All Known Metal Bands Revisited
 |
Dan Nelson, who compiled the book All Known Metal Bands, has written in response to last week's post about it. On his site, he has published a statement/defense detailing his book-writing process and intent. In it, he states, among other things, that Encyclopaedia Metallum was not the sole source of content for the book. A link to the statement/defense and excerpts from it follow below.
www.eyeoftheblackbird.net/metal.htm
ON CREDIT
"I've been criticized by more than one person for not giving credit to anyone else in the collection of these names, and indeed of simply copying Encyclopaedia Metallum and profiting from it. First, the issue of credit. As stated above, the idea of creating merely a list of names and printing it as a book was my idea, and mine alone. Had it been another's idea, they would have done it. In art, which is granted a sometimes ambiguous sphere of culture, she/he who has the idea and executes it takes the credit. If a photographer makes a picture of a cathedral, those who designed and built the cathedral are not credited. Whether this is wrong or right I don't know and have no opinion. Ask Marcel Duchamp."
ON PROFIT
"I've been accused of making money from someone else's work, profiting while a web site that already contains the list (though it's not the same as my list) has trouble paying its bills. As an artist who has to paint houses and haul shit around to pay the bills, and as a member of several unsigned bands, I'll say that you can do things for love or money, hopefully both, but if you're doing it without loving it or getting paid for it, it's your own problem. Originally I was not going to put my name on the outside of the book, or even on the inside (can't remember). But it's my first, and I'd be a sap to not promote myself as an artist and to be happy continuing to scrape lead paint off houses."
ON FALSE METAL
"A word about the phrase 'Death to false metal'. This phrase represents the worst of metal culture. The idea that culture should somehow be kept pure is oxymoronic. Culture thrives and advances only through cross-pollination and corruption and misuse. The most prolific and usually boring subgenre of metal (black metal) is a testament to what happens when you stick to the formula. Long Live False Metal!"
LINKS
19 Comments:
"If a photographer makes a picture of a cathedral, those who designed and built the cathedral are not credited."
No offense, but this is a bad analogy. A photograph is a single moment in time, a very intentionally captured statement where the angle of the shot, the lighting conditions, the props, whereas maybe not always fully premeditated , surely dictate the quality of the photo much more than the direct subject matter does. A photograph is about the interpretation of humanity through a deeper look at things we take for granted in everyday life, and there is the art in it.
Where's the humanity, the art, in effectively (perhaps not directly as the writer says) copying a public resource list like Metal Archives in a book?
Also, since it was brought up tangentially, false metal is safe metal, unadventurous, not daring, no personal investment metal, just aping what has been done before. Metal without clarity of vision, without pathos, without honesty.
Bottom line: In my opinion (and I'm sure many, many agree with me) this is an absolutely fucking STUPID idea for a book, and the fact that it got published at all is inconceivable to me. $17 is a reasonable price for a book, but who in their right mind would buy this, even as a joke?
And I don't mean this as a personal attack against the guy at all. If he makes any real money off of it it'll be a miracle, anyway. Good for him if he found someone crazy enough to put out a book that has no real content. He's insane for spending two years putting it together, though.
By the way, I'm now hard at work on my own book, "All Known Metal Blogs". Sorry that I beat you to the idea. It's gonna be awesome...
Yeah, good luck with this, guy. People LOVE paying for lists of things, especially when they can get it for free. I'll buy the Slayer and Sabbath 33 1/3s instead.
What a tool. Next.
O' Why didn't I recognize this chap as partaking in the same aesthetic realm as Sir Marcel Duckchamp? I feel a fool.
I had no idea this fella was a real person. I flipped through the book the other day, and judging by its complete pointlessness that bordered on irony, ludicrous almost condescending epilogue, and McSweeneys imprint, I thought for sure that the whole thing was a fabrication.
This AKMB guy bothers me a lot. Maybe he shouldn't. Anyway, I have to rant.
1) If you take a picture of a cathedral, everyone still knows who built the cathedral and where to find it. Written information is different: there are already rules about this stuff. Is the website clearly cited in the book?
2) Who the heck gets accused of plagiarism and writes a snarky, defensive response? Especially one that takes pot shots at his main source? Make an apology, an explanation of source material, and move on. Also, I don't care if you don't have a real job. That doesn't make me like you any better.
3) You don't brag about being false metal. It's one of those names you just don't call yourself, like "liar" or "coward." And more importantly, I hate the stock attack on metal fans for being too particular about how they want the music to sound. For one thing, everyone is particular about how they want music to sound. As open-minded as indie rock subculture claims to be, for example, most of the indie rock fans I know only have one "type" of sound that they favor. It could be quiet neo-folk stuff or quiet Sigur Ros stuff or mid-tempo Pavement stuff. The lines aren't as clearly drawn, but most people I know have a record collection where nearly everything sounds the same.
For another thing, I think that one of the coolest things about metal is how it has maintained a sense of tradition. That idea of tradition is part of what makes metal interesting to listen to, and a key distinction between it and the standard evolution of rock music. In post-punk and indie rock, experimentation is arguably such a key part of the tradition that it becomes impossible to recognize. Experimentation (perhaps incorrectly) is just assumed. In metal, the presence of cultural norms keeps real experimentation possible. If you break the rules in metal, it still signifies.
Also, the idea that black metal is the most prolific and boring sub-genre, bound by genre rules, is insane. Black metal is all over the place: it might be the LEAST rule bound of any of the sub-genres. Which finally suggests that this guy just doesn't listen to this stuff or care about it or the people who make/listen to it at all, which is what really chaps my ass.
I should have better things to do than get mad over this.
Hate to post on my own comment:
I just read what the guy had to say: it's not totally unreasonable, although I still disagree with him about the credit thing. I should have read his statement in full before posting, of course, and I really shouldn't post to blog message boards before breakfast. Not citing a source that accounts for more than half the info in a book is a huge deal, though. I stand by that.
ALSO:
Apologies if my first post suggested that house painting isn't a real job. I was responding to the way the author was deploying his job, rhetorically, rather than the job itself. I'm looking for work, actually, which is why I have time to make these asinine posts.
How 'bout "All known metal t-shirts"? OR "All known demo tapes"? OR "All known show fliers"? OR "All known Dimmu Borgir clone bands"? Those topics would be infinitely more interesting. Anyone want to collaborate?
Agreed. The "author" admits that he integrated THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND band names from Encyclopedia Metallum. The published book features "just under 51,000" band names. By my math, this means that almost 70% of the band names listed in his book were "integrated" from Encyclopedia Metallum. So, for all his two years of research, the author managed to still only provide 30% original material...
That's indefensible, in my opinion, and his take on it is really disheartening.
He says: "printing it as a book was my idea, and mine alone. Had it been another’s idea, they would have done it."
I say: that doesn't mean it isn't stealing.
McSweeny's is an interesting (if not a little too clever) company. I think any other author on their imprint would be outraged if 70% of their work was printed elsewhere without being given credit. I hope they will consider reprinting and giving the site full credit and share profits for their hard work.
Anthony, you make a most interesting point about how tradition is necessary to contextualize experimentation. The recognition of DNA in a later mutation (calling someone an "old soul", "a chip off the old block", etc.) is one of the coolest aspects of human existence.
Black metal is both the most experimental and retro-fetishistic metal subgenre. Like with any other area of life, one just has to sift through the crap.
Dave, a metal t-shirts book would be fantastic. Calling Mr. Christe to "All known demo tapes" thread...
"All Known Sex Partners of Gene Simmons" Vol. I-IV
I was almost with the guy until the 'false metal' addendum, then I went back and reread:
"appealing mostly to those fairly unfamiliar with metaI"?
Laugh on dude, like what you meant to say is; 'it's just a coffee table art project for hipsters'?
fucking dilettante.
Just blogged my thoughts on the book:
http://kkahnharris.typepad.com/weblog/2008/07/more-on-all-kno.html
It seems the author has taken down the defense/statement on his page.
Keith, I'm with you on the idea of a gigantic universe of individual expression being subsumed under a greater orthodoxy. And, the idea of authorial intent being almost irrelevant in almost a "he doesn't know what he's playing with" way - I find that interesting also. I'm not sure if I completely agree. The attribution of an author, publisher, and price tag shows that forces are certainly trying to bring that power under an umbrella. That beauty of the vastness of metal, unfiltered and uncommodified, is already in the original metal-archives site.
This guy's response sort of sucks. He's basically saying "yeah, i copied everything but no one else though of it first so fuck you."
It's the "in-print" version of "FIRST POST!!!"
Still trying to digest this.
Still alarmed and annoyed.
Time to find it at a bookstore to see if the obscure local bands are in it.
It's awesome that he's removed his diatribe, and posted thanks instead.
of course, as with all internet wankery, i took a screenshot: http://www.box.net/shared/2rrec2cpry
@shawn - that's only the bands that he didn't have. He explains that what he had at that point was a subset of EM, so EM's 47,000 makes up ~92% of his content.
Post a Comment
<< Home