Dr. Keith Kahn-Harris is one of the world’s foremost leading academic authorities on the study of Metal as a social, cultural, and political phenomenon. With his recent book Extreme Metal: Music And Culture On The Edge, Kahn-Harris has produced a landmark study of the global Extreme Metal scene, offering a penetrating and revealing critique of some of the more problematic politics and negative discourses circulating within the scene. Drawing on an empirically-based, qualitative research practice that includes interviews with band members and fans from the UK, Israel, Sweden, and the United States, Kahn-Harris demonstrates how the Extreme Metal scene is a space in which members creatively explore destructive themes. Yet unlike mainstream analysis of Extreme Metal, the scene is not disregarded or disparaged as a degenerate form of contemporary moral blindness, as Kahn-Harris also recognizes the potential for community, in which scene members may experience the everyday pleasures of friendship. So while Extreme Metal circulates on the edge of mainstream culture within the confines of an obscure ’scene’, in which members explore dangerous themes such as death, war and the occult, sometimes embracing violence, neo-fascism and Satanism, the sense of community the scene provides for offers what can perhaps be transformed into an emancipatory politics from the overwhelming anomie of modernity. The book is obviously not a light read, yet any fan of this form of music owes it to themselves to engage with the work of Kahn-Harris, as Extreme Metal: Music and Culture on the Edge demonstrates the power and subtlety of an often surprising and misunderstood musical form. Given the weight of the content under consideration, the tenor of the interview that follows is slightly more academic than perhaps is the norm for most “mainstream” Metal publications. For this I make no apologies , as there is a very real need within the Extreme Metal community to open up some intellectual discussion and thereby begin to create spaces which allow for and provoke more critical reflexivity among scene members.

Keith Kahn Harris’s “Extreme Metal: Music And Culture On The Edge” deals with notions of ‘transgression’ in a music scene viewed from the outside as mysterious and dangerous. Yet at the same time, Kahn-Harris brings a sense of ‘mundanity’ insofar as Metal culture fosters a strong sense of community and fellowship among its members.

Blackwater Park: I would like to start by congratulating you on producing what will surely be regarded as one of the first and finest academic inquiries into the phenomenon of Extreme Metal. I know your book has its origins in your PhD dissertation, so what inspired you to pursue a research agenda that took this form of music as its primary topic of investigation? When you initially proposed this to your supervisor and department, how was it received?

Keith Kahn-Harris: Thanks for the nice words about the book! The PhD/book has its origins in my own interest in extreme metal, which developed when I was 16 or so. I was into alternative music but not metal, but in the late 80s I started to hear bands like Napalm Death and Carcass on BBC Radio 1’s John Peel show. Early grindcore totally blew me away but it also puzzled me - what sort of people produced this kind of music? From early grindcore I discovered death metal and started reevaluating my whole attitude to metal. I realised metal could be avant-garde, underground, mysterious and perhaps a little bit scary. Obviously, starting going to shows, buying albums and magazines took away some of that mystery. However, I never really became part of the scene so it retained a sense of terra incognita. And then whilst an undergraduate studying sociology I discovered the existence of academic popular music studies - which also blew me away - and my inchoate wonderings about extreme metal started to coalesce thanks to the more structured framework that popular music studies provided me with. By the end of my undergraduate degree I was set on doing a PhD on extreme metal. I found my supervisor during my MA course at Goldsmiths College. He didn’t bat an eyelid when I said what I wanted to research and the department were similarly unfazed! Basically, these days you can research pretty much any topic provided that you demonstrate a sufficient grasp of sociological methodology.

Blackwater Park: As comprehensive as your book is, I think there are some missed opportunities. In particular, while I appreciate your attention to some of the more problematic discourses such as sexism, racism, and Nazism that circulate within the scene, as I think you make some very poignant and cutting observations that force a certain degree of reflexivity in your audience, I am curious as to why you didn’t devote more attention to the more critical Left-leaning discourses the scene has produced? For example newer bands like Machine Head, Lamb of God, and God Forbid have recently produced material like “Clenching The Fists Of Dissent”, “Now You’ve Got Something To Die For”, and “Chains of Humanity” that challenges the geopolitical hegemony of American imperialism. Similarly, during the 1980s and early 1990s, the Thrash Metal scene produced some very radical environmentalist critiques in support of the growing green movement. I am thinking here of Testament’s “Greenhouse Effect”, Kreator’s “When The Sun Burns Red” and Nuclear Assault’s “Critical Mass”.

Keith Kahn-Harris: Yes that’s a reasonable criticism to some extent. But I do think though that what you describe as left-leaning discourses are pretty unfocused. If you take songs about environmental destruction like the ones Nuclear Assault became well-known for, environmental concerns weren’t tied into any kind of political agenda to try and change things. Rather, songs like ‘Critical Mass’ - and the other songs you mention - are really about painting a lurid apocalyptic picture. I’m not doubting the sincerity but it does tie suspiciously easily into metal’s traditional interests in chaos, death and destruction! I have a book chapter that will come out in the next year or so in which I trace apocalyptic themes in metal. Environmental themes are just as much a part of metalapocalypticism as songs about Satan etcetera. As for bands like Machine Head, Lamb of God etc, well I agree that I probably didn’t give them enough attention. However, again the politics remains very unfocused. I don’t see much sense of an attempt to marry a critical, practical politics with the music - as you find in some elements of hardcore.

God Forbid’s 2005 album “IV: Constitution of Treason” is highly critical of America’s “War on Terror”, going as far as to suggest that the core of American political values such as liberty and justice have been violated by the Bush Regime.

Blackwater Park: Another example of Extreme Metal where a very critical tradition exists is the grindcore scene. Bands like Napalm Death, Extreme Noise Terror, Exit-13, Terrorizer, and Brutal Truth, all espouse a very radical, Leftist view of politics. However, the grindcore scene as a whole represents perhaps the biggest paradox in all of Extreme Metal, as in addition to the criticisms of the Left, the scene also encompases the most overtly misogynistic, violent, and depraved lyrical content with bands like Gonorrhea Pussy, Necrocannibalistic Vomitorium, Purulent Spermcanal, Toxic Cunt, Cock And Ball Torture, and a long list of “Anal” bands leading the charge. How can we account for such a bewildering contradiction, where the most progressive and the most profane discourses have emerged from the same sub-genre?

Keith Kahn-Harris: The contradiction isn’t perhaps as great as you suggest. Throughout grindcore there is a desire to push things to the limit. Musically the two tendencies have that in common. Musical extremity begets lyrical extremity. While the violent/misogynistic tendency is more self-evidently shocking lyrically, Napalm Death et al have an anger that is at least as powerful. Throughout ‘progressive grindcore’ (if you want to call it that – and certainly there are problems including Terrorizer in that as David Vincent could hardly be described as a progressive!) there is a sense of despair and total rejection of an (always vaguely described) ’system’. This rejection represents a flight from ‘polite’ society every bit as profound as calling your band ‘Toxic Cunt’.

Grindcore’s original and most well known band, Napalm Death, shown here circa 1991. Does the band promote an overtly Left-leaning political agenda by taking on media propaganda, corporate greed, blind patriotism, and unfettered capitalism, or is this all in the name of transgression and raw power?

Blackwater Park: I understand the need for scholars to limit the scope of their work, however, reading your book I found myself unconvinced by the dichotomy you constructed between Heavy Metal and Extreme Metal. My own educational training has been heavily influenced by poststructuralism, and accordingly I see all dichotomous constructs as mere semiotic signs and thus ultimately impossible to sustain. What motivated your decision in this regard? Do you see a divisive line in the sand where Heavy Metal ends, and Extreme Metal begins, or was this separation based more on the limitations of the academy and/or your publisher in keeping your topic tightly focused? And to that end, what bands would you consider as forming the “gray area” between Heavy Metal and Extreme Metal, as the “periphery” so often defines the “core” of inclusion?

Keith Kahn-Harris: Well I don’t think I constructed a dichotomy between heavy metal and extreme metal! I certainly emphasised that there was a difference between extreme metal and other heavy metal genres but I hoped to show that extreme metal and heavy metal were to some extent overlapping parts of the same phenomenon. When I started off my PhD in 1996 I was principally interested in ideas and practices of ‘extremity’. Initially I wanted to look just at death metal but I realised that extremity is by no means confined to death metal and it would be ridiculous to avoid looking at black metal, not to mention doom and grindcore. But part of the reason I was so keen to look at extreme metal was to establish outside the metal world, and in the popular music studies community in particular, that metal was not just about Motley Crue etcetera. I was probably overly defensive here but I had a real mission to ‘educate’ people that there was an extraordinary avant-garde ‘hiding’ within this despised genre. You have to remember that when I started virtually nothing had been published on extreme metal within popular music studies. Now, as things progressed through my PhD and writing my book and after that, my attitudes have evolved somewhat. I don’t feel the necessity to apologise for metal anymore. Indeed, I have come to love and to revel in the dumbest, most ridiculous Manowar-style metal. It’s also become clearer to me that the grey area between extreme metal and the rest of metal is much, much larger than I ever anticipated when I started out. In particular, power metal doesn’t fit easily in it at all. Things got really messy when I tried persuading myself that Nightwish or The Gathering were extreme metal! Nonetheless, I do think there is a ‘core’ of extreme metal which is distinct from the rest of heavy metal. I don’t think you could call Deicide anything but extreme.

Blackwater Park: You argue that part of the difference between Heavy Metal and Extreme Metal is that the discourses of Extreme Metal are less obviously fantastic, so where as Heavy Metal is “generally lurid, theatrical, baroque and often satirical”, Extreme Metal discourses are said to be “detailed, repetitive, and apparently serious”. I think there is something to this argument, but given that later in the book you argue that bands like Immortal have introduced an element of parody with their press photos, how much should we actually read into this? Obviously there is something very fantastic about singing the praises of wizards riding unicorns to fight dragons in battle, but given the life histories of most Extreme Metal practitioners who have never lived through the horrors of war, genocide, and civil strife, an argument could be made that such lyrics are a reflection of the relatively affluent lives of agents who are insulated from experiences of death, and as such this phenomenon produces a considerable degree of anxiety due to its unknownness. The eminent postmodern scholar Edward Said has argued that anxiety is inseparable from desire and fantasy, and as such the anxieties of Extreme Metal can in this sense be understood as fantasy. I mean very few Extreme Metal fans have likely been “Mummified in Barbed Wire”, “Force fed Broken Glass”, “Fucked With a Knife”, or subjected to “Meathook Sodomy”. On the other hand, given the recent apparently unprovoked and completely random beheading, disembowelment, and cannibalization of a Canadian man on a Greyhound bus near Winnipeg, Manitoba, Cannibal Corpse lyrics may not be that far fetched after all. Yet while I think you are correct that Extreme Metal discourses are more direct and vivid, the suggestion that they are unambiguous is a little overstated, particularly in light of poststructuralist critiques which recognize that any social text can be read in a multiplicity of ways, so that there never is a “singular meaning” or “real world referent” in which a given discourse can be read.

Keith Kahn-Harris: Yep - again, great point. Once again, it’s probably a continuum between extreme metal and heavy metal than a dichotomy. I also accept that ‘unambiguous’ was probably overstating things. All that said, it’s still useful to make a distinction between - say - Manowar-style celebrations of swords and warfare, which tend to avoid lurid concentration of details of blood spurting etcetera, and Obituary, Cannibal Corpse etcetera, where all you have is decontextualised examinations of the body being attacked and falling apart. The former paints on a broader canvas and is obviously in the realm of total fantasy whereas the latter is much more insistent in its invocations of terror and violence. But of course this distinction really only makes sense with regard to some forms of death metal, particularly gore metal. There’s loads of extreme metal, particularly black metal, that avoids explicitness and its more concerned with mythology.

The murder, mutilation, and gore represented in Cannibal Corpse’s lyrics and imagery walks a fine line between reality and fantasy, provoking the ire of many politicians. Yet any attempt at censorship necessarily propagates the very language it seeks to forbid and thereby reinsribes the taboo by amplifying its discursive power.

Blackwater Park: Another dichotomy you introduce is that of ‘transgression’ and ‘mundanity’, and again the poststructuralist in me wants to refuse all binaries, yet as a heuristic device, I think this conceptual breakdown brings a lot of clarity and forcefulness to your argument. For those who have not read your book, could you briefly overview the importance of each concept with respect to a critical inquiry into Extreme Metal?

Keith Kahn-Harris: This is a dichotomy I would defend as I think it provides a powerful heuristic device! In one sentence each: ‘Transgression’ refers to the tendency in extreme metal to break taboos, to push things to the limit, to explore the acceptable boundaries of practice and representation. ‘Mundanity’ refers to extreme metal’s communitarian tendencies, the infrastructure of the scene, the companionship of scene members, the desire to live a comfortable life ‘within the scene’ devoted to extreme metal.

Blackwater Park: You raise renowned poststructuralist scholar Judith Butler’s notion of ‘performativity’ early in the book, and in particular you relate this concept to French philosopher Michel Foucault’s notion of ‘discipline’. I think this is an interesting point of departure, and while it was not explicit throughout the book, implicitly you managed to tease out its resonances with Extreme Metal quite thoroughly. Your account opened me up to the idea of being “Metal” as a performance. However, unlike gender, which following Butler and Foucault is recognized as never being “off stage”, “Metalness” is something many scene members negotiate in a myriad of complex and often contradictory ways in their everyday lives. Most “Metalheads” turn it on and off depending upon the social circumstances they find themselves in. If, from the perception of other scene members, your “Metalness” is not shown to a “significant enough” degree in your daily life, or is turned off at the wrong time, the accusation of “poser” is quick to surface. In your research this negotiation between “the everyday” and “the scene” was shown as a difficult proposition for some participants, but also quite fluid and easily managed for others. Was this completely random depending on the individual, or did you notice any pattern for either those who found this negotiation easy or those who found it difficult?

Keith Kahn-Harris: I think the movement between ‘on’ and ‘off’ stage metalness is in part context-dependant. There are some scenes where it is easier to be metal ‘24/7′ - Scandinavia springs to mind. The supreme irony of the early 90s Norwegian black metal scene was that it was dependant on location within a country where devoting one’s life to metal is easy due to the strength of state support (through education, social security etcetera). Conversely, the same can actually be true in places where it is hard to be metal, such as in the Middle East. Here, metallers are often faced with a stark choice as to the extent to which they can be involved and this encourages a minority to retreat into a metal world entirely removed from the harsh conditions of everyday life. In the UK, you have something completely different. Here, there is a down-to-earth ethos that discourages scene members from being too serious - look at any interview with Dani Filth and compare it to an interview with - say - Euronymous and you’ll see what I mean. Of course, personal factors also play a role. The extent to which individuals are skilled enough to be able to deal with the complexities of play and performance varies wildly. In part being a ’successful’ metaller depends on one’s facility in this regard.

Performativity as parody, or Extreme Metal incarnate? Can the scene accommodate humor, or has Immortal pulled one over on us all?

Blackwater Park: With regard to your own positionality as an academic, you curiously placed yourself as “ambivalent” towards membership in the scene. This was in spite of your claim that something as mundane as purchasing an Extreme Metal CD was constitutive of membership in the scene. Am I to understand this dialectic between positionality and performativity vis-a-vis Extreme Metal as producing some tension for you within the academy, or how do you account for the distance you want to place between yourself and the Extreme Metal scene?

Keith Kahn-Harris: Well even if one cannot help but produce effects within the scene through any kind of involvement in it, one’s identification (or performativity) can be in tension with it. I described myself as ambivalent as there are aspects of the scene that I cannot identify with - sexism, homophobia and the tiresome emphasis on drunkenness. In any case, I am the sort of person who tends towards ambivalence, or towards any kind of collective - I am drawn towards them but cannot help being critical. So at times I identify strongly as a metaller and at times I flee from it. I have to say though that - contrary to my own expectations - I’ve been feeling less ambivalent recently and more in love with metal than before. Perhaps it’s because I am approaching middle age and I really don’t give a fuck about what people think anymore.

Blackwater Park: One of the most fascinating aspects of the book was your discussion of the difficulties for ethnic minorities, women, and homosexuals to enter the scene. Discourses of racism, sexism, and homophobia associated with the scene have always made me uncomfortable, and I have tried to approach these topics with a deep sense of irony in my engagement with other scene members to try and provoke some reflexivity. Most often though, this sarcasm goes over people’s heads. Blabbermouth recently posted a news story that essentially insinuated Gorgoroth frontman Gaahl was gay, but never actually verified the claim. I found it surprising that pure speculation on someone’s sexual preference could be worthy of such attention. Gaahl neither confirmed or denied this insinuation, but the mere fact that someone of such a high scenic profile might be gay was deemed worthy of a headline. To me, Blabbermouth posting such a story was emblematic of the depth of homophobia found within Extreme Metal, and while the majority of the comments to that news story confirmed this, one poster made the astute observation that this homosexuality was the ultimate transgression to Black Metal’s traditional focus of loathing for Christianity. Yet this begs the question of why, when homosexuality is so transgressive to religious orthodoxy and mainstream Western society more generally, is being gay too transgressive for Extreme Metal? Perhaps you can offer some insight.

Keith Kahn-Harris: Homosexuality is probably the ultimate transgression in metal culture. There’s more Christian black metal bands than openly gay metal bands! I’d love it if Gaahl was gay and I’d love to watch people’s reactions if he came out. But perhaps part of the reason the homosexuality is so taboo is that in many ways sexuality is itself taboo, at least in extreme metal. In mainstream heavy metal in the 80s there was plenty of overt sexual posturing - think of [Motley Crue’s] ‘Girls Girls Girls’ and of course WASP. One of the ways in which extreme metal was a definite departure from heavy metal was in its rejection of overt sexual display and any discussion of sexuality. Of course there was suppressed and sublimated sexuality galore but this isn’t quite the same thing. There is a puritanical strain in extreme metal that has been developed most strongly in black metal culture. If you look at why the opposition to Nu Metal has been so intense in the extreme metal world, it is in part a reaction to its overtly lyrical discussions of sexuality. Korn lyrics are in many ways more deeply misogynistic than Cannibal Corpse lyrics in that they are shot through with fear and loathing of women and one’s own sexuality. Yet the critique of Korn et al in extreme metal is that they are opening up sexuality for discussion, even if their misogyny hardly represents a feminist departure from metal culture. Ultimately, extreme metal is about control. It’s about flirting with oblivion only to be able to control it better. Control over sexuality is part of this. Now metal is of course full of homoerotic imagery, particularly in heavy metal. But again, as in extreme metal, you flirt with homoeroticism only to reassert one’s heterosexuality. To make the journey from homoeroticism to active homosexuality is a betrayal of this control - hence the homophobia. At the same time it’s interesting how little bad press Halford got after he came out. The desire not to talk about sexuality kind of overrode the homophobia. Plus also the love of Priest meant people could ‘forgive’ him. I think the same would happen if Gaahl came out - everyone’s so in awe of the guy they’d accept him whatever.

While homosexuality represents the ultimate transgression in Extreme Metal, recent speculation over Gorgoroth frontman Gaahl’s sexuality reveals the depth and pervasiveness of homophobia found in the scene.

Blackwater Park: You discussed at length the utopianism of Extreme Metal insofar as many participants want to exclude politics from their engagement in the scene. You refered to this as reflexive anti-reflexivity, or “knowing better, but deciding not to know”. I have seen it many times on websites, including this one, where those members interested in discussing politics are often ostracized to the point of either being banned from the website, or castigated so harshly that they simply leave. You gave some indication in your book that this may reflect the anomic capacity of modernity, and a desire by participants to escape the routines of their daily life. Metal then offers a point of unity, but only insofar as participants don’t rock the proverbial boat and bring in external “political” ideas. This is what I would call the “Neanderthal” or “FUCKIN’ SLAYER!!!” mentality. What kind of potential dangers do you see from the scene progressing (regressing?) in such a myopic and introverted capacity?

Keith Kahn-Harris: I understand the desire to escape to a fantasy world where there is no politics and where everything is mythic and wonderful. Hell, that’s part of my attraction to metal as well. The problem is not that every kind of scene has to be political and produce withering critiques of capitalist modernity and everything else is just false consciousness, alienation or distraction. Rather the problem is that the avoidance of politics has real consequences in the metal world itself. Sexism, racism and homophobia hurt people in metal. Inequalities in power and capital hurt people in the metal world. There is no escaping ANYWHERE from complicated questions of power, prejudice and how to build a community. Although the fantasy may be understandable, there is no escaping the world anywhere. I don’t have a problem with people not wanting to talk about - say - British macro-economic policy in the metal scene; I do have a problem with people not wanting to talk about, for example, the struggles that metal bands in scenes in the developing world have in getting their music circulated in scenes within the ‘western’ world.

Drawn by quest for fire, Goat The Head searched all through the land in trying to understand why a “Neanderthal Mentality” is so prevalent in the Extreme Metal scene.

Blackwater Park: In the past you have contributed to Terrorizer in the UK, and you suggest that as the magazine has matured, it has to some extent, and arguably more than other scenic institutions, instituted a more critical form of music journalism. Interestingly, the opposite is true of Metal Maniacs in the US. In the early 1990s the magazine was edited by Katherine Ludwig, a feminist vegetarian, who wore her politics on her sleeve. She refused to provide coverage to two bands in particular, Cannibal Corpse and Deicide, for what she viewed as overtly misogynistic messages. She was harshly criticized and the “Maniacal Mail” section basically became a forum for disgruntled readers to vent against her, which in the end forced to resign her position. The attacks against her became very personal, and quite overtly sexist. Ironically, the new editor of the magazine is also a woman, Liz Ciavarella, but she shies away from any overtly political discussions, and has as such been embraced by the readership of the magazine. Although you address the issue of politics quite extensively in your book, maybe you could give our readers a sense of why overt discussions of politics are considered so taboo in the Extreme Metal scene?

Keith Kahn-Harris: I think the previous answer kind of covered this to some extent. Readers of Metal Maniacs want to read something that allows them to escape into a (sexist) metal fantasy world. Terrorizer readers often want to avoid politics too but they have a higher tolerance for difficult aesthetics and for a broader range of issues to be explored in music and writing.

Blackwater Park: Metallica offers an interesting example within the scene insofar as early in their career they were a band that had a keen sense of social and political awareness, with songs addressing the death penalty (“Ride The Lightning”), drug abuse (“Master of Puppets”), the horrors of war (“Disposable Heroes”), and the efficacy of the criminal justice system (“…And Justice For All”). By the time the “Black Album” hit, Metallica dropped much of the more overtly political aspects of their music and at the same time, they refined their sound to a point where the Extreme Metal tag no longer fit. In doing so, many prior fans shunned the band, so that in some circles Metallica now represents a laughing stock in the scene. As a band that brought Extreme Metal to a wider audience and thereby had the potential power to reinvigorate or reinforce a critical politics within the scene, why do you think the band failed to offer any discourse that could bring about more reflexivity in the scene and instead opted to alienate and mock their past? The pictures of the band in the liner notes of Load were particularly suspect in this regard, as they had much in common with Glam Metal. Do you think this was a transgressive practice in and of itself? I mean many Metal fans don’t seem to remember that bands like Motley Crue and Poison were very unsettling to mainstream society at the time because they played with traditional notions of gender, and because of the uproar and mystique, they were embraced by young impressionable fans. Alternatively, could this be interpreted as Metallica showing a sense of shame turned to indignation for their roots in Extreme Metal?

Keith Kahn-Harris: Metallica have been undergoing a very public identity crisis since about 1991 (or at least since the end of the ‘Black Album’ tour)! Their music in the 80s (particularly ‘Master of Puppets’ and ‘…And Justice for All’) was incredibly austere and the lyrics highly moralistic. ‘…And Justice For All’ is almost a kind of metal sermon. It’s highly technical, there’s no bass to speak of, the solos are incredibly controlled. So there’s this puritanical side to 80s Metallica. But at the same time, Metallica lived the ‘Alcoholica’ life in that period - their life was anything but puritanical and pretty out of control. The question Metallica have been asking since 1990 or so is how to be a mature human being whilst being massive rock stars. In different ways, Hetfield, Hammet, and Ulrich (plus Newstead to some extent when he was in the band) have all tried to find a way of leaving their uncontrolled underground metal past and to become more rounded people and adapt to their massive success and wealth. ‘Some Kind of Monster’ showed that at least after Hetfield got back from rehab, they’d each seemed to find some kind of peace with their lives as middle aged rock stars - Ulrich is unapologetic about his love of art, Hammet about his ranch, and Hetfield about his family. The trouble is that as they have struggled since the early 90s to grow up, they have found it exceptionally difficult to know what to do musically with their future. They have never repudiated metal but they do not seem to be able to return to the austerity and fundamentalism of their 80s work, probably realising that it would look absurd coming from a band of rich rockstars. On the ‘Black Album’ they managed to find a balance between their 80s work and a desire to become a ‘classic’ rock band. Since then they have struggled. I interpret the pictures inside ‘Load’ not as Glam Metal but rather as an attempt to reposition themselves as sophisticated-looking artists. Yet the music on the album jarred with this as it was a confused mish-mash of really rather reactionary hard rock. As their appearance became more sophisticated so their music became dumber! They wanted the status as serious, accepted artists whilst closing off the possibilities for the radical experimentation of the 80s. Contrary to 99% of other metal fans, I thought St Anger wasn’t the nadir of their career but a partial improvement on Load and Reload. It was certainly confused and directionless in places but at least there was some fast-paced heavy riffing - this was an album with gratifyingly little crossover potential. Perhaps - just perhaps - they are in the process of returning to their extreme metal roots for inspiration. Well, we’ll have to see what happens with the new album. So I don’t think they’ve mocked their past so much as not known how to create a future for themselves as musicians.

Load-era Metallica pictured here on the cover of Rolling Stone. Transgressing the transgressive, insulting their Thrash Metal roots, or a band that simply lost the plot as they came of age and struggled with celebrity?

Blackwater Park: I think your arguments concerning how Nu Metal has been received by the Extreme Metal scene are quite intuitive, particularly with respect to the tacit racism underlying the perception of many scene members that this form of music has too much in common with African-American culture. However, I was less than convinced by the suggestion that Extreme Metal shunned all forms of “Black” music, such as the Blues. I think a case could be made that contemporary Rock music equally neglects or negates its roots, and that this is not necessarily premised upon a race-based “erasure”, but rather the product of the pace at which contemporary Western culture changes, and thus has more to do with people not having the attention, interest, or time to explore the history of the music they enjoy. Take for example Deathcore, many of these bands don’t know the first thing about early Death Metal like Obituary, Suffocation, Dismember, and Entombed, let alone the Blues, yet the music is in direct lineage from Death Metal. Of course this is a reason why Deathcore is not readily accepted by many Extreme Metal fans, as the producers of this music are viewed as lacking subcultural capital, but I think the comparison between a band like Job For A Cowboy and Morbid Angel is much easier to relate and make sense of than say Cradle Of Filth and B.B. King. While I do agree that racism is pervasive in the scene, which I would suggest is a reflection of wider society more than anything else, I don’t think you presented enough evidence in the book to sustain your claim in this regard. How would you respond to this criticism?

Keith Kahn-Harris:One of the things that I am struck by is that metal since the 90s has experimented with almost every conceivable musical source (I remember hearing a trombone on a release by The End records a few years ago) but you never hear any blues, soul or r’n'b mixed into metal. Now don’t misunderstand me, I’m not suggesting that extreme metal needs to rediscover the blues in order not to be racist. However, it is interestingly how consistently extreme metal has been closed to these kinds of influences while being very open to others. I think it has become ‘unthinkable’ for extreme metal to incorporate these ‘black’ influences. It’s not simply a matter of contemporary music neglecting its roots - metal has no roots in soul but you never hear of any metal bands interested in soul. The exclusion of ‘black’ influences is across the board. When metal genres do incorporate black music - as did funk metal and nu metal - they tend to be eschewed by many metallers. You’re right that in part this is just down to musical evolution. The key ‘decisions’ in this regard were made in the 70s when heavy metal started to cohere and the 2nd generation of metal bands eschewed the blues influences of the first generation. (It’s interesting here that for all the worship of Black Sabbath in the metal world, the blues elements in their early work are almost entirely ignored by all the thousands of clone bands). I don’t think this was necessarily a result of overt racism so much as the growing autonomy and strength of black music. Living Color and the black rock coalition notwithstanding, the lack of black people in metal tends to be self-reinforcing. It is interesting that you do hear metal musicians talking about how they like black musics - I’ve heard loads of them talk about loving Motown and early blues - it’s just that this isn’t something that makes it into the music. Does any of this matter? I go round and round in circles on this question. I certainly don’t think that the lack of black music or black metal in extreme metal damns it in any way. For one thing, metal is exceptionally diverse in other ways anyway. However I do feel uncomfortable about some of the venom thrown at nu metal as some of it has some really unpleasant overtones.

From the Blues of B.B. King to Suffocation’s brand of New York Death Metal, African-Americans have had a lesser, yet nonetheless decidedly important role in the development of Extreme Metal. Have racist discourses circulating within the scene obscured this fact?

Blackwater Park: Finally, I’d like to ask the obligatory question of what you have been listening to recently, or what are your favorite releases of 2008 so far? Depending on your response, this will give you an opportunity to either secure some subcultural capital, or make everyone reading think of you as a giant poser.

Keith Kahn-Harris: I have to confess that I am not quite as up to date as I used to be when I wrote for Terrorizer and got loads of free stuff. However, this year I have really enjoyed the Nortt and Moss albums. Yes that probably makes me a poser… Thanks for the interview! Some really challenging questions.

Blackwater Park: Thanks again Keith, I think its safe to say that you are not a poser, as you quite clearly know what you’re talking about when it comes to Extreme Metal! I really appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with us, and once again congratulations on your achievement with this truly exceptional book!

http://www.kahn-harris.org/
http://kkahnharris.typepad.com/

This entry was posted by Blackwater Park on Friday, 8th August, 2008 at 8:16 and is filed under Interviews, Extreme Metal: Music And Culture On The Edge. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response below. You may view a   printable version of this page. You may download this page in   PDF format.