INVISIBLE ORANGES OR SOUR GRAPES?
Monday, November 28th, 2011 at 12:30pm by Gary Suarez
I’ve made no secret of my general distaste for black metal, going so far as to call for a boycott of one of the sound’s most celebrated and influential figures. Without question, I’m not the ideal person to defend any aspect of a subgenre that I consider an eye-rolling, oft-racist joke. And yet, Tim Hunter at Invisible Oranges has driven me to stand up for it (sorta) thanks to his scathing and shoddy article lambasting the sub-subgenre “Cascadian black metal” and those journalists who dare to use the term in their pieces.
I’m not saying the music itself is bullshit – that’s more of a personal taste thing – but I think the sub-genre as a concept is bullshit. Ever since Wolves in the Throne Room garnered a more significant share of the music spotlight (chiefly by playing a corporate-sponsored festival, I’ve seen the term “Cascadian black metal” tossed around in more articles recently. Some of these have been from outside the metal world (the New Yorker, The Guardian), while others are more in tune with the underground. But I’m skeptical by default of any attempt by music media to create new pigeonholes for the music they cover. In some cases, it’s merely lazy journalism; in other cases (I’m looking at you, New Yorker dude), it’s just a way to make it seem like you know more than you really do about your topic.
Here’s why Hunter’s argument is (to reclaim the epithet) bullshit.











