Also:

• irc.anus.com #anus

Pasadena Napalm Division – P.N.D.

This solid slab of “modern crossover thrash” tends more toward hardcore than 1980s thrash but shows the quirky influence of the three bands from which it draws members: DRI, Dead Horse and Verbal Abuse. Showing the evolution of metal since the 1980s, it has the tighter rhythms and more encompassing wall of guitars achieved with more precise tremolo.

In a nod to the NOLA music of the last two decades, it uses “riot vocals” where all band members chant and sing at once in infectious trope; from DRI it borrows the fluid rhythms and almost theatrical interruptions of song structure, but like later Dead Horse it tries to merge blues, rock, punk and metal into something more accessible. More like SOD than the original DRI, it features very much punk-influenced riffs that do not vary in shape or intensity as much, which makes for a more continuous listening experience. Vocal rhythms guide these songs which tend to be longer and more sociable in topic than the old thrash songs.

“P.N.D.” improves on the technical precision (or lack thereof) of older thrash, and by mixing in the death metal influences, makes this music hit more like a linebacker than a cynical kid zinging one-liners over the heads of the Responsible Authority Figures (RAFs) nearby. It’s good to hear Kurt Brecht when they let him do the vocal tracks alone, and he has lost none of his vitriol, but has more of a uniform delivery.

In fact, what makes this different from older punk and thrash the most is that it is more uniform in approach. Riffs are all strummed at the same speed and do not break for weirdness like DRI did. It’s hooky, with the melodic chants dominating the listener’s brain. The somewhat funky rock influence may turn off hardliners from the thrash days, but for listeners accustomed to newer hardcore, metal or swamp-groove metal this will be a powerhouse that may open their eyes to a wider world.

I like this short essay in defense of Gonzo-style subjectivity:

So the concept of opinion here is strictly experiential – it is your vision of this record that is being sought and an interpretation unshackled by the influence of individuals exerting which records that are supposedly valid or true. To tap deep into the essence of why your chosen opus matters to you should render all other considerations redundant. My fundamental concern is for readers to be able to channel your vision and either discover an offering they hadn’t had the opportunity to prior, or at least determine an unconsidered perspective.

Pre-empting reader response is futile, they will extrapolate the messages as they see fit. Considering the likely audience for a publication such as Black Metal Revolution, it is naïve to consider it some sort of “rule book” or “guide to BM for the uninitiated” as there is no prescribed list of the records that should and should not be included. There are offerings I would like to see adorn the books pages, but this is not something I intend to contrive as it is at odds with the production’s essence.

A submission to BMR is a clear account of a record that matters to the author and why. Sure it can be more should you wish it to be. Some are better equipped than others to provide such an insight, though creative prowess is not necessarily a gateway to divination. VON is always going to appeal to me over some sort of pompous, overblown and overproduced act like Dream Theater; though try to explain to a Dream Theatre fan WHY that is the case is futile. The language of reverie is different for all individuals who are truly channeling their innermost. – Black Metal Revolution

None of the DLA’s critics have ever noticed this, but we have never been cruel to subjective opinion. We have only said that beyond the individual, it is unimportant.

We are nihilists. What matters to us are consequences in reality, not peoples’ feelings, perceptions, desires, emotions, aesthetics and so on. We are ultra-realists.

The fact is that some art stands above others; the counterfact is that this does not necessarily determine why you like it. Our goal is to find the art that stands above the rest. Otherwise, why both read a review? Who cares what the other guy likes, unless you’re looking for something to listen to, or a canonical depiction of a genre?

We all have some bands we like because we like them, not because we think they are good. For me, it is older punk bands, who now stand revealed in the light of experience. They are amateurish, sloppy and often redundant. Not all punk bands are this way.

In defense of VON, who we have listed on the site, they like punk were an important step in removing the pre-conceptions of rock music from metal, especially black metal. They are also good, in a limited sense; they are probably not good for repeated listening, as musically, they are boring. No three magic notes exist which are so fascinating they trump complex melody; it’s basically rhythm and arrangement at that point which determine the band.

As far as this listener goes, I like both Beethoven and Von — I recognize Von’s limited historical importance, and that Beethoven is objectively better than Von, and that to think otherwise is mental retardation. I still like Von.

Interesting take on it:

I personally don’t want to label metal ‘underground’. I try to get my friends interested, but for one reason or another metal was meant to hold a limited audience. Which is fine because it has remained resilient through the years with such support. Exclusivity has become a defining pillar of the scene, the implications of which look dismal for the future of the genre.

{ snip }

My problem is not with ‘who likes metal’ but rather why they like metal and what the implications are for the genre.

Hipsters tend to take the honesty out of music because of how they rationalize their choices. People who respect their taste in music do not listen to bands because they are underground; they listen to them because they make good music. If a band gets too popular, they let it slide so long as said band remains honest. If said band loses their integrity, say Metallica, for instance, then one abandons them not for crossing some unspoken popularity threshold but rather because they have betrayed the trust of their fans. This is a powerful bond not easily broken by the likes of the mainstream press.

Hipsters, and I’m generalizing here, define their musical taste by what is unpopular; I’d even venture to say it is a defining pillar of hipsterdom (whatever that means). Metal has rare bouts of popularity but is unlikely to achieve mass appeal anytime soon, especially given the rigid parameters of top-tier saleability in the music industry. These impossible conditions leave metal with one possible future. Since the genre will not likely be rising to the mainstream popularity which could save it from a skinny-jean-clad audience (though I must admit that is pretty thrash) it is only a matter of time before the genre is completely saturated with hipsters. In San Francisco, metal culture has dwindled to only a handful of bands. – Sons of the Atom

The principle of hipsterdom is being different/ironic/”unique” through surface changes.

The hipster is at heart a very normal person, usually working a do-nothing job and living a boring life. Most are SWPLs.

They have, however, embraced failure. They aren’t doctors, lawyers or architects; they’re not even rogue programmers. They’re not real writers or artists. In fact, they’re not very good at anything. So they socialize and try to be “different” to stand out, since they’re not going to stand out for being good people, or smart people, or talented people. They’re faking it.

This is why they like music that’s basically bad: anyone can do it. If you trick it out enough, you get famous for it.

This is why they like ruined social scenes, failed things, and obscurity: they can take over.

They took over metal in 1999ish and have truly wrecked it, because metalcore is noomoo for underground hXc kids, and as a result it’s insipid trash.

Hardcore died in 1987 or before, and really has never come back. The hipsters want to think otherwise. Metal died in ’94.

It’s important to realize that hipsters are a sign of the end of all good things. They are the parasites who are trying to justify themselves into importance.

Supporting the war against hipsters is to support:

• Substance over appearance.
• Reality over social reality.
• Art over personal drama.
• Idealism over individualism.

All good things come from crushing the hipster, which is a force of decay.

Apple sold 9.25 million iPads and 3.95 million Mac computers. Gross margin for the quarter came to 41.7 percent.

Shares of Apple have emerged from the limbo they had fallen into after Chief Executive Steve Jobs took leave last January for unspecified medical reasons. – Reuters

Capitalist banksters, ganksters and toadies love hipsters because they will buy a bog-ordinary product with a special label and quintuple the margin on it. They are ideal consumers: morons who think they are right and can be easily led to buy something if it makes them feel unique and special.

Allah ta’ala will reward all those who give service in crushing the false (who don’t entry) and raising up the honest. Immortality and righteousness await all those who smite hipsters.