There is birth, infancy, maturity, and senility. What is most representative of a subject is not necessarily himself in his oldest state, but his most mature state. You will find that the time it takes for art to age is not easily comparable to that of a human; it might take a genre a few months to reach maturity, and then it decays over a course of decades. Now, I am not saying this exactly happened to metal, but I'm saying your analogies prove nothing. I am saying that just because black/death is the style most removed and evolved from heavy (debatable), it is not necessarily the most advanced.
You are just talking for talk's sake here. Agree on everything and analogy remain true. I don't want to prove anything, my analogy is just more descriptive than my bad language. The things are just there. They supposed to at least give you a perspective. So what's so debatable here? It's not necessary, but it is in that case as it is most mature. But not the oldest because metal continues past Death/Black.
Listen to Judas Priest's debut, and it is clear that rocking out was part of metal from near the beginning. It was in early Black Sabbath too, except not in the lyrics, more ingrained subtly in the music; it was designed to rock too.
There's no such rockin' in Romanticism. If I'm about to agree about claim your that metal had to be romantic to be metal, then rock is obsolete in metal. Thus quintessence of metal would be most romantic (and deprived of rock) of the genres.
Rocka Rolla isn't as metal as it is rock. Sabbath songs were more metal. Priest's first is actually degeneration of what Sabbath achieved for genre. There's nothing debatable here. That's the way they are composed. Judas is more static with unsatisfying composition but cool rhythms. You can hear from first seconds of almost every song that it's the main thing they were paying attention to while composing. Romantic music (best representation of spirit of Romanticism within music) wasn't as much driven by rhythms as it was by themes/motifs created by melodic phrases. And as you said if it's lacking its Romanticism it's not metal. Sabbs took that latter approach on their early music. And later Death/Black, when at its best is created entirely of that descriptive motifs. Like progression of Iron Man taken to its extreme. Not so much in Thrash, unless hybridized, which was often as static as most of Heavy Metal by using its characteristic gallop as a main accompaniment which was extremal form of traditional, boring rock technique, made up as a pure accompaniment for lyrics, not as a carrier of ideas. Undeveloped art.
There's nothing Americanized about this concept, which began in the UK as far as metal is concerned. The circus is important, because it is symbolic of celebration; it shows pride, and removing the circus is like stripping a warrior of his gloriously crafted armor. Yes, he is still a warrior, but nothing was gained and only something was lost.
People who are too shallow to see past the circus are not the kinds I want becoming interested in metal, nor the kinds I need respect or want respect from.
As for "corny" metal, I don't find metal corny because I'm a metalhead. It is hipsters who find people like Dee Snider corny.
Yeah, oceans are impassable for ideas and concepts.
I choose to not ignore reality, and I choose to avoid putting filters on it, especially by something as narcissist and wishful thinking as subcultures making such excuses and hiding reality from people in favor of identity. Go to church, or turn your TV - they will filter reality for you further. I want something more profound. How can I discern such thing? For example by experiencing or learning about contexts until I could see some pattern. Metal is so often objective, beyond morality, etc. that I had that crazy idea, that it was about experiencing ultimate reality, about removing filters.
I think It's safe to say that something which is stupid in given context IS stupid in given context. Circus. It shows vanity. Often there's nothing beneath it, because most people would define themselves by attributes which don't belongs to them and ideas they couldn't grasp, hence most shallow, externalized treatment. But they're sufficient for their ego, they are willing to ignore reality as long as they had them. You can be everything you want? At least put some action first, do not just dress up like homosexual. Circus was more of a defective visual carrier of ideas, than anything else. It was defective. That's why it was dropped. As a part of self discipline and self advancement. Quite metal, don't you think?
So they gained focus and virtue. They gained esotericism and chance for deeper mysterium. They have lost vanity and artificiality. Their armor is now like Nazi uniforms - made of ideas. They lose a bit of populism. Besides, quality and function is what matters. Not equation. Loosing some fat is not equal to loosing an eye. Primitive and more organic cultures wouldn't allow free choice of attributes.
It doesn't go further. It takes abstract concepts and leaves them alone, while more overt music applies those concepts to a time. It is then the responsibility of the listener to transcribe messages between time, and it is certainly no simpler, and requires no less critical thinking. You also need to decide whether you agree with the message, in part or in whole, and whether the apparently overt message is also the deeper message. If not, then you need to decide what that is, too.
You are correct that Deicide would appear on the surface to have more in common with my tradition, but at the end of the day Deicide's music does for me nothing entirely new that no other band had not already done, and better. Decapitated has always filled my mind with much wonder about the origins of the universe and human ethics.
And I'm not trying to put down Deicide, a great band but not a favorite of mine.
Ha,Ha! You are truly bitter man. You gave most cynical answer. I also happen to think about universe when listening to such soulless and technical music. Because it's so empty that I think about vacuum and then about cosmos and then... etc. Its mathematical nature is its image. But it is unable to actually lead you through concepts. It's important to say that everything could stimulate you in such way. You can stare at sidewalk patterning and began to think about some principles but unless placed intentionally as a link between communicating beings it wouldn't be art. I can just say a word and it would create image in your head. But it's still not art. Things in nature which just make you wonder couldn't be called art because they lacks other side of communication, while ideas are always there for us to extract from patterns etc. Unless you want to believe that it's the universe which is conscious and is intentionally communicate us his great art.
Intent and execution, form and content and if those requirements are met we should evaluate quality of both (with emphasis on content because interrupted communication or bad language still could achieve its goal while perfectly transmitted and pronunciated gibberish would be still gibberish). Note that even if we know somehow that two things are roughly about same idea and leads after all to the same abstract it is stillinsufficient to call them equal. One of them could represent idea better and goes deeper. Knowing of your extremely subjective perception I must say that your perceptive end of communication link is not so important but fact is things are really there, within art. You choose, by solipsism or sentimentalism or whatever, to take what you want from art. You can think what you want while appreciating art but if it's not there, your stimulation for reasoning wouldn't be art "fault". Your perceptive end isn't crucial for art being art. Your higher perceptive level might strive to extract something deeper from from art, than what was placed there by those which were communicating by it. Remember that you cannot percept something which doesn't exist.
It is harder to achieve. It's rare. Almost everyone can communicate verbally but almost nobody can crate art. Not to mention, that if we already got art, it could still be shit because of our evaluation.