Nickelback: worst band ever or horribly underrated?

OK, let me stress this now: I do not consider myself a Nickelback fan. That said, I'm not like pretty much the entirety of the internet and hold them on a level of contempt that cannot be measured. If you despise them and don't think anything will ever change your mind on them, I urge you to go read something else, because this post is going into detail about the hatred for Nickelback and why I find it very extreme.

...To anyone still here expecting me to praise Nickelback to the heavens, you're also reading the wrong post. Sorry, I don't think they are the saviours of rock and roll or whatever you guys think they are. You can stay if you want, but don't be too surprised if I have to say stuff you don't like. I'm preaching to the minority of people out there who either haven't heard of Nickelback or don't get the hatred behind them.

OK, now that the biggest haters and fanboys of Nickelback have left the page, let me start by saying the obvious point that needs to be made.

Nickelback are not that bad.

Are they worthy of all of the hatred that so many people are determined to give them? No way!

Are they under-appreciated geniuses that history will look upon as a music revolution? Nope!

Are they a decent band? If you pushed me to answer that...yes.

OK, maybe decent isn't the best word: in their genre, let alone the music landscape, they are an average band. They can write catchy songs, Chad's vocals aren't that bad, their music is not so complicated you couldn't learn to play it with a few years of practice, their music is probably a little on the overproduced side and they have fun with their music. But those do not make them a great band. If you pardon the potential insult, they are somewhat like the Flo Rida (or Poison) of the post-grunge scene: they are big, but not necessarily because they are the best in the style.

Which immediately begs the question: WHY are they big? To which I have to give a somewhat controversial answer and a bit of a theory of mine: it's not the best bands in the style who help people realise they are fans of the style, it's the middle grade bands who help them.

Let me give you an example from thrash metal: just about everyone with even a passing interest in metal will know about Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer and Anthrax, as they are the biggest thrash metal bands out there at the minute. To just about every thrash metal fan, you cannot call yourself a thrash metal fan if you have not listened to all of their 80's material (plus the records released in 1990: most thrash diehards count them as 80's releases, which seems a bit suspicious to me considering they all were released more than halfway through the year, but I'll let the thrash diehards believe what they want to there...). But these thrash fans will also be able to name quite a few thrash bands who haven't broken into the mainstream or made it to the top of the thrash ladder, like Exodus, Testament, Death Angel and Heathen (and that's just from the Bay Area thrash scene: there's the Teutonic scene from Germany, to name another one, which gave us the Teutonic Trio of Kreator, Destruction and Sodom (some throw in Tankard and call it a Teutonic Big 4, but I personally think Teutonic Trio sounds cooler)). Many of them broke up before the 90's really begun and returned in the 2000's producing some amazing records (some of which, I would not be afraid to admit, are far better than anything the Big 4 (the casual name for the group of Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer and Anthrax) have produced in that time, although, admittedly, it's not too difficult to beat Metallica's stuff, as they've released two bad albums and one album which was decent...). To say these bands have a lot of respect from thrash fans would be an understatement, to say the least! But, without them, thrash pretty much floundered when the 90's hit: there weren't new releases of the style for people to check out and, gradually, the style pretty much died in the eyes of the mainstream (as did just about all metal, come to think of it...). People who liked what they heard of the Big 4 in the 90's couldn't find new stuff by other, well respected bands in the style to compare it with because there pretty much wasn't any other stuff. Throw in the fact this was before the internet really happened and you would literally have to find a fanzine about the style or know someone who was a huge thrash fan to have a chance to keeping up to date with it. Some amazing thrash albums from the 90's (believe me, there were a few) slipped through the cracks because there was nobody who was waving the banner for it in the mainstream. So, if you will, it's not the best bands holding the banner high that helps keep the scene together: it's the bands who aren't cut out to lead the charge who help keep it together, because they help the interested people stay there when their interest in the bigger bands dries up.

And that's where Nickelback are shining: they aren't the best post-grunge band out there by any measure, but people who like them are usually huge fans of the style. Without them and the many bands out there doing the same kind of thing, post-grunge would die out because they don't have the numbers necessary to keep the scene alive. Them being big...I guess they're just an example of a middle tier band who got big somehow. I don't really have an answer to that one...but, really, did you expect an answer? At the end of the day, Nickelback are big. They don't deserve their fame (if you want it in tier terms, they are a middle tier band who produce middle tier music, but are somehow in the upper tier), but I certainly think people calling for their heads (metaphorically: I don't think it's happened literally yet) are getting worked up for no reason. At the end of the day, Nickelback are just a band doing what they are doing. They haven't done anything that's dangerous to mankind as a whole and, from the little I've read about them, they are a bunch of nice guys who don't take themselves too seriously.

Plus, no matter how bad people claim their stuff is, they never descended to the level of releasing pure crap like Lulu or Dedicated to Chaos...

Sampling: laziness from artists or something else?

Time for me to step outside my comfort zone! Yesterday (at the time I started writing this), I happened to hear Pitbull's recent single (you know, the one with the sample from "Take On Me" by A-Ha). This caused me and my sister to get into a debate about sampling in music and, to make a long story short, we pretty much agreed to disagree. To me, at least, sampling is a tool like Auto Tune: it has uses that are undeniable, but is frequently misused by lazy artists. In the Auto Tune example, I do not mind it when it is used for effect, as it can make your singing voice sound hollow and mechanical, which I think is a great use for it, but many use it to disguise poor singing, which I do not agree with. Let me give you a ridiculous example to illustrate my point: let's say Johnny Rotten wrote "Bohemian Rhapsody". Would you let him sing it and Auto Tune him to make him sound like he can sing it or would you give it to someone who can sing it? I'm sure just about everyone would give it to someone else, which is my point. Back before the Beatles, songs were written and given to people who could sing them, which may seem odd in todays post-Beatles market, but trust me, it's like that a lot in folk music even now. While I will not say I want a return to the old days (after all, I'm a metalhead at heart, so that would mean giving up metal), I will say that pop has become dominated by singers who rely on Auto Tune, which, to me at least, is not right. At the risk of losing all of my credibility as a metalhead, this is why I respect Lady Gaga (key word being "respect": I would not say I am a fan of her music beyond a few of her songs): she doesn't rely on Auto Tune to cover up her singing, she uses it as a tool to enhance her music. So, now you know my stance on Auto Tune, when would I be ok with sampling?

Well, to start with, a sample, as a snippet of another song, will naturally earn comparisons to the song sampled, so I think a good sample is of a song that is old enough for it to be forgotten by a good number of people. That might seem like a strange comment to make, but hear me out: if you pick an obscure song, you're bringing exposure to an underrated (or justly forgotten, depending on your viewpoint) artist, which helps them out. If you pick an obscure song, you mutually help each other out, since it's unlikely people will know the original song, so they will go look it up and hopefully become fond of the original song while still appreciating the elements you added to the song (I'll go into more detail about that later). If, however, you pick a well known song (like Pitbull did), you're dooming yourself before you start, since it's rare that your sample will be seen with anything other than contempt by fans of the original and you'll be accused of laziness by a lot of people. Let me give you an example of a Pitbull song that I do not like, but appreciate the sample from: his song "Back In Time" features the guitar riff (and possibly the chorus: not sure whether Pitbull and someone else recorded it or it was a direct sample) from a song from 1956 called "Love Is Strange" by Mickey & Sylvia. As I'd never heard of the original song, I had no problems with the guitar riff being sampled, as it was a seriously cool riff that helped enhance the song (although the chorus really did not fit the song: again, I'll go into this in more detail later). With "Feel This Moment", I'm pretty sure everyone and their mother knows that song, so, to me at least, he was jumping on the success of the song and, in the process, produced a sample that did nothing to make his song better and pissed off fans of the A-Ha song like myself. So yeah, if you're going to sample a song, make sure it's not a well known (or, probably better, well respected) song, as you're going to receive a lot of flak no matter how good your song is. Obscure songs are ok, because you help give exposure to the other artist while minimising damage to yourself.

The next thing about a sample is that it has to fit the song. If you pardon me focusing on Pitbull again, the chorus of "Back In Time" was pretty much made up of the line "Oh baby, you're the one". Since this is meant to be a song about the Men In Black, the sample simply doesn't fit the song (unless you're really determined to make it fit, but I'm not a shipper here). If it had been just the guitar riff and had another sample for the chorus (maybe even the theme to the first Men In Black film), then I wouldn't have had a problem. As an example of a sample that does work, Flo Rida's song "I Cry" features a sample of "Piano In The Dark" by Brenda Russell. The chorus might be shifted into a much higher pitch compared to the original song and the whole song might be pretty much standard Flo Rida stuff (I honestly don't bother listening to Flo Rida that much: again, I'm a metalhead at heart), but it actually does fit the song (well, maybe not the "Gave up on the riddle" line, but, as it's a song about Flo Rida's life so far, I'm letting him off on that one). If you want a ridiculous example to highlight the point, you wouldn't sample "Back In Black" by AC/DC for a soft, mournful ballad song, you'd sample something like "Changes" by Black Sabbath (if you're daft enough to ignore my previous point, of course) or the obscure-even-to-Black Sabbath-fans song "She's Gone".

The last thing a good song with a sample needs is that the sample either needs to be the building block upon which the song is built or be used to make a point that the building block approach wouldn't succeed with. I can't think of any real bad examples of this off the top of my head, but I can think of a good way to do it: if you're writing a song about a broken romance, you can either sample a song about that or you can sample a love song and use the love song to make a point that things used to be different. Both would work well, but the latter, if done well, shows a hint of regret that the former wouldn't be able to manage so effectively. If you want to add something to the original song through your sample, you'll need to make sure you use the sample to build up your song, not get so caught up in everything else that the sample feels pointless. To return to my old point, if you're sampling "Changes" by Black Sabbath, you'll need to make sure you're talking about how your life has changed over time and how it's always going to happen if you're using it as a building block to make a point. If you're using it with the other approach, you could use it to say "I'm not changing who I am any more" and the sample is pretty much saying "Nope, you're still changing". If you will, you can use the sample as part of your own voice or as another voice against you. What you can't do is use the sample without thinking about it.

All told, I think sampling is like Auto Tune: it is a tool which can enhance the music if used well. However, many people don't use it well (or, at least, not as well as they could). At least in my viewpoint, the ways I've pointed out are the ways sampling should be used. It's not something you just do to give your song a chorus: it's a key part of the song and, if you don't think about it carefully, you're setting yourself up for a serious fall.

I encourage you guys to let me know whether they think I've made fair points on this topic or whether I'm so far off the mark that I'm actually invisible.

Iced Earth Alive In Ancient Kourion Review: Hear The Ghost Of Violence

I'll admit it: Iced Earth are not a band that I understand the hype behind. For me, they are a band made up of great musicians who simply don't write good enough songs to hold my attention. Now, to be fair to them, US power metal metal isn't my favourite metal subgenre of them all (that would be European power metal: US power metal probably comes fourth on the list, under thrash metal and glam metal), so I'm probably not the best person to review this DVD. However, seeing the DVD gain so much praise online left me wondering what it is I'm missing about them. So, I'm going to sit down and review it. Hopefully, all will become clear...

First of all, let's look at the setlist. Now, I've checked it a few times online and I know they played "End Of Innocence" twice due to sound issues, but the song doesn't appear at all on the DVD! There's a very noticeable jump from when the first performance of it originally was, as you'll see and hear Stu go "Alright" as if he's about to lead into it, only to suddenly move forward into a close up while he introduces "Dracula", which is odd, as the second transition is so seamless I didn't even notice it. This isn't acknowledged on any of the bonus features on the DVD, so I cannot help feeling a bit cheated that we aren't given a complete show. Maybe I'm being harsh, but the point of a live DVD is to show the band live, warts and all, not necessarily give the best show the band has ever given by trimming the songs that didn't work. At the very least acknowledge on the bonus features that there was a track which didn't go well! Otherwise, the setlist is not one I was especially familiar with: I recognised the songs from their most recent album, Dystopia, but, if you took away those songs, I would have only  recognised nine songs from the whole setlist (for the curious, they were "Declaration Day" from The Glorious Burden, the three tracks from Framing Armageddon: Something Wicked, Part 1 ("Motivation Of Man", "Setian Massacre" and "Ten Thousand Strong"), "Watching Over Me" from Something Wicked This Way Comes, "Dante's Inferno" from Burnt Offerings and the three tracks from The Dark Saga ("I Died For You", "The Hunter" and "Slave To The Dark"): since I had barely listened to that album, I only recognised "I Died For You" on my first listen). Needless to say, I was hopelessly out of my depth in terms of recognisable material, as someone not familiar with the band's greatest works, although I was interested to spot the absence of any tracks (I'm not counting instrument interludes) from The Crucible Of Man: Something Wicked, Part 2. You can read into this what you will, but my guess is that the fans aren't the only ones who think the Owens years and Barlow's second return weren't that great...

In terms of the actual performances, I have to say that the band did a good job live. Jon Schaffer, as much as I dislike his tendencies to act like an asshole to ex-band members, does a great job on the guitar, playing all of the songs almost exactly like on the record and his lead vocals on "Stormrider" had me wondering why he isn't the lead singer of the band, as he did a better job on that song than a good few professional singers do on their own material. Probably can't do the high falsetto stuff the other songs demand, I guess. His backing vocals were also seriously good, but the thing that really impressed me, as a singer myself, is that he never let his vocals dominate the rest of the music: he just did his bit and then went back to playing the guitar. The bassist (considering he apparently had less than a week to learn the entire setlist before joining the band on tour: he replaced their earlier bassist in the middle of the tour) does a great job and his backing vocals made me think a bit of Tim Owens's clean singing. I know he has his own band, so saying he should do his own thing is pointless, but it's true: he should be leading his own band, doing lead vocals and playing bass at the same time. I have a feeling he would be great at it! The other guitarist doesn't stand out as much as Jon does, but, to be honest, that's not really a bad thing for him: Jon really does stand out so much on the guitars that I actually forgot there was a second guitarist at first! However, he does the solos like on the record and some of them (as any Iced Earth fan will be willing to tell you) are pretty difficult. The drummer (who left the band fairly recently, albeit on good terms) does a great job on all the tracks, but otherwise doesn't really do anything that crazy like a drum solo or something. While I'm not a huge fan of drum solos, I reckon this might have helped enhance the DVD a bit. The true hero of the DVD, however, is Stu Block. Holy fuck, this guy is awesome! He delivers the Ripper material (well, except for "Ten Thousand Strong", but I'll cover that later) and the Barlow material brilliantly, but he doesn't shy away from doing the Adams and Greely material with a conviction that I'm sure Barlow couldn't manage. His audience interaction is maybe more in line with what you'd expect from a metalcore band (he refers to the audience as "Brothers and sisters" quite frequently), but that's not necessarily a bad thing, since it does feel a bit more personal than just going "Hey, we're playing [song], hope you like it". Also, Jon does the same thing. Another cool thing he does is the "Heavy" "Metal" chanting he encourages the audience to do at one point: it looked like it was a lot of fun for the audience and I would have happily taken part in it had I been there.

The songs themselves will really depend on your thoughts on them on the album: if you didn't like them on the album, you ain't gonna like them here. There are a few minor exceptions to this rule, but the biggest one is regarding "Ten Thousand Strong". Put frankly, it's shit here. Instead of dropping it down to a more comfortable place in his voice like he did for "Satian Massacre", Stu tries to sing the entire song at Ripper's pitch, which basically makes the song painful to listen to. Granted, Tim struggled with this track live himself, but Barlow pretty much proved that he can't sing at Ripper's pitch through making the same mistake, so why is Stu doing it? While I do praise Stu for trying, a suggestion for the next tour would be to drop it down to a more natural pitch for your voice: it might sound wrong jumping so high up to a falsetto scream if you want to still do it, but trust me, it's better than giving a bad performance of the song again and again. Other than that, I liked the performances of all the songs I knew, found a few new favourites ("Pure Evil" stands out at the minute) and found a few tracks I'm probably not going to want to bother with in the future.

The picture quality is a little bit haphazard: it's very clear, but I found myself comparing it to Iron Maiden's Maiden England '88 DVD instead of En Vivo, as the quality felt closer to the re-release of Maiden England that 2012's En Vivo DVD. I don't know why, but the cameras don't seem to be of a particularly high quality overall, based on the picture quality. What you do see is really good, although I do think the band could maybe do with having some more energy on stage, since Bruce Dickinson on En Vivo has more energy than all of the performers except the drummer and Bruce is older than all of them (if my maths is right, by almost a decade compared to Schaffer, Iced Earth's older member).

In terms of how long the DVD runs, I have to bring up my biggest complain with Iced Earth: having to hear triplets for so long gets rather boring. There is a reason why Steve Harris doesn't make his bass so prominent in the mix that it overpowers everything else: hearing triplets constantly can become rather dull, as there isn't a lot of variation you can get when you're using triplets to form the bulk of your music. This is something that Jon Schaffer needs to learn (or, at least, mix things up a bit with), as I find my interest starts to wane at about "Wolf" because I start going "Can you mix it up a bit?" In their own right, the songs are good, but, with all the triplets in them, they start blending together into one after a while and I start to fall asleep. The concert goes on for about two hours and fifteen minutes, which is far too long for me! By the time "The Hunter" comes around, I'm actually relieved it's all over. For comparison, when Iron Maiden's En Vivo ends, my reaction is "OK, that was a good setlist and it ended at a good time." Maybe I'm nitpicking unfairly there, since it is part of their signature sound, but I think that it would be nice to have something different in the setlist to jolt those who are getting bored back awake.

In terms of extras, you get your basic behind-the-scenes section to cover what made them decide to film the DVD where they did, which was very interesting to watch, the band's thoughts on everywhere they'd played up to Kourion (which was the last show of the tour) and a photo gallery. While these were nice to watch, I think it would have been nice to get interviews with the band regarding their thoughts on the show. I also think the extras were maybe a bit thin overall, since you don't really get a lot of information out of them and I can't really see myself watching them again.

Overall, despite several issues, I can't say this is a bad DVD. Is it a perfect DVD? Not really. Is it a good DVD? Yes, it is. Maybe it would have been better with improved camera quality and some more extras, but I'd highly recommend this DVD to fans of Iced Earth. As a word of advice, if you do want to get this DVD and aren't familiar with Iced Earth fan, then make sure you sit yourself down with an hour worth of their music and listen to it all the way through before making your purchase. If you start feeling bored while doing this, then I suggest you either get this fairly cheap or skip it. If you don't like them...well, you'll not be getting this anyway, will you?

Overall rating: 8.5

A bit too long for it's own good, few extras and the quality of the cameras bring it down a bit, but, in the end, it's a great DVD for Iced Earth fans and a good place to check the band out if you haven't already.

(This is my first attempt at a DVD review, so any constructive feedback you guys have would be appreciated.)

Christian metal: a reason to hate or a sign of progress?

(Disclaimer: I am not religious and, if I was pressed, would consider myself agnostic leaning towards being an atheist. The views on Christian metal here are not intended to be used to start an argument, merely to examine why Christian metal gets such a bad reputation among metal fans. If this is an issue you do not wish to read, feel free to ignore this entire post. Thank you in advance for being understanding.)

When I think of metal, one major stereotype that is noticeable is that of a Satanic nature. This can be traced all the way back to Black Sabbath's debut album, although it's also noticeable as far back as with the song "Sympathy For The Devil" by the Rolling Stones. As such, it's often surprising for people who are not metal fans to discover that metal has actually been made by Christian musicians to help spread the faith of God. Possibly not so surprisingly, many a metal fan will be very vocal about this being a problem with them for some reason or another (and, nearly always, never regarding the actual music).

What I'm puzzled about with this reaction is that many of these same metalheads have no problem with Satanic lyrics, which arguably are the same thing as Christian lyrics. Which begs the question: what's all the fuss about?

Well, ignoring the obvious fact that rock music has been argued by many self-righteous Christian fundamentalists as being the devil's music since as far back as the times of Elvis Presley (seriously!), I suppose part of it is simply the fact that Satanic themes have been part of metal for so long that seeing a band completely bucking the trend is a somewhat new experience. While most sensible people would judge the music and not react to the lyrics unless they are horrendously written (not mentioning any examples here, *cough*mylifestyledeterminesmydeathstyle*cough*), some will naturally find reason to complain that the lyrics can be very preachy (again, something that also happens with some Satanic bands). And, at least there, they do have a point: if the lyrics feel like they are trying to recruit you into becoming a Christian, you would have a fair reason to object to it if you do not believe in God or are from another religion entirely. However, this can come across as very strange if the lyrics do not enter that territory (although, as with most music, this will be a very subjective level to make: some have no tolerance for it, while some have a level of tolerance large enough to travel around the Earth a good few times). Also, this can be rather hypocritical for the reasons I've pointed out before.

Another potential issue would be the fact that Christians in general have a rather bad reputation among metalheads. Now, before I go into this area, I must stress that not every metalhead will have issues with Christians just because of their religion (indeed, I do not have the same level of vocal hatred of Christianity some metalheads will have, although I will admit to not being comfortable with the idea of a holy war and how religion can be manipulated for war purposes: if you pardon me sounding religious for a few seconds, my view on the subject is that religion itself is fine, it's mankind abusing religion that is the problem). However, since Christians were generally the most vocal speakers against metal music in the 80's, being well known for demanding censorship of music for occasionally ridiculous reasons, this has caused many metal fans to be mistrustful of organised religion (and the PMRC, but that's almost become a battle of the PMRC vs most music these days...). On this, I will admit that I think the detractors have a point, albeit not one that I  agree with: if Christianity can be the cause of so many problems across the world in history, why should it be accepted as part of a music style encouraging individuality? To this, I would again point out that it's more mankind abusing religion that is the problem, not religion itself.

Another issue (and, on this one at least, I cannot argue) is that, if you were raised with another religion, it is very unlikely that you are likely to agree with another religion where it differs from your own. On this, I can only say that you would be best judging the music and ignoring the lyrics. This might seem like a unfair request, but bear in mind that Black Sabbath treated the occult nature of the lyrics to their first six albums more like horror movie entertainment, as do Slayer. Alternatively, it may be better to simply avoid listening to it where you can.

The thing that I believe Christian metal is doing is that it is opening a pathway to metal for those who are interested in it, but do not support the lyrics of standard metal. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that you'll find Christian metalheads refusing to headbang to music just because the style is against their religion, but more it allows them to listen to metal without having an issue with the Satanic lyrics (if they have that issue). This might seem like a very bad idea to many people, but think of it from this perspective: metal, as a whole, is about the music and the image. While fans may not want to follow the image most associate with metal (I probably look more like a typical nerd than a metalhead) the music is the thing that connects metal fans together, not the Satanic themes and refusal to conform to what others expect of them. By offering a hand of friendship (or, at least, a truce) to those Christians who want to discuss their faith in the music, the two sides benefit together in the long run: the metal fans get more great music (if they do not have the problem with the Christian themes I covered earlier) and the Christians who become metal fans can become accepted by non-Christian metal fans because of that connection between them. Do I believe this will ever happen? Honestly, I do not believe it will happen, but it would be nice to see it happen, as it would open the door to other religions to do the same thing and, in the end, provide a richer pallet of music for all the sides involved.

In the end, my viewpoint on Christian metal, not being someone who dislikes Christianity, is that Christian metal is a sign of progress for both sides: it shows a willingness to accept that not all metal is the stereotypical devil worshiping from the Christian's side of the argument and, from the metal fan's side, it allows for other ideas to be included into metal, hopefully signalling that metal will be able to experiment with unusual themes in the future and develop beyond the slightly stagnated genre it has become now.

I can only hope it happens in my lifetime...

What is with the stigma of mainstream metal bands sucking?

I'm sure you've seen these kinds of arguments out there somewhere: you get these people who seem to have nothing positive to say about mainstream metal bands, but ask them to name what they would call a good metal band and you'd struggle to find them anywhere on the internet. The guys who say "It's Metallica, so it's going to be shit" (to name one example most people will recognise). The guys who only seem to live to tear apart bands and never give a positive word about a band unless you practically force it out of them. It's practically guaranteed that, if you mention liking a metal band with any noticeable commercial success anywhere, at least one person will vocalise their hatred of the band for reasons that make next to no sense if you look at them hard enough (if they give any at all).

As you may have guessed, these guys make my blood boil. But where do they get the belief that a commercially successful metal band is automatically bad?

Well, surprisingly, this isn't actually dedicated purely to music, let alone metal. I'm sure everyone out there can name occasions where they met people who will blindly trash something, as if they have been personally offended by the product to such an extent you'd think it went out and murdered their family with a wooden spoon. Indeed, I have one friend who does this to the last two Star Trek films directed by J J Abrams, ranting so many times about them that he often forgets my knowledge of Star Trek is minimal at best and non-existant at worst. Sometimes, the ranting is justified when the product is legitimately bad (anyone remember that Lou Reed and Metallica collaboration that no one was clamouring for? I try not to...), but there are occasions when the ranting can be very undeserved (some people despise Metallica for everything after "...And Justice For All", probably forgetting that there wasn't exactly a scene for heavy metal in the 90's, and are not afraid to bring it up every time they are mentioned. Which can be daft when nothing after "...And Justice For All" was mentioned in any case and was actually used as part of a sensible discussion...). So, this attitude is not exactly unique in metal. What might be more accurate, however, is that there are certain kinds of fans who are more likely to have this attitude and, unsurprisingly, most of them are fans of underground styles like death and black metal. So, let's give a brief examination of the two styles to see why they seem to encourage this mindset.

Anyone worth their metal cap can probably name at least one of the bands who helped developed the styles of death and black metal. Death metal can trace it's development back to thrash metal (you know, Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, those guys), as it's effectively a more extreme style of that. Often, you can trace influence from Slayer's album "Reign in Blood", which is considered one of their best albums and a thrash metal classic. Personally, I find it a tiny bit overrated when you take away the big songs from it ("Angel of Death" and "Raining Blood"), but that's another can of worms. Another good place to trace the development of death metal would be the German thrash metal scene, which is actually known for being more extreme than the more famous American thrash scene. However, in terms of being an actual death metal band, one band you'll want to look for is Possessed, with two albums and one EP that many consider essential listening for death metal fans. However, the big band you'll want to look for is Death. Indeed, Death are probably the most influential death metal bands of all time, with their first three (or four, depending on who ask) albums being the blueprints for most modern death metal. Now, most of you who aren't interested in metal may be thinking "Why is this important?" Well, have you heard of those bands before now? Probably not...

Black metal, surprisingly enough, actually pre-dates death metal. The first black metal band is a long debated question, as most of them sound nothing like current black metal. However, some noticeable influences would be Venom, whose second album was actually titled "Black Metal". Although their music has more in common with thrash metal, they had the main themes of modern black metal nailed down perfectly, such as Satanic and anti-Christian themes, as well as the use of pseudonyms (most black metal musicians do not use their actual names). The first actual black metal band (by modern terms) would be hard to say (it was more like a scene, straight out of Norway), but the most interesting band (although not entirely for their music) would probably be Mayhem. Part of this is due to a variety of incidents which you can look up in your own time, but one that stands out is that, after their lead singer, Dead (who is rumoured to have suffered from a rather creepy condition called Cotard's syndrome. It's also called Walking Corpse Syndrome, as the sufferer usually believes they have died and yet still move like they are alive), committed suicide, one of his band members found his body, went to find a camera and took pictures of his corpse. Another band member was murdered by another band mate, so it would be fair to say that the scene was made up of some rather unpleasant people (indeed, the infamous church burning incidents people may know black metal for actually originated from this scene). While the vocals can vary, next to no bands use clean vocals. The originators of the stereotypical vocals would probably be Bathory and I can tell you this: those vocals (and death metal vocals) are not as easy to pull off as you'd think. Black metal vocals basically require you to do Gollum's infamous coughing sound and then try to sing through it. While death metal vocals are essentially a low angry sigh which (again) you have to try to sing through. It's arguably easier to pull off, but you'll wear out your throat over long periods of time, so you'll need to practice, warm up and drink a lot of water. Don't believe me? Try them now. This blog won't be going anywhere...

You're back? Ok, so you now know the basic history behind those styles, why do they seem to encourage a very underground mentality? Well, it's partially the vocal styles, as they are basically designed to be unpleasant to listen to if you are not used to them, but another thing is that they have themes which are not likely to be liked by a mainstream music audience (anti-Christian and Satanic themes for black metal, terrifying levels of violence for death metal). Often, the production on albums in these styles (especially black metal) is also very raw, which will give it the feeling of having been recorded in a bathroom, a noticeable contrast from most other styles of music which try to have a clean production. Additionally for black metal, there are generally limited physical releases of albums, so it's difficult to get copies unless you trade between people who do like the style or contact the band directly. Throw in limited live performances from black metal bands (if any) and you get a very devoted fanbase who will generally not react well to anything more popular than what they like (indeed, if you want to look up reactions to black metal bands signing to even a slightly popular label, this can backfire spectacularly on the band). Indeed, the popular black metal acts (Dimmu Borgir stand out) will often find black metal purists hating them just for being popular.

This is not to say it is entirely black and death metal fans who hate on popular metal bands: there is also an trace of this attitude among fans of underground bands. Let's face it, everyone who doesn't just follow the charts will often find themselves occasionally finding a band they really like that isn't that popular. And for most people, that makes them feel like they've stumbled onto their own little secret that they'd like to keep. So, when everyone else starts finding out about it, the feeling that you found them first and deserve to keep it that way can become very strong. Take Metallica: when the band were still thrash titans and hadn't released their self-titled album, their material was widely praised by thrash fans (despite some accusations of selling out for a few reasons, such as writing a ballad on Ride The Lightning and moving away from their thrash roots on Master Of Puppets). But, once Metallica released their self-titled album, which also brought them a lot of fans at the cost of stripping their sound down, you'd struggle to find anyone who claimed to have liked them since they formed. This also brings up another point which I shall cover: band's changing their style of music.

Now, this one is going to be a real big problem for most people. After all, when a band has a style, people who like that style will naturally like them for their style of music. When a band changes their style (no matter what direction they go in), they risk losing fans because it's not what the fans originally liked them for. Now, granted, some of this can be because the change is in a more commercial direction, which usually means stripping down the sound that fans liked the band for, but this can enter odd territory when the sound is actually darker than the band originally made and actually aims more for the underground. Again, this can cause complaints because it's different, but the accusation of selling out will be used instead, which is odd when the change is actually aimed less at the mainstream than the original sound. Where this gets very odd is when the band later changes their style back to the one they originally had: some people will still have a grudge over the original change, but the band will most likely have gotten fans from the different sound, who will proceed to call them a sell out. In this case, it's more a case of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."

Another fact that may be worth pointing out is metal fans generally have long memories when it comes to disappointments and triumphs. This doesn't mean a band will permanently lose fans if they make a change in style, but do not be too surprised if bitter fans refuse to let your transgression go unpunished and will often demand a return to the form of the triumphs, no matter how practical it would be (unless a member has died, in which case there will be respect given to the replacement...most of the time). Take Helloween: when they got rid of their vocal powerhouse Michael Kiske, fans were up in arms and, to this day, some still demand the return of Kiske. However, when Kiske was in the band, he took complete control over it and forced them into a hard rock direction. The only way he would let go was to be fired and, since he was badly damaging the band at the time, the band decided to do this (which is very similar to the ongoing Queensryche problems, funnily enough). Try telling this to those fans who still make this demand, though...

And I think I've covered the main problems with the problem between metal fans and mainstream metal bands. I hope you enjoyed the read and that you'll enjoy reading all my future blogs.