Rock against anything: how metal became so fucking reactionary
toiletovhell.com
toiletovhell.com
As the author does one really has to pry the culture apart. One thing the article correctly notes is that a lot of reactionary politics in metal rather happens in the rock-adjacent part of the genre. in Germany in particular neonazi politics is much more dominant in so called Rechtsrock than it is in 'metal proper'. Heavy metal, despite sharing the name, is a very different thing from the rest of the culture.
The other big one is Nordic metal / black metal. There's some truth to the presence of reactionary politics here, which is not that surprising to me because of its often pagan roots, which has always been a staple of the European far-right in particular. Although it's probably worth debating to what degree this is aesthetic rather than political and if that matters. I think it is often just alluring to people because of the taboo that is associated with Germanic and Nordic mythology in the German speaking world in particular. Similar to say, Wagner. While plenty of nationalists love Wagner's music and his association with Germanic culture, you can take an interest in it without turning into one.
However for the rest of the metal subculture and in particular practically lived culture at concerts, communities and so on I have to say I don't think there is an invasion of reactionary politics. Metalheads are some of the most anti-authoritarian and generally accepting people around.
I'd add that it's pretty accepting waaaay beyond politics. Metal is about exploring all sorts of wicked stuff after all. It's weird when people are fine with all sorts of gore yet.. God forbid someone takes interest in wrong kind of mythology. It's even more weird when people get surprised that a rebellious subculture goes on to rebel against mainstream norms.
Is it still metal if you play only what you're allowed to play and don't explore beyond what is accepted? :)
Right. Every element of metal that the author dislikes is something that was "twisted" or "infiltrated" or "betrayed", and the author is the one true authority on what metal should be.
Another good example is hippies in West and USSR at the time. While West hippies were left-leaning, USSR hippies were anti-USSR. Many of them, especially in non-Russian parts of USSR, had quite a bit of nationalistic sentiment too.
> The Beatniks gave way to the Hippies who, to their credit, offered an affirmative vision for the world. Many were in it purely for the rebellion of drugs, sex and faux-Eastern spirituality, which is a big reason why the hippie aesthetic was eventually co-opted and commodified just like the Beat aesthetic (so much so that it was subverted by Western governments into an effective tool for turning youth in the Soviet Bloc against Communism).
> But under 20th century secular social democracy, it had gradually been relegated to a minor background role. The teenagers in the suburbs of Bergen, Stockholm and Göteborg faced neither the domineering cultural pressure exerted by Christianity that their American counterparts experienced, nor the firsthand knowledge of trauma inflicted by fascists wielding religion as a weapon that the Latin Americans had. To them the attraction to Satan was fueled purely by bourgeois nihilism – a sort of ennui experienced by all white middle-class youth when they come to realize how low-stakes their lives are. It was in this environment that the first truly reactionary strains of metal manifested.
> [...] geeks are people who forge an identity outside of and in opposition to the dominant monoculture through consumption of products tied to a particular subculture and through this consumption (representative of their dedication) accumulate symbolic capital within that subculture.
But that bit show author’s bias very well. As ex-USSR metal head, visiting West festivals was complete culture shock how different attitude is. Yet the spirit is very similar.
Well, I'm not a metal historian but I firmly recall the fact that the lead singer of Pantera (a band that inexplicably is not mentioned once in the article) has a long history of racist remarks and even of pulling a few Nazi salutes during shows.
Bands like Iron Maiden have been following a nationalist theme since pretty much their inception.
Metal has been the genre that captured teenage existencial anxiety, specially male, and gave it a means of expression and a pressure valve. This pressure valve often comes in the form of themes involving aggression and violence targeted at others. Like other genres that came behind metal, it adopted themes that contrasted with mainstream values in society. Some bands cover themes such as environment, privacy, war, economic systems, even corruption, and it's no wonder that mixing them with themes involving aggression and violence targeted at others breeds authoritarian ideals.
Hell, misoginy and male bravado, accompanied by homophobia, have been rampant in the genre. On homophobia, it took Judas Priest's Rob Halford coming out in the nineties to get a foot in the door of homosexuality acceptance, and even today he still states that homophobia runs rampant.
https://www.nme.com/news/music/judas-priests-rob-halford-dis...
The point is that the thesis in this article is unbelievable, not grounded on facts and reality, and reads like revisionism custom-made for a specific kind of activism. Fighting authoritarian ideologies is a laudable goal which all free and open societies should foster. However,fabricating a version of accounts that pretends it suddenly pops from nowhere and intentionally ignores the presence of it right from the onset does the exact opposite. The first step to fix a problem is to identify it, and this article disingenuously fails to do that.
But it seems class-war style rock was still very much a thing over the last 30 years, it just moved to hip-hop adjacent (e.g. rage against the machine), and the author decided to just focus on the part of the huge rock galaxy that did switch to far right.