Weinstein

In beginning Weinstein's essay on metal culture, my worry was that it would fail to address metal the way that Hodkinson had failed to address goth: "Why metal?" However, Weinstein essentially begins with just this answer, describing how metal may stand as a "folk" culture in a commercial setting, one that outwardly appears to be a passive, collective mass. Weinstein astutely cites that each time a metal fan strikes the pose of an air-guitar, the connectedness of metal culture is not only illustrated, but strengthened. From this reductive view, Weinstein acknowledges that while music is a central element of metal culture, it does not define it; I believe that this methodology of analysis is more revealing about a musical subculture and better identifies what connects music, audience, symbol, and society.

One of the more enlightening observations Weinstein makes of metal culture is in its origins, identifying that it was born from both the psychedelic and machismo attitudes of 1960s youth culture. Its earliest proponents, "white, male, and heterosexual youth became socioculturally de-centered by emerging movements of women, gays, and nonwhites. Nostalgia for centricity, then, also had its part in the metal subculture's conservation of the 1960s." [p101] Noting that these characteristics do not sum up all metal's members, I believe Weinstein well phrases the latent inertia that underlies many youth subcultures, saying "there could have been no heavy metal music if there had been no incipient subculture ready to guide and embrace it." [p102] An oft overlooked circumstance in musical subcultures, the music is itself a product of the culture.

Aside, I think it is important to add to Weinstein's section "Male" that since its publication, numerous metal icons have come out as homosexual or supporting homosexuality, including Rob Halford of Judas Priest, who Weinstein cites as a central metal proponent.

As he evaluates metal's evolution through the 1970s, or "me decade" as he quotes Tom Wolfe, Weinstein downplays metal's musical origins in the 1960s. He attempts to correlate metal's rise with a generation's Utopian disillusionment being shattered to social apathy. On the contrary, I think that the teenage indifference metal initially brought to light had latently existed since Elvis. Weinstein even quotes the Who as professing "I hope I die before I get old" as teenage motto of the mid-1960s. Bands such as the Stooges, Black Sabbath, the Velvet Underground, and Alice Cooper predated the downfall of the hippie movement and the rise of metal as it is known today; the metallic seeds had been planted long before the spirit of the 1960s drew to a close. One who says the teenagers' angst was not of their own making clearly misunderstands teenagers and the allure of heavy metal.

Briefly, Weinstein proceeds to evaluate metal culture in terms of its audience's ethnic composition (white) and socioeconomic status (working class). Weinsteins evaluations are again thorough, yet not as enlightening as his findings on metal's origins. From here, Weinstein moves into the discussion of his McClary-cum-Megadeth term "the music itself": music, lyrics, and styles of metal.

Beginning with the music, Weinstein identifies loud volumes, heavy bottom sounds, and guitar virtuosity as central to heavy metal's appeal. Discussing metal lyrics, he observes that their significance varies greatly throughout the subculture, yet serve two primary functions: one, they act as a unifying symbol for fans who memorize them by rote, not unlike Americans and the Star-Spangled Banner; and two, they are a platform for the culture's fascination with the aesthetics of human vocal performance, the "spine-chilling screams, sounds that come from another world." [p126] As Weinstein moves to contrast conventional youth dances with "headbanging," his comments on metal style differ from other youth subcultures by noting: "Heavy metal is not cool. It is not hip." [p132] The essence of metal stems from a different unifying facet of youthful rebellion; it seeks not to redefine what is chic and hip, replacing the outdated, but to build upon an existing tradition which celebrates all that is angst, dark, brutal and heavy. In metal, Weinstein describes, the style and symbolism is abundant, yet the music is central--the inherent link between the two is metal's self-perpetuating appeal: "It is great as music for what it does to [the fans]--how it draws them into it, excites them, and finally leaves them wasted, completely spent, having burned the potlatch of their youthful vitality and purged their emotions." [p143]

Discussion question(s): Is the development of metal truly different than other subcultures, or is the study of metal simply more thorough? At what point does a subculture becomes a "culture," and, in becoming so, at what point does a subculture become self-aware (or can it)? Can subcultures shape their own future--if so, why do more not follow the path of metal? Why are not there more musical subcultures as strong, vibrant as metal?