Is Heavy Metal "Rebellious"?

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Kids dressed like what might be considered normal, probably listen to pop. They are probably the non-rebellious ones.

In high school I was into the hardcore scene which always dressed normal. It all stemmed from Henry Rollins and his thoughts about anti-fashion (plain clothing as compared to brands). Looks are deceiving, I would disagree and say that teenage fashion is just accepted as being a "phase" and not really rebellious in the eyes of adults and the mainstream.

As for the question...I wouldn't say it's terribly rebellious today. There is fifteen years between my brother and I, he grew up in the 80's where heavy metal was considered very rebellious.

At the time you were viewed very poorly but metal took off and these days, thanks to the internet, heavy metal is pretty mainstream.

Growing up in late 90's early 00's, metal always seemed apart of your musical diet. I know prom-queen types that got really into bands like Slipknot and Metallica. It was widely accepted along with rap and pop with popular crowds.

Emo was the big rebellious genre at the time. The media hated it, parents were concerned about it and everybody hated you if you listened to it.

When I think of rebellion now...I think of genres like power violence, d-beat punk, noise etc. Genres that were created from counter-culture viewpoints and that were too extreme for the mainstream to incorporate.

 

[CharlesRyan]

I was 11 when Kiss was hitting their heights with the Destroyer album. It was music so caustic that parents literally couldn't stand it.

Have you ever gone back and listened to Kiss? Rock and Roll All Night is practically elevator music these days.

Loud guitars, screaming vocals, demonic imagery, and even long tongues have been so subsumed into the broader culture that they simply aren't the ingredients of rebellion any more. You might run into the odd 13-year-old who gives it a try in his first experimentation with rebellion, but until he moves on to something a little more counter-cultural, he isn't quite there yet.

 

[Turjan]

I was 11 when Kiss was hitting their heights with the Destroyer album. It was music so caustic that parents literally couldn't stand it.

On the other hand, Kiss were pretty mainstream at that time. My parents liked them...

I had to resort to punk or some of David Bowie's stuff to get a reaction from them .

 

[El Mahdi]

I guess "Rebellious" is a highly subjective and relative thing. Depending upon when, where, and who.

At the time KISS was big, in some places it was no big deal. In others, it was practically viewed as a manifestation of Satanism (kind of like D&D!). Even if KISS seems like elevator music today, a 13 year old kid who makes it part of his identity today is "Rebelling". He's rebelling against the prevailing culture of the kids around him.

Also, we might not view the music that kids listen to today as necessarily "Rebellious" or "counter culture"...but it may fill that role for them.

Teenage "Rebelliousness" isn't as much about actually Rebelling, as it's about establishing an Identity...an Identity that differentiates them from the rest of the world...and at the same time providing a sense of belonging (whether to a micro-culture, the culture of their peers, or the culture at large). I know it sounds contradictory, but it's a stage that everyone goes through as they mature (just like we did). But, I think that adults (us) understand this more today, and that's why we don't see the music the kids are listening to as "Rebellious".

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I guess "Rebellious" is a highly subjective and relative thing. Depending upon when, where, and who.

Bingo! You win a ceeeeeegar!

Loud guitars, screaming vocals, demonic imagery, and even long tongues have been so subsumed into the broader culture that they simply aren't the ingredients of rebellion any more.

That depend upon the exact guitar/vocal/imagery combo you're talking about. Sure, KISS is no longer threatening...but if you look at the bands that are doing the modern equivalent of what they did back then, you'll find plenty to drive away the mainstream public.

And you can do so with stuff deemed safe for broadcast on MTVs Headbanger's Ball, without delving into metal's darkest areas. Meshuggah, anyone?

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=qc98u-eGzlc

 

[the Jester]

Metal is only rebellious these days at the very fringe of it, things like the Norse neo-pagan church burning down black metal movement and stuff like that. Otherwise, it's the stuff your dad listens to.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Nope. Granted I haven't been listening to heavy metal for very long (about 3 years) and have heard songs from maybe a dozen groups but it doesn't really strike me as terribly rebellious. Just cool music that I like listening to.

 

[ggroy]

Metal is only rebellious these days at the very fringe of it, things like the Norse neo-pagan church burning down black metal movement and stuff like that. Otherwise, it's the stuff your dad listens to.

Even that sort of "black metal" stuff is passe these days in metal, considering it's been around for 15+ years.

One of my younger colleagues listens to that kind of black metal stuff, and has two teenage kids in high school today. No idea what his kids think of it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Metal has been rebellious within the last twenty years. The Norwegian black metal of the early 90s was about as rebellious as a very white, very male, very heterosexual art form can be. If we change the statement to the last ten years, then I agree with The Shaman, metal is no longer rebellious.

Music isn't really controversial any more, I don't think it can be. Everything's too diverse now, too ironic and post-modern. There are no longer Sex Pistol or gangsta rap style moral panics. No one cares, it's just music. The hipster is the rightful king of the current age and he doesn't care about anything, it's all a pose. Same with Lady Gaga, she's the anti-metal, all surface, pose, irony. No authenticity, at least in her performances. The phonies have won, Holden!

 

[TarionzCousin]

:sigh:
The consensus has spoken.



But I don't agree with the statement that "Because It's old, it's not rebellious any more." One does not necessarily follow the other. Rebellious doesn't mean "new." Something can be old and rebellious.

I can't think of the terms. I summon the Logic Mod, [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION], to assist me in elucidating* what I'm trying to say.




*Yeah, I can think of the word "elucidate" but other than that my brain is struggling.