell-bound tear in time and space and all become indie pop fans.
I guarantee you that metal won’t crumble under an honest portrayal of its true form; it will still be the thriving and creative scene that we’re proud of. It’s not unsupportive to point out feeble bands or albums, or even criticise what you might see as undermining metal (like far-right bands, misogyny, or whatever happens to piss you off). An injection of honesty never hurt anyone–well, not unless they’re afraid to face the truth–and we want metal to respond to criticism, not run or hide from it, right?
We really owe it to ourselves not to sabotage our own scene with slavish commentary,
because that just makes it easier for folks to look upon metal as mindless. As metal fans, we’re supposed to be fighting banal conventionalism anyway, so we really owe a huge round of applause to those metal site editors and writers–and mainstream writers too–that are carving out territory with forthright reports from metal’s underground.
• • •
THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE HUNG, DRAWN AND QUARTERED
To sum up, I see two issues here.
Firstly, there are writers with the good sense to make it perfectly clear they’re here to promote the bands they enjoy, and in a sense, that makes their writing completely trustworthy. Even if you don’t agree with their opinions or methods, you know they’re being upfront about exactly what it is they’re doing, and in a media world filled with duplicity and misdirection, kudos to those sites for their honesty.
Secondly, there are a lot more writers offering commentary under the guise of critical analysis when they’re doing anything but. So, ultimately, if you do want to string up mainstream writers for fraud, or hype, or whatever crime they’re apparently committing, then it’s best you bring a lot of extra rope. I’m far from alone in trying to do something I thought was supportive, only to end up doing something many would gauge as ill-judged. Still, it’ll be nice to have some company on the gallows, then we can all discuss exactly what criticism means…before our necks snap.
Next time in Mainstreaming Metal, I’ll be looking at something far worse than any critical bias. I’ll be uncovering the dreaded scourge of hipsters and posers infiltrating the metal scene.
