As a musician and a teacher of music, I have watched this evolution and have felt compelled to understand what it is that generates and propels it. I need to understand why I have students who cannot discriminate between pitches or between major and minor chords; who prefer learning to play by watching my hands; who confess, with no sense of embarrassment, that they are only learning to play an instrument because they want to be a rock star. "Musician" is not in their vocabulary. And traditional musical values are not in their ears. 

Most of these questions still remain partially (or completely) unanswered for me. However, I believe I have come to understand part of the process or dynamic which fuels this evolution. By using the model set down by Clifford Geertz in his "Religion as a Cultural System" (1979), I believe some understanding of the powerful influences of these styles of rock can be gained. And by using Sherry Ortner's concept of key symbols ("On Key Symbols," 1979), one may also gain an appreciation of the ritual and symbols of rock. However, before exploring these perspectives, it is necessary to define certain terms and concepts in order to make clear the specific focus of the discussion. 

The term "rock" has come to include many styles, from "rock and roll" to "techno-rock" to "grunge" and several others. In most cases, the common factor among these styles is the energy level and the identification with youth and their interests. However, the specific styles of rock that this paper will focus on are "heavy metal" and its descendants, "thrash," "neo-punk," and "grunge." 

 Within the last ten to fifteen years, heavy metal has moved away from being simply a louder, more "distorted" version of the still melodically-based style known as "hard-rock." Metal and its off-shoots have taken on values and criteria that are so far-removed from main-stream rock that one must "learn" how to listen to it. But, after much listening, and even more playing, of this style, I firmly believe that this movement does not constitute a new direction in the constituents (melody, harmony, and rhythm) of music, but rather in an assigning of them to a secondary role. As this shift became clearer to me, I realized that this music was serving some other, more important, function for its listeners and participants than were the other styles of rock. It is therefore the style of Heavy Metal and those that have grown out of it that I will be discussing. 

 It would be hard to talk of rock in general without referring to its most readily identifiable instrument, the guitar. But it would be impossible to speak of Metal and not mention the guitar, for the guitar is the music and the music is the guitar. Without getting too much ahead of myself in speaking of the guitar as a symbol, it is necessary to make clear that the guitar associated with Metal is a very special instrument. While there is a degree of variety from brand to brand, all guitars aimed at that particular market have three things in common: they are built specifically to be easily played to enhance speed, they are equipped specifically to be loud, and they are designed specifically to be phallic. (This last aspect may have Freudian roots, but it has moved very much into the consciousness of not just the players, but also into that of the designers and advertising executives.) Therefore, when speaking of this particular guitar, I will use the color red. 

 A final concept that may need some elaboration is that of the rock concert. Again, I am making a distinction between concerts associated with other types of rock and those that are performed by and attended by devotees of Heavy Metal and its offspring. For someone who has never attended just such a concert, there is no frame-of-reference with which it can be compared. If for no other reason than sheer volume, there is nothing quite like it. Volume levels reach upwards of 140 decibels (OSHA levels for factories cannot exceed 70), and, despite warnings from the rock community itself, hearing loss related to attendance of such concerts is on the rise. Informants tell me that volume is such an important part of the concert that bands are judged to be good or bad in terms of how loud they are. 

 But the threat of bodily injury is perhaps the most startling aspect of these concerts. According to The Illinois Entertainer (1992, 3), Heavy Metal concerts at the Rosemont Horizon averaged three injuries per show in 1991, and there were no concerts that didn't have at least one injury. These injuries are generally caused by the phenomenon called the "mosh pit." The participants rush to the apron of the stage in order to "dance" in a style of movement called "moshing." This involves slamming their bodies into one another and whipping the head around, causing one's hair to describe an arc through the air, which apparently is the point, as informants tell me that way is given only to those with exceedingly long hair. Needless to say, the majority of injuries are from accidental head-butts. But the more severe injuries are the result of someone falling down and being trampled by the mass of moshing audience members. And, as most are aware, several deaths have been caused by this phenomenon. 

Another aspect of the heavy metal concert that is instructive is the fact that the audience is never quiet. They do not "listen" to the music so much as create a continual sonic background for it. They either sing along with the lyrics or scream continually in response to what is going on on stage or to other screams. It is not at all unusual for the audience to be louder than the on- stage incidental remarks between songs, which are being amplified by as much as 100,000 watts. 

 It is hoped that these preparatory remarks will give the reader some interest in following what I believe to be an explanation for the power and motivations of Heavy Metal. In forming that explanation, I have turned to Geertz's definition of religion, and his discussion of that definition, for his own concerns led him to some very persuasive conclusions about the dynamic process that is known as "religion." In his model, religion is: "a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" (Geertz, 1979, 79). 

 The starting point for my discussion is Clifford Geertz's explanation for the impetus for religion, an impetus which is based upon Max Weber's concept, "The Problem of Meaning." The Problem of Meaning creates in an individual and a society the threat of chaos (events which cannot be explained, and, in fact, are unexplainable). This chaos creates three states that individuals find intolerable: analytic, emotional, and moral impotence. It is Geertz's contention that religion is born out of man's attempts at "affirming, or at least recognizing the inescapability of ignorance, pain, and injustice on the human plane while simultaneously denying that these irrationalities are characteristic of the world as a whole" (1979, 85). It is my contention that this same impetus is at work, but that for many young people, religion is no longer the answer for dealing with these aspects of chaos, and that the process for explaining the force of religion is now an explanation for the force of Heavy Metal. 

 The aspect of religion that Geertz sees as the synthesizing agent for this process of dealing with the Problem of Meaning is "religious perspective." He explains that man utilizes different perspectives to deal with the events of his life; that is, the  common-sense, scientific, aesthetic, and religious perspectives. The religious perspective springs from man's understanding that the other three perspectives fall short in dealing with the threat of chaos. "Bafflement, suffering, and a sense of intractable ethical paradox are all....challenges with which any religion, however "primitive," which hopes to persist must attempt to cope" (1979, 83). If, therefore, it is perceived that religion is not "coping," but that the Problem of Meaning is still present, then it is easy to see how the same logic that creates the more orthodox concepts of religion may lend its powerful dynamic to other perspectives, one of which I term the "Metal perspective." 

 To understand how this perspective is generated, we must return to Geertz's definition of religion. Geertz explains symbols as vehicles for conceptions; i.e., objects, actions, or ideas which help a society to bring their culture into focus. These symbols work in conjunction with each other to create cultural patterns. These cultural patterns are not just extrinsic sources of information, but are also "shapers" of that information. As Geertz puts it, they are both "models of" and "models for" reality. This dual process works because of the dual nature of an individual's awareness of the world; that is, that there is a "world as it is" and a "world as it ought to be." One's sense of the everyday is always seen against a sense of the ideal and vice versa. Through the ability of cultural patterns to be both "models of" and "models for," an individual's world view (world as it is) and ethos (world as it ought to be) are brought together. They are fused, as it were, into what Geertz calls the "really real," which is created by "...the imbuing of a certain specific complex of symbols--of the metaphysics they formulate and the style of life they recommend--with a persuasive authority which, form an analytic point of view is the essence of religious action" (1979, 86). 

 That is, these symbol systems (formed into cultural patterns) make the ethos intellectually reasonable by being shown to represent a way of life adapted to the world view, and make the world view emotionally convincing by being presented as an image well-arranged to accommodate such a way of life. Geertz likens this to hanging a picture up on a nail hammered into its own frame, which gives a sense of why people outside of this perspective have so much trouble understanding it (Geertz, 1968). 
 It is important to understand this two-way process, as it is the dynamic which forms, propels, and reinforces the "Metal perspective." This perspective may become clearer by plugging in specific terms and concepts into Geertz's "models of/models for" scheme (Fig. 1). 

+ Baffling--common sense is useless Full of suffering--future seems bleak, solutions non-existent No direction--injustice seems to be the norm Over-whelming--comfort (avoidance) found in "listening" to Metal Undefined anger--asked to be an "adult" but not given a place in adult world Unfocused energy--fueled by biology and anger

All problems come from not listening to Metal. We have seen the enemy and it is NOT us. Suffering is caused by non- Metal heads. Guidance found in Metal lyrics-leave us alone and we'll leave you alone. Anger is good because it fuels energy and energy is good. Avoidance is good--"I'm part of the solution because I'm not part of the solution." Energy represents timelessness; there is only the here and now, only ME.

=    There is no right or wrong, only loud. There is no suffering , only fast. There is no injustice, only here. There is no future, only now. There is no anger, only energy. There is nothing to avoid,  only ME!

 But avoidance and capitulation have lost their pejorative nature through the perspective of Heavy Metal. Through the symbol system of Metal, a "really real" has been created that renders the world-as-it-is not only understandable, but "depicts [it] as mere common-sense given the shape of reality" (Geertz, 1979, 81). Feeling is the only authentic mode of apprehension and the here-and-now is the only ontology. Thought is only valid when ratified by sensation. "My mind's made up by the way I feel," sing the Troggs. Or- 

    I don't have to think, 
    I only have to do it. 
    The results are always perfect. 
    I formulate Infinity. 
     (Meat Puppets)

---


 

 In glorifying the energy of youth, in making feelings and sensations the ultimate perspective for viewing the world, metal has depended upon a particular symbol system that informs and shapes this perspective. This symbol system includes a variety of objects and rituals, all helping to create the model-of and the model-for aspects of the "really real." But I have chosen to look at two specific "key" symbols that I feel embody most completely the "metal perspective." These are the guitar and the concert. 

 A key symbol, as defined by Sherry Ortner (1979, 94), may take two forms. It may act as a summarizing symbol or as an elaborating symbol. Summarizing symbols are "primarily objects of attention and cultural respect; they synthesize, or ‘collapse,' complex experience and relate the respondent to the grounds of the system as a whole. Elaborating symbols, on the other hand, are symbols valued for their contribution to the ordering of or ‘sorting out' of experience" (1979, 98). Elaborating symbols may be of two kinds; those that order conceptual experience and those that order action. "The former includes what Pepper calls ‘root metaphors,' the latter includes key scenarios" (1979, 98). 

 It is my contention that the guitar functions as a summarizing symbol, while the rock concert primarily functions as an elaborating symbol, specifically as a "key scenario." 
 In order for a symbol to be "key," it must fit five criteria: 

 1.  Informants say that the symbol is culturally important. 
 2.  Informants are anything but indifferent about the symbol. 
 3.  The symbol comes up in many different contexts. 
 4.  There is great cultural elaboration around the symbol. 
 5.  There are greater cultural restrictions around the symbol.

 But the cultural restrictions surrounding the guitar is possibly the most interesting aspect of its meeting the criteria for a key symbol. Quite simply, there is one way to play heavy metal guitar, and one way only-- loud, fast, and from the crotch. (I have decided that sticking the tongue out is a personal preference and not mandatory.) Therefore, there is only one appropriate guitar, the guitar. It must have a fast neck, it must have the loudest pick-ups available, and it must be of a size and length that it can be cradled in the crotch as it is played. To attempt to perform on an instrument more suitable for country-western or jazz is to invite ridicule and ostracization. 

 There are several functions that the guitar serves in summarizing the "metal perspective." By its very nature, it is the perfect instrument to symbolize the energy created by and unleashed through the music. Because of amplification, it can be played as loudly as one wishes, and yet its size easily creates the illusion that the sound (read: loudness) is coming directly from the player, that his performance energy is being translated directly into decibels. The onstage acrobatics of the guitarist, in fact, often take on the appearance of a struggle between the player and the instrument, as though he were subduing the source of all that energy. 

 Its history also give the guitar a mythic quality, for the electric guitar is the only instrument invented for the sole purpose of enhancing volume. And the main developer of the electric guitar, Les Paul, has become a legend among young players, not because of his own musical abilities (very few younger guitarists even realize that Les plays) but because of his dedication to the pursuit of the perfect electric guitar. While few headbangers know where Yugoslavia is (or care), they all know the story of "the Log," Les Paul's proto-type for the solid- body electric guitar made in 1942 from a railroad tie. 

 The guitar also symbolizes the community of metal (something that will be elaborated on in the discussion of the concert) in that, although its feature role is as a solo instrument, it is also a part of the instrumentation for a band. Some bands are what are known as "power trios," made up of one guitar, bass, and drums, but most bands have two guitarists, one of whom is the "rhythm" player, fulfilling a necessary but secondary role to the "lead" player.  

 The number of Metal devotees who also play the guitar is also out of proportion in comparison to other styles of music. Several factors contribute to this; the price and availability of "entry-level" guitars, the ease with which one can acquire the basics of the instrument, and the rather rudimentary techniques that are used in "composing" Heavy Metal music which allow beginning players to learn many tunes quickly. The result of this phenomenon is that Metal has a participatory quality to it. Not only do the "headbangers" participate in the ritual of rock through concerts, but they are able to produce their own rituals, sometimes at home, sometimes in a garage, sometimes at a local venue or school dance. 

 There is also a personal ritual attached to this wide-spread participation, one I have dubbed the "string-changing ceremony." Although changing strings is usually a matter of body chemistry, economics, and practicality, it is my experience with my informants that they tend to change their strings on the average of once every two weeks, sometimes more often. Inevitably, these students admit that they just like to change their strings, that it makes them feel more like a "player." Quite often, they can't even re-tune the guitar after the process and have to have myself or someone else do it for them. But this does not discourage them from continuing the ritual. 

 There are many other subtle significations that the guitar embodies, but  these several examples should make it clear that it does seem function as a summarizing symbol; that is, it is "seen as summing up, expressing, and representing for the participants in an emotionally powerful and relatively undifferentiated way, what the system means to them" (Ortner, 1979, 94). 

 Another type of key symbol, previously mentioned, is the elaborating symbol, of which one kind is the "key scenario." A key scenario is valued "primarily because it implies clear-cut modes of action appropriate to correct and successful living in the culture....in which both valued end states and effective means for achieving them are dramatized for all to see" (Ortner, 1979, 95). That is, it provides examples-of and strategies-for "how to live." (It should be mentioned at this point that Ortner makes it clear there is a continuum between summarizing and elaborating symbols, and that there may be qualities of both types contained within one symbol, i.e., a ritual may mainly elaborating in its function and yet contain summarizing qualities.) 

 It has already been conjectured by Susan Montague and Robert Morais in their article "Football Games and Rock Concerts: The Ritual Enactment of the American Success Models" (1976), that rock concerts serve as validators of the success model which they term the "creative model." This model argues that love (that is, success) is manifested through self-expression rather than self-denial...."which means that any and all personal experiences are appropriate, whether or not society has previously defined them as moral or immoral" (1976, 38). Although this creative model appeared in the early 1900's, according to the authors, it was not really until the late 1960's that its logic was fully defined "with the argument that the truly moral member of the society is the one who orients his behavior toward ‘doing his own thing'" (1976, 38). This success model obviously represents possible origins for the ‘really real" of the Metal perspective which I have already laid out. In fact, Montague and Morais go on to depict the tenets of rock as including disavowal of competition, hypocrisy, and success (as typically defined in America). Rock "begins validating the creative success model by discrediting the traditional model as not really loving" (1976, 47). The authors then represent the rock concert as a demonstration of love and community, through the establishment of a personal bond between the performer and the audience. The performer shows that love is available to all and validates this through his ritual of performance. 

 This validation process undoubtedly is the key to the power of rock concerts. But the success model presented by Montague and Morais is not that of the Heavy Metal culture. It may have been its roots, but the simple fact that the examples of music and performers (Elvis, Lennon, Jagger, and Dylan) used by the authors are not taken very seriously by the core audience for Metal indicates a radical shift in the model. While I would not argue that the fans and performers of the music represented in their article do still make up the bulk of the general rock world, and that certain aspects of their discussion (the sexual content of lyrics and behavior, of example) may be extended to Metal, I would argue that the metal perspective is another world altogether. And that the Heavy metal concert has taken on its own very special characteristics. 

 Instead of validating love, metal concerts validate avoidance and capitulation, under the guise of celebrating the here and now. Operating as a key scenario, the concert connects the disparate elements of the metal cosmology, deriving its legitimacy from the raw energy that is released by both the performer and the audience. It presents the energy through the aspects of "loud" and "fast," combining them with a relentless amplified beat that creates a "timeless" experience which is shared by all members of the metal community. The concert also confirms the audience's belief that the trappings of the performer's success (money and fame) came not from greed, but from dedication to the Metal perspective, and that the performers are still "one of us." This physically transcendent experience thus provides the Geertzian frame and nail, by not only depicting the really real but also guiding the participants to it, by representing the point where dispositional and conceptual aspects of the perspective converge for the "believers." Or, as Ortner would see it, the concert is "valued in that [it] formulate[s] the culture's basic means-ends relationships in actable forms" (1979, 95). 

Conclusion 

 By applying Geertz's understanding of the dynamic cultural, social, and psychological forces that create the religious perspective, and by using Sherry Ortner's concept of key symbols, some insight into the power and pervasiveness of the metal perspective may be gained. Again, it was not my aim to explain where Metal came from, or where it is going. But by gaining an insight into how and why the metal perspective gathers its authenticity, it certainly becomes clear that Heavy Metal and its future permutations will be with us for a long time to come. What does remain to be seen, however, is what direction the metal perspective, and the style of thinking it has engendered, will take.  

The most current permuation includes synthesizing another style, such as rap or techno, with Metal. To what degree these syntheses will impact the "really real" of Metal is not clear yet, but one other current factor may change the way Metal is "practiced," and this is the demise of large venues for concerts. As costs soar, fewer and fewer bands are touring in the large concert halls and sports facilities which have served as the cathedrals of Metal. Rather, smaller clubs and halls are the sites of concerts. Fewer people can attend these events and often the large stage spectacles (lasar shows, etc.) are foregone. Again, what impact this is having on the faithful remains to be seen. We'll just have to wait awhile to see if they serve as the chapels of Metal-- or the catacombs.