You’ve All Been Fooled! “Industrial Metal” Isn’t “Real” (guest entry)

Article by Jason, aka Lonegoat from the Necroclassical project Goatcraft and the host of the Necropolis podcast

Disregard any claims you’ve heard; “industrial metal” is a lie. In fact, one should find their schadenfreude in those who support this meaningless subgenre because industrial music is completely incompatible with metal. The ontologies of the two genres are so severely divergent that any attempt at synthesizing or merging them will negate one genre or the other. When “industrial” is placed before “metal” it will result in either industrial music with guitar distortion as a backdrop (Godflesh, Pitchshifter), hard rock disco music (Rammstein, Ministry), or a largely confused amalgamation lacking substantive meaning beyond surface aesthetics (Aborym, The Amenta, Zyklon, et al). True unification wherein both ontologies remain intact is impossible; it is a fool’s errand.

Metal’s music is consistently present and never absent. Its ontology is cocooned in intra-musical activities that necessitate direct engagement with its riffs (musical content) and how its riffs are arranged (overarching song structure). This musical immediacy in metal, granted by its inherent presentness via in-your-face intra-musical action, remains at the core of metal’s expression, even in its most minimalist and harsh forms. The music of metal is either actively present or it is not metal. There is no middle ground where the music of metal is partially absent. To negate metal’s presentness is to negate metal’s metalness.

In direct opposition to metal’s presentness, industrial music’s sparse musical elements do not necessitate direct musical engagement. Its overreliance on the integration of novel extramusical components showcases its innately separate ontology than that of metal. What little bits of musical activities that are found within industrial music serve as supplemental attributes rather than the principal source of expression. Being that industrial music primarily relies on novel extramusical components to be, in fact, industrial music, its ontology denotes that musical activity is intrinsically absent in its expression. This absentness stands diametrically opposed to the presentness in metal. To clarify, it isn’t that industrial music is inferior; rather, its ontological absentness simply cannot be merged sufficiently with metal’s ontological presentness.

Therefore, it becomes very clear why “industrial metal” is a watery bowel movement on the ontologies of the two genres from which it borrows its elements. Music that forcibly unites elements from disparate sources often ends up doing a disservice not only to itself but to its influences. Aside from Godflesh, which is unequivocally an industrial band first and foremost, and hasn’t released a great album in over 30 years, the manifestations of “industrial metal” have been remarkably deficient. Additionally, it seems very confused. Bands like Aborym caught the world’s curiosity because of how strange it was to hear extreme metal mixed with industrial and techno music. However, they seem to have squandered any potential in realizing a coherent artistic vision because they drew from incompatible ontologies.

Not unlike oil and water, absentness and presentness do not mix. You do not use oil and watercolor paint on the same canvas because they have inherently different values and would end up being a looseness of the bowels. Other than in quantum mechanics, if something is present, it cannot simultaneously be absent, and vice versa. To be ontologically “real” is to accept the ontology in which your expression operates. Given that “industrial metal” lacks its own distinct ontology and, in fact, often detracts from the incompatible ontologies of the genres from which it scrounges, it cannot be considered an ontologically “real” subgenre.