Yeah. let's play again. Your sociotechnique works in such way: when you just have "something" to say on top of someone's post, you continue, but often you are skipping others points without acknowledgment. It creates that effect of being reasonable one surrounded by idiots.
Looking at weigh of your arguments I can just say come on kid they were wrong. People and critics knew nothing. It was just mislabel, metal came later. You actually admitted that it was called retrospectively to differentiate Blue Cheer, heavier The Beatles and Led Zepp from metal. I can do same thing now. It was some good ideas still trapped within rock.
Do you think it is plausible that in the future the music you listen to will have advanced to the point where Suffocation and Immortal are no longer metal? If so, then you define metal in a very fickle and useless way. What the community has accepted as metal (Black Sabbath, Tygers of Pan Tang, Warlock, etc.) will always be metal.
You are trying to tell me that we are, based on some consensus, naming occurrences in history, and if we are not revisionists metal will be metal? Ok, but as an such form of much older idea, metal's best and most pure and meaningful period and thus most distinctive and representative would be Death/Black, while inception of it could be in fact Heavy Metal. Is Goethe's period of life, which would be most representative for his ideas was in his infancy?
Once community accepted Guns'n'Roses as a Heavy Metal record. I guess it's up to community, not everyone of them holds the truth though. They've labeled large part of music as a Heavy Metal retrospectively. And to this day they count heavier and distorted blues, some songs from The Beatles as well as Gwar, Faith No More, Slipknot, King's X, Soundgarden, Kyuss, Marilyn Manson, Biohazard etc. basing on their SIMILARITY to how metal "sounds" (More accurate because by metal texture, a term which you are using, you could actually mean "manifestation of structure", other users seems oblivious to that) while metal would be metal even on sheet. There were always a lot of metalheads which would fall prey of image or "selling in" of emulating bands. Doesn't matter. New forms of metal derived music pops every day and none of them seems to be more evolved beyond its peak - 90s. Same with other periods in history which ended, but still many of their "students" tries to top best achievements of it. Metal was about Sabbath Bloody Sabbaths, Iron Mans, Paranoids etc. not about Rock'n'Roll Doctors, or "rocking hard". It was idea simplified for easier digestion by/for rock'n'roll crowd. Affirmation of whole life: death, horror, struggle, nature, spirituality, beauty, pleasure, might, etc. is not equal to "rocking hard". It's behavior to which dumb society reduces that idea. It shows level of their understanding. It's the same thing to original idea as Manowar to Wagner.
It is around this time that a significant portion of the metal community lost the romantic and Wagnerian (in other words, the real true metal) spirit at the hand of Americanized punk.
Like I said. You are referring to trivialized, americanized and distorted meaning of the word. You want icons of emotions, and ideas, everything simplified to the form of patch on a leather. It's the born of modern irony. I guess (the True) Romanticism wouldn't be enough to fulfill your definition (removed from depth and overblown at the same time). There's not enough circus in Beethoven. Most people, including many metalheads, will remember Black Metal only as a corpse paint and satan because of such thinking. I'm grateful for romanticist modesty. They gave us more refined content by abandoning theatrics and look! It's still Romanticism!
Ah, okay. Do you have a rational reason for disliking overt messages, or is it merely a personal preference that music lack them?
It looses its requirement to be art or to be good art. It's like difference between journalism and poems - a more evolved form, harder to achieve. It's indirect yet it gives you a conclusion, but by moving through its narration it leaves also an experience.
Nobody denies the fact that Heavy Metal is capable to communicate something. But it is important how it is approaching to its themes and what it is communicating within. Metal is about war and religions and they are at least as old as humanity. So what? Other genres done that too. Is it sufficient to say about eternal principles?
I'M SAYING ABOUT ETERNAL PRINCIPLES NOW. ETERNAL PRINCIPLES. ETERNAL PRINCIPLES.
Then why we chose metal's way of approaching to the theme? Because it shows better understanding, less personal or less moralistic for example. Why do we chose Death/Black then? Because it goes even further. Some aspects of Heavy Metal should be dropped to express deeper and without disco elements. To be pure. Bad art gives you simple commands - now feel angry, now feel happy, when they're singing that they love you, you should take it as a granted. Somehow Heavy Metal still (caste issue?) saw some ideas, like christian's evil for example, on lower levels. Maybe it had something to do with difference in way of communicating between aristocrats and between proles. Maybe they're responsive to their own languages.
ALL OF WHICH YOU ALREADY KNOW, DEAR READER...
You are exposed I suppose. But tell me, how one would deal with such question: You obviously know a lot of death metal albums (knowledge of which you have already showed) - how could someone rooted within Heavy Metal tradition could choose Decapitated over Deicide?