I'm Losing Scene Points

"A lot of people don't take metal seriously as art, and a lot of people don't take art seriously as ethics. That's fine, I guess -- but as for myself, I do both. These days, when people detect ambition in someone they leap on that person like hyenas. The label "pretentious" is unquestioned as categorically damning. But I think musical culture could use a whole lot more pretension, if anything. It suffers from false, dishonest humility, and from a lack of ambition to be more than either entertainment or a badge of identification with a group"
Guy from Liturgy, re: critical firestorm

I'm in what feels like the lonely position of liking Liturgy (not to be confused with the startlingly uninteresting Brodequin+Matti Way BDM band. Seriously, how did this winning formula fall flat??) as a concept and a band. Last year I stumbled across the first full length, managed to make it out to Charlotte, NC to see them, talked with the dude for a minute, read the manifesto, etc. and I did, and still do, find it all pretty interesting and entertaining. (I haven't listened to the new album as I keep forgetting to do so, but that's unimportant) As a band, the way Liturgy both embraced and bent the thematic and musical conventions of black metal was equally interesting -- here's this gang of urbane Brooklynites playing a fluid, amorphous take on Second Wave black metal about rapturous spiritual transcendence (eh, pardon the reduction there). It may be the way they have one foot in and one foot out that makes them so impossibly incomprehensible and offensive to the seemingly endless wave of anonymous (and otherwise) critics.

So, during these past few months two things have happened: 1) Liturgy has blown up, big time, and 2) They've attracted an enormous barrage of criticism, ad hominem attacks, you name it. In a way I saw this coming but I guess the sheer volume of it has turned out to be equal or greater to to how much press coverage the band has received, and I suppose I expected neither to reach such heights.

Since the sole purpose of a blog is for one to feel entitled to privilege their opinion over others, I'm going to take a stab at this and say that by and large all the criticism of this band, to me, seems to completely miss the point. I'm not trying to force anyone to like Liturgy as it's not important to me whether or not they are liked but rather I'm moved to speak on how Liturgy has been received and I believe that it says a lot about metalheads in general.

First, forgive me if you dislike the band and you have a more nuanced opinion on the matter, clearly this is less directed at you. To me, the recurring phenomenon at work here seems to be either an inability or a flat out refusal to even try to understand the band and if you want a good example of that, look no further than the inane comments on that Brooklyn Vegan page. I'm not saying this band is a gang of geniuses or anything but they are definitely unique in some aspects, so don't kid yourself. So anyways, the guy likes to talk about the band and the concept, and that seems to bother many people...very well, but is he really the first musician in recent memory to do this? Really? In this case, to me it seems like people can't stand the idea of a hip, philosophy major talking about his art, because if it were Chris Tucker instead, no one would be making such a goddamn stink.

So, first of all, I sense a failure to approach Liturgy objectively, generally speaking. To me, it seems like who Liturgy is (Hunter Hunt Hendrix) is far more important than what Liturgy does. I'll return to this point.

The recurring line is that the band (the guy, rather) is pretentious, which, first, I can concede to, to a certain extent and if it is off-putting, I understand but yet, what is the alternative? Again, not to strike a false dichotomy and pardon me if I am making a textbook generalization, but by eschewing Liturgy completely in favor of what we consider appropriate/"right"/"true" for metal (aesthetically, thematically, musically, etc), doesn't that strike a dogmatic tone? If so, does extreme metal really need dogma? I get it: being a metalhead for me comes with a sense of pride and I feel very protective, which is why nu-metal, obvious poseurs, and the larger portions of Victory Record's roster piss me off a lot and send me on the defensive BUT there's a difference between determining what is false metal (which sometimes feels extremely important, weirdly enough) and creating a artistically stifling environment.

If black metal, or extreme metal in general, is going to continue to grow as an art form, it needs to continually rejuvenate itself. I'm not saying the Liturgy is the future of black metal or anywhere even remotely close to it but rather, they are just one piece of it and somehow, someway, their artistic contribution has some value whether you like it or not, just like how somewhere in the midst of all these almost-universally-godawful deathcore bands that I hate, there is undeniably some value in that music as well, whether I like it or not.

I stand by this, as poorly phrased as it may be.

-W.F.