...though it would probably only be 3-4 of us posting in it. This has been a subject of much fascination for me over the past x years (however long it's been going on - I was going to plug in a number but it would take some Googling, so fuck it).

It's of special interest to me because I'm both an insider and an outsider in the metal scene. By most metrics that matter, I'm an insider: I post on three different metal-only music forums, I listen to more metal than just about any other genre (though my tastes overall are still quite eclectic), my tastes are generally and with just a few exceptions what the cult underground types would stamp as being acceptable, and I even work with a small label that has cred out the ass and couldn't get a review from Pitchfork to save their lives.

But in another respect I'm an outsider or interloper and have often felt like such. I listened to SOME metal back in high school and college, in the early to mid 90s - I even got as far as Napalm Death and Cannibal Corpse, but never really took things beyond a superficial interest, or owned more than a couple dozen CDs. At that time I was mostly into heavy alternative (Soundgarden, etc.), punk and industrial; serious extreme metal beyond the borders of thrash was not something I really explored when it was in its initial heyday. For a good decade or so the only rock I really kept up with was alternative and indie rock (the latter slowly replacing the former). Then at some point I dug up old Ministry and Metallica records, got a case of the "what have I been missing"s, and started to really check out metal. And years later, here we are. I buy a dumptruck full of metal every month and rarely check in with Pitchfork, but I still sometimes feel like a tourist.

ANYWAY... the way indie tastemakers have gravitated towards "black metal" groups that sound like Godspeed You Black Emperor more so than Darkthrone, and basically ignore thrash and death metal (because they're unevolved?), gets under my skin. I have no problem with what they DO like, it's more that they choose that stuff to the complete exclusion of a much more robust scene that is still only of interest to "real" metalheads.

You may be right on with the comparison to how those guys used to review hip hop; for a long time it was only cool to cosign backpackers or fringe weirdo acts, until that strange impulse of Pitchfork's kicked in and suddenly they were all about Gucci Mane and Waka Flocka. (How about the middle territory, guys, where you endorse groups that are mainstream/dumb but also make actual good music?? But I digress.) It seems like they are tentatively, occasionally making steps down that road with metal - Pitchfork will sometimes run a review for Hooded Menace or something (so basically an underground, old school kind of act, but one that was signed to indie darlings Profound Lore or a high-profile US label like Relapse; in the case of Hooded Menace, it was both, actually). But for the most part they are far more likely to review Liturgy and other limp-wristed post-rock acts like that, and also to occasionally recognize a critically-acclaimed mutant hybrid like Mastodon. They still don't show a lot of interest in the teeming ocean under that very thin surface. And because metal even in its current resurgent state has something of a low popular profile, I suspect they might decide they're sick of it before they ever pull the 180 they did with hip hop. But we shall see.

It's actually not even that they choose to focus on indie-sounding metal acts that bugs me so much, as when they put that kind of band in a year-end best-of list (the token metal selection, just like they do with hip hop); and then will devote a few sentences to talking about how Liturgy is breaking new ground for metal and pushing the entire genre somewhere new. That sentiment is a little difficult to take seriously from someone who, it seems quite clear, doesn't actually *listen to metal* outside of Liturgy. How are you going to tell serious listeners what will push their genre forward when you yourself are just a dabbler? It would be like a mainstream rock critic a couple decades ago telling hardcore reggae fans that UB40 was the future of reggae.

--