In one way or another, the creative arts have essentially always been divided in two. The names and criteria of classification have varied through time, but there has always been a pronounced if not universal drive to divide art into a higher and a lower form of art. Sacral and profane, high culture and popular culture, arts and crafts, and so on. I recognize that this is a generalization that does away with nuance, and that especially in the past half century or so this division has often been called into question, but I maintain that throughout history, an essential division into “this has more intrinsic value than this” has existed within art. We justify this generalization because it is this level of distinction that’s relevant in the context of this essay. Because, no matter the terminology and criteria, the subcultural music ODIR deals with is quite universally classified into the “lower” category, regardless of what our own opinions are. And it is understandable from many points of view: it is popular in that it is often made by lay musicians for lay people; it is contemporary in that it draws from and influences modern currents; and, as we hope to illustrate, even its proponents often treat it as “low.”

Within the high arts, critique has had a significant role in the evolution and progression of the arts. Critique has served as cultural discourse in interaction with the works of art themselves, as educated commentary and analysis on art instead of mere descriptive reaction. This essay argues that subcultural music writing has especially in more recent times set its standards lower, seeks to show how and why, and propose a more ambitious alternative.

Take a look at most subcultural music reviews: they are wont to be purely descriptive, detailing the music and the opinion of the author. Interviews are typically purely topical. A larger context is often missing in both, any analysis usually being limited to what is being reviewed or who interviewed, instead of the cultural phenomena and currents it is part of and represents. When this context is present, it too is often descriptive more than analytical or reflective. There is little in terms of discourse. In a sense, critique of high art has been seen as, and has seen itself, as a more integral part of the cultural landscape and current.

We freely admit that the above is true for many of ODIR’s reviews as well. Our reviews describe the music and our opinions of it, but often the commentary is limited to just that.

A larger picture requires a more comprehensive, philosophical and even metaphysical perspective on art. What is the role and purpose of art? What makes art good? In short, what makes something art? For example, prior to the renaissance in Europe, the significance of the sacral in art was pronounced. Influenced by Neoplatonism, the role of art was understood as expressing eternal forms more directly than speech (or writing), circumventing the rational and, in a way, accessing the soul of the experiencer directly. From this point of view, and due to the prominent role of religion in society, quite logically good art was such that instilled sensations of the sacred in its audience. Similarly, Traditionalist analysis of art emphasizes the sacred and the authentically Traditional, whether in be in art style or in the ulterior motive. Traditionalism, in its rejection of modernity, has usually had something to say both of the form and spirit of art.

We put forth that it is this larger perspective that is entirely missing from most of what we’ll call subcultural critique. There is often a comprehensive understanding of context, of how a piece of music relates to what has come before and how it stands in relation to contemporaries. But, seldom is any thought given to the metaphysical e.g., what gives art meaning and significance, and how the current piece reflects that. Even as passionate proponents of the worth and value of subcultural art, far too often we implicitly relegate it to the role of pure entertainment. We entirely ignore, or even deny, a philosophical and existential relevance for the music we listen to and review.

Of course, there are exceptions – notable exceptions! – that have not only engaged in truly profound critique, but have through it significantly impacted subcultural currents. We do, however, maintain that they are the exception to the rule. And that there is less and less ambition to even attempt such impacting and meaningful critique. We also do not claim all reviewers of high art to be philosophers versed in metaphysics of art, but we do suggest that there is a stronger predilection towards a more philosophical analysis.

Part of the lack of the above in subcultural music critique is, of course, because most of us who write it are laymen, even those among us who get paid to do it. And many view themselves as such, in a derogatory sense. Instead of seeing ourselves as dilettantes in the archaic meaning of the word, as amateurs who have deep devotion and erudition but little academical proficiency in our field, who’d be able to make profound commentary based on that erudition. And so, we reduce our role to what is essentially reactive commentary. There isn’t even an aspiration for the cultural discourse and commentary that has played an important role in the critique of high art.

Subcultural music writing is usually grassroots level, by fans for fans. There is much to be said in favour of this, especially in how it reclaims culture from distant, alienated would-be authorities. However, it also makes easy lowering the bar where it should not be lowered. This, coupled with the ever-increasing pace of media – content needs to be fast, brief, and easy to digest to be marketable and social media algorithm compatible – drives subcultural, popular music critique and journalism towards a shallow and tepid approach that says very little of true essence.

In some ways, the critique of high art is philosophy in practice. In one aspect, it’s an application of the ideals and metaphysics of art, an analysis of how the piece under scrutiny manifests these. In another, it is a larger commentary on contemporary art overall, recognizing where the piece under review fits in cultural currents and what it speaks of them; an analysis both historical and metaphysical. And, in an ideal situation, it is genuine discourse in the sense that art critique may affect art itself, just as art affects the experiencer.

How often can subcultural music writing – the review of a metal album, for example – be described as philosophy in practice? The question is rhetorical, of course, and the answer obvious. This reduces subcultural music writing into something incidental, its commentary into background noise, and as a result, trivializes both itself and subculture.

We’re not proposing a project to promote subcultural music – metal, punk or rap – to the stature of high art in the eyes of the “art establishment.” Instead, what we’re suggesting is that there is no reason why subcultural art critique should not be ambitious in a similar way, and claim the same role. As reviewers and writers, we should have some understanding of the metaphysics of art, some philosophy on what gives art genuine meaning instead of pure functionality (or why functionality is meaning), and apply it to our writing instead of merely saying we like or don’t like something in a long-winded fashion.

At the risk of sounding elitist (and those familiar with ODIR won’t be surprised we’re not entirely opposed to certain forms of elitism), we realize that some writers may be incapable of this, because they operate in a purely reaction-driven fashion. Their writing does not aspire to be dilettante as defined earlier, because they’ve never given any thought to the philosophical and metaphysical aspects. Their horizon is essentially limited to the above “I like this/I don’t like this”, and possibly some enunciation based on a purely descriptive understanding of cultural context. A philosophical and metaphysical level is out of their depth – and perhaps they don’t even consider the popular music they write about to be art.

We’re not trying to define what these ideals of art are. Indeed, it is essential for meaningful discourse that there should be a multitude of voices and ideals, some of which are in harmony and some of which are discordant. We ourselves have a certain affinity to the ideal, informed by Neoplatonism, of art speaking of eternal forms directly to the soul, but certainly don’t aspire to establish it as the only perspective. But that’s not the point we’re making. The point is the necessity of these considerations, and of having these ruminations inform the critique.

We also recognize how hard it is to reconcile our somewhat Neoplatonic and/or Traditionalist views on art with the wide spectrum of music we cover. Ambient and neofolk: certainly, at least an aspiration to a more profound level often exists. But what about juggalo rap or oi!, which most would view as inherently profane forms of music? In what way do they tap into the numinous? Perhaps that is a field we must explore in the future!

Furthermore, we’re not demanding that every single piece of music writing should be an essay on metaphysics. That would be nothing but pretentious and, we daresay, unreadable. What we’re saying is that these considerations should always be there in the background: a more ambitious, profound understanding of subcultural music as embodying the ideals and principles of art as a foundation for our writing. We’re calling for deeper analysis and reflection on what gives art significance and how this is reflected in the music we write about; for writing that is not purely topical, but seeks to ask and answer deeper questions; for texts that seek to present ideas and establish dialogue. In short, critique that dares to demand some agency instead of timidly observing.

In essence, we’re lamenting the lack of ambition and vision in much of hobbyist underground writing. We’re lamenting its narrow horizons and eagerness to relegate itself to mere sidelines commentary instead of engaging in discourse. We’re lamenting its lack of using the soapbox, no matter how small it is, to say something more meaningful than “this is good” or “this is bad.” We’re lamenting the fact that most writers don’t believe they have anything more profound to say – or that they really don’t have.

And, having said all of the above, we recognize we’ve set ourselves in a position to put our money where our mouths are, and at least try to shift our writing in a direction that expresses this deeper philosophy better.