Professional Documents
Culture Documents
What Makes Heavy Metal Heavy
What Makes Heavy Metal Heavy
What Makes Heavy Metal Heavy
I. IN TRODUCTION
One of the great legends of heavy metal music history goes like this: In the early 1990s, Sleep, an
obscure three-piece band from San Jose, California, worked out a deal with London Records to prod-
uce their third album, Jerusalem, which included the rare luxury of maintaining full creative control.
Instead, they blew most of the $75,000 advance on custom guitars, high-end amplifiers—and legend
has it, lots of marijuana. Throughout the months-long recording process, the music (which the band
had played live for several years) began to evolve: it got slower, longer, and, in the words of guitarist
Matt Pike, “It got weird.”1 The finished product was a single, hour-long song filled with slow, churning
guitars and monotonic chants about a new race of “Weedians.” London Records dubbed the track “un-
listenable.” When the band refused to tidy up and master the original track, the deal fell apart, the band
broke up, and for years, Jerusalem circulated the metal underground in various bootleg forms until its
officially licensed release in 1998. Now, nearly two decades later, the album has been re-released as
Dopesmoker (the original, pre-recording track title) to much acclaim. As one reviewer put it, the album
“is now recognized as a masterpiece of the stoner-metal genre and one of the most formidable record-
ings of the past 20 years” (Rees 2016). Arguably, it is one of the most important albums of heavy metal
history. According to Sleep’s producer, the singular aim of Dopesmoker was to produce “the heaviest
thing ever recorded.”2
Whether one finds Dopesmoker “unlistenable” or “a masterpiece” will depend largely on one’s at-
titude toward heavy metal music more generally. For most musical tastes, the music will seem too
heavy. For fans of heavy metal (i.e., “metalheads”), however, heaviness is a primary aesthetic virtue, a
good-making property, of the music. The music is loved as much as it is loathed for its crushing guitars,
its loud and noisy auditory aesthetic. Like most differences in taste, such attitudes reflect the cultural,
generational, and stylistic contexts in which they are cultivated. But heavy metal stands out as a genre
defined in terms of a specific quality of the music—namely, its heaviness. Now a global phenomenon
several generations in the making, heavy metal is both a familiar fixture of the musical mainstream and
contribute more to the perception of heaviness than others. But no such features logically “clinch the
matter” on heaviness, to adapt a phrase from Sibley (1959, 431).
As Gracyk (2016) argues, radical variation of styles and intensely contested evaluative and classifica-
tory criteria among the fans of metal make this task difficult, if not impossible. The specific challenge
in designating music as “heavy metal,” as Gracyk notes, is to draw the boundaries broad enough to
account for the stylistic diversity of metal, but not so broad as to render them stylistically meaningless.
The way to do this, he argues, is to define heavy metal by reference “to continuities and innovations in
musical style” rather than relying solely on the divergent perceptions of its fans (776).
Yet, musicologists and sociologists seem to have little difficulty recognizing the radical stylistic di-
versity of heavy metal while nevertheless treating it as a coherent and perceptually distinguishable
integrity: Black Sabbath, Motörhead, Slayer, Tool, Mastadon, and Metallica (up to a point). But any
history of heavy metal has to reckon with the industry’s efforts to squelch the heaviness from metal
music in the interest of broader consumption. The issue here is not so much about artistic freedom,
originality, or even of “selling out,” but rather about the devaluation of the heaviness in heavy metal,
the transformation of metal’s “power” into a steady production of cliched minstrels and saccharine
love ballads. It is not commercialization per se, but the sacrifice of sound to spectacle in metal music
that makes it difficult to frame heaviness as a genre concept. If heaviness is something more than just
the cultural and historical contingencies of heavy metal music, we have to look for it, not in the main-
ally relevant features of metal. Indeed, heavy metal is both loved and loathed for its emphasis on the
noisiness of rock, furnishing on the one hand the basis of a thriving, global subculture and on the
other (quite literally) an instrument of torture.6 Thus, it makes sense to conceive the heaviness of
heavy metal in terms of the value attached to this excess, or surplus, of noise central to the aesthetics
of rock music. I take it that this view—call it the “surplus noise” view—is the standard view of heavy
metal: that is the noisier, heavier version of rock.
First, heavy metal is loudness hyperbolized. Robert Duncan coins the term “loudestness” (1984,
47) to characterize what for many metal fans is the defining feature of metal. Metal has always
say about sub-genres of metal that do not use guitars (e.g., synth metal), and thus, strictly speaking,
do not use power chords?
Such exercises readily demonstrate the ease of defeasibility. But they do not overcome the in-
tuitive appeal of the surplus noise view of heaviness. For even if no mechanical employment of the
term is available, there is a robustly pragmatic sense in which “heavy” is applied to music because the
music is extremely loud, heavily distorted, and driven by power chords. This is, to be sure, a weak
supervenience claim, but it is one that musicologists appeal to (at least tacitly) in measuring heaviness
as a timbral quality of heavy metal noise. It should not be overlooked, then, that the conception of
application of the term “heavy.” Instead, we find that additional elements thought to contribute to the
perception of heaviness actually complicate our understanding of heaviness considerably, as each is
governed by perceptually distinct, sometimes contradictory, features. We find, in other words, radic-
ally different perceptions of heaviness.
V.A. Lyrical Content
Like many other musical genres (e.g., rap and country), heavy metal cultivates its musical aesthetic
largely through lyrical content. There is an intuitive fit between style and substance that makes some
that lends to the heaviness of stoner metal bands like Weedeater, Bongripper, and Dopelord? Or is
it rather the musical treatment of lyrical content that lends it gravity? After all, the seemingly blithe
preoccupation with marijuana in Sleep’s Dopesmoker is afforded the solemnity of a religious journey.
It seems more likely that it is the chanting itself, rather than the lyrical content of the chant, that gives
the talk of bong hits a seriousness that we don't find in, say, Snoop Dogg’s lyrics.
In sum, although there seems to be some normative fit between heavy music and weighty lyr-
ical content, articulating that fit in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions seems out of reach.
Without an elaborate account of the kinds of content that would count as weighty in the relevant
Baugh argues, that “a bad rock song is one that tries and fails to inspire the body to dance” (1993, 26).
Listeners appreciate Sleep’s music for its sonic slowness, and we would be wrong to judge this kind of
heaviness on its ability to whip the crowd into a frenzy. So again, it must be said that extreme tempos
contribute significantly to the perception of heaviness, the different extremes effect what are essen-
tially two very different perceptions of heaviness.
Pitch is another important structural feature of heaviness. Often, heaviness is achieved by sharp
variations in pitch, such as the contrast in tonal frequencies that we hear, for example, in Slayer’s
“Raining Blood.” Other times, however, heaviness is achieved by limiting the range to dense, low
VI. CONCLUSION
An answer to the question “What makes heavy metal heavy?,” though seemingly obvious, gets to the
heart of one of the most contentious contemporary debates in the philosophy of music. How do we
assign specific properties to works of music? Even a purist such as Hanslick, though doggedly skep-
tical of expressive properties in music, readily allows that “the aesthetical expression of a piece of
music may be called charming, soft, impetuous, powerful, delicate, sprightly,” and so on (1986, 10).
So, it is in describing music as “heavy.” It is easily and intuitively applicable to music, not only because
its use is governed by the genre category of heavy metal, but also because the relevant features are
already present (albeit to a lesser extent) in rock music. Conceiving the heaviness of heavy metal as
an extension of the “noise” aesthetically valued in rock gives us, at the very least, a pragmatic basis for
describing music as “heavy.” But the more nuanced judgments of heaviness familiar to metalheads
go well beyond the features of loudness, distortion, and the expression of power. And yet, analysis of
further conditions of heaviness, such as lyrical content or compositional elements, only confirms that
“heaviness” resists exhaustive conceptual articulation. Nor does this seem to be a matter of just refin-
ing definitions and qualifying necessary and sufficient conditions more precisely. Rather, the difficulty
seems to stem from there being different conceptions of heaviness, comprised of radically different,
sometimes incompatible, properties. Sometimes heaviness sounds like heavy metal music, sometimes
it does not. Sometimes heaviness is expressed as power, sometimes it is not. Heaviness is, in some
cases, the surplus “noise” of rock, in other cases it is much more than this. It is both extremely fast
and yet extremely slow; both simple and complex; both frantic and restrained. It is manifested in the
raucous stirrings of a mosh pit, but also in contemplative meditation. And even if it cannot be wholly
What Makes Heavy Metal ‘Heavy’? • 81
understood through all these diverse and contrasting forms, the heaviness of heavy metal can certainly
be heard in any and all of them.14
JASON MILLER, Department of Philosophy, Warren Wilson College, Asheville, NC, USA.
Email: jay.miller@warren-wilson.edu
REFERENCES
END NOTES
1 Quoting from a video documentary film about the metal underground scene, Such Hawks Such Hounds, dir-
ected by Jessica Hundley and John Srebalus (Long Song Pictures and Draw Pictures 2008)
2 Quoting the record’s original producer, Billy Anderson, in Such Hawks Such Hounds.
82 • The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 2022, Vol. 80, No. 1
3 Weinstein writes: “the sound [of heavy metal] as such—its timbre, its volume, and its feel—is what matters,
what defines it as power, giving it inherent meaning” (2000, 27). Berger and Fales’s study claims to lend empir-
ical support to Walser’s observation that distortion contributes most significantly to the perception of power in
the music (2004, 193–4).
4 Here, Gracyk is responding specifically to Deena Weinstein’s Adornian narrative that heavy metal bands “sold
out” when record companies got involved (Gracyk 1996, 153–4). Even with the absorption of metal into the
mainstream, I can still value the music for various aesthetic qualities (Motley Crue, for example, can light up a
crowd). But the devaluation of heaviness in heavy metal is a direct and regrettable consequence of record labels
seeking broader audiences.