Great Metal Lead Guitar Playing (Fuck You gOD)
kc...@anti-social.com
> >Hmmmz I think the Slayer leads contribute to the sheer outrage of their
> >work; Reign In Blood is amongst the most extreme works in my
> >collection.... I sometimes bother my corridor mates with a good load of
> >metal and they'd rather hear hyperblast death metal than Slayer - "Reign
> >In Blood"... They simply cannot cope with it >=)
> >I find the Seasons Of The Abyss leads among the lesser of their work...
> >The old Slayer is simply fucking insane, after that they started to turn
> >boring, which seems to be "mature".
>
> Just thought it was interesting that anyone ever considered Slayer
> leads to be good, because I had always assumed it was a given that
> they were something of a joke. They screech, and wail, yet go
> absolutely nowhere. In most cases, they do not build on or even have
> anything to do with the rest of the music.
I disagree. They are genius. They are not written in a conventional style of
music, hence most people are blinded to their value. Their carelessness
enhances this style through obscurity and harmonization.
> A lot of people seem to be down on In Flames, which I don't quite
> understand. Personally, I think they're excellent, but I'm obviously
> not going to convert you. They may not be traditional Death Metal,
> but they're hardly "Pop." I will take the Gothenburg bands over 90%
> of current American Death Metal any day.
They are traditional _heavy_ metal.
> >> Dissection "Thorns of Crimson Death,"
> >
> >You can't really mean this... While I find "Storm Of The Light's Bane" a
> >worthwhile album (the first half of it, that is) this lead adds
> >virtually nothing to the music... A melancholic riff-accompaniment,
> >completely in the harmonic scale... Nothing new, innovative, virtuose,
> >additive or functional even, there. Or did I miss something?
> >I'm not huffing glue by the way... I just have a cold turkey right now.
>
> Okay, so this may not be the best example, but it was off the top of
> my head. What I do like about this one is that it conveys so much
> atmosphere and feeling, which I find vastly more important than the
> number of notes per second.
It conveys a static atmosphere and feeling; it is the aspect you react to,
and not what has been said in the music. That being said, Dissection is
still kick ass.
> Hyper-speed guitar solos bore the shit
> out of me unless they have some sort of feeling behind them.
Morbid Angel: the feeling is in the head, from realization and not from
reaction.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Goatload
>
>
>> A lot of people seem to be down on In Flames, which I don't quite
>> understand. Personally, I think they're excellent, but I'm obviously
>> not going to convert you. They may not be traditional Death Metal,
>> but they're hardly "Pop." I will take the Gothenburg bands over 90%
>> of current American Death Metal any day.
>
>They are traditional _heavy_ metal.
>
In a sense, yes, although minus the traditional castrato singer.
Personally, I have no problem with their being classified simply as
Heavy Metal. The endless sub-classifications have gone far enough,
IMO.
>> >> Dissection "Thorns of Crimson Death,"
>> >
>> >You can't really mean this... While I find "Storm Of The Light's Bane" a
>> >worthwhile album (the first half of it, that is) this lead adds
>> >virtually nothing to the music... A melancholic riff-accompaniment,
>> >completely in the harmonic scale... Nothing new, innovative, virtuose,
>> >additive or functional even, there. Or did I miss something?
>> >I'm not huffing glue by the way... I just have a cold turkey right now.
>>
>> Okay, so this may not be the best example, but it was off the top of
>> my head. What I do like about this one is that it conveys so much
>> atmosphere and feeling, which I find vastly more important than the
>> number of notes per second.
In hindsight, the inclusion of this track was probably a mistake,
although I truly love it. Unfortunately, I hadn't listened to it in a
while when I initially posted. The actual "solo" -- meaning the lead
break towards the end -- is not particularly stunning, I agree. What
I was reacting to, and what I remembered most, are the numerous leads
and accents Jon plays over the top of most of the song. I suppose you
could argue about what technically constitutes a lead and what
constitutes a riff, but in any event, that was the aspect of the music
I was reacting to. It's the overall feel of the track that sticks
with me, but not any particular moment within it. Again, probably a
mistake to include it in this context, but a fucking majestic song
regardless.
>
>It conveys a static atmosphere and feeling; it is the aspect you react to,
>and not what has been said in the music. That being said, Dissection is
>still kick ass.
>
>> Hyper-speed guitar solos bore the shit
>> out of me unless they have some sort of feeling behind them.
>
>Morbid Angel: the feeling is in the head, from realization and not from
>reaction.
>
I don't know about Morbid Angel, because I stopped listening after
Altars of Madness, but there ARE some hyper-speed solos which I think
are incredible. I just don't think they are the end-all and be-all of
guitar playing.
Paul Wilbur
> On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 01:43:20 GMT, kc...@anti-social.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> >> A lot of people seem to be down on In Flames, which I don't quite
> >> understand. Personally, I think they're excellent, but I'm obviously
> >> not going to convert you. They may not be traditional Death Metal,
> >> but they're hardly "Pop." I will take the Gothenburg bands over 90%
> >> of current American Death Metal any day.
> >
> >They are traditional _heavy_ metal.
> >
> In a sense, yes, although minus the traditional castrato singer.
> Personally, I have no problem with their being classified simply as
> Heavy Metal. The endless sub-classifications have gone far enough,
> IMO.
I wouldn't call In Flames "Traditional" heavy metal, but they aren't black
metal either. I think they are a good blend of both which is why people
into black or traditional styles like them so much.
Paul
kc...@anti-social.com
> > In a sense, yes, although minus the traditional castrato singer.
> > Personally, I have no problem with their being classified simply as
> > Heavy Metal. The endless sub-classifications have gone far enough,
> > IMO.
>
> I wouldn't call In Flames "Traditional" heavy metal, but they aren't black
> metal either. I think they are a good blend of both which is why people
> into black or traditional styles like them so much.
They're heavy metal. The only "black metal" element is the vocals, which are
unimportant.
ten...@davis.com
>I wouldn't call In Flames "Traditional" heavy metal, but they aren't black
>metal either. I think they are a good blend of both which is why people
>into black or traditional styles like them so much.
>
And people in need of a nap! :-)
How's it going, bitch? My toilet still needs cleaning...give it a good
tonguing...
We're playing at The Cactus Club on Jan 3...is that worth mentioning
on KDVS, or is too far to go for most people?
Merry Fucking Christmas
John
*
*
*
******
*
cont...@my-dejanews.com
BLACK SABBATH FRONT ROW TICKETS!
You want 'em? Go to the Ultimate Band List
"http://ubl.com" and enter to win a pair of front
row tix to the Reunion tour. While you're
there, why don't you check out the new
OFFICIAL stores: "http://ozzydirect.com" and
"http://blacksabbathdirect.com"
Pick up the new album, t-shirt and lots more.
It's all at: "http://content.ubl.com/cca/
black_sabbath". Good Luck from the UBL!
Note: this cross-post was done with careful
consideration of the subject matter of each
newsgroup on which it was posted.
Keep it LOUD!
technic...@my-dejanews.com
Paul Wilbur <dapi...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> I wouldn't call In Flames "Traditional" heavy metal, but they aren't black
> metal either. I think they are a good blend of both which is why people
> into black or traditional styles like them so much.
They are a blend of death metal and heavy metal. They have no black metal
elements whatsoever. Those who listen only to black metal would vomit on In
Flames, because of their use of happy, upbeat, melodies.
John Chedsey
>
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.04.981218...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu>,
> Paul Wilbur <dapi...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> > I wouldn't call In Flames "Traditional" heavy metal, but they aren't black
> > metal either. I think they are a good blend of both which is why people
> > into black or traditional styles like them so much.
>
> They are a blend of death metal and heavy metal. They have no black metal
> elements whatsoever. Those who listen only to black metal would vomit on In
> Flames, because of their use of happy, upbeat, melodies.
Those who limit themselves that much to any one single genre have my
pity...
--
====================
Satan Stole My Teddybear
http://www.chedsey.com
Mastiphal
technic...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<75grc4$dut$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <Pine.GSO.4.04.981218...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu>,
> Paul Wilbur <dapi...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>> I wouldn't call In Flames "Traditional" heavy metal, but they aren't
black
>> metal either. I think they are a good blend of both which is why people
>> into black or traditional styles like them so much.
>
>They are a blend of death metal and heavy metal. They have no black metal
>elements whatsoever. Those who listen only to black metal would vomit on
In
>Flames, because of their use of happy, upbeat, melodies.
>
Perhaps however, listen to OLD In Flames like Lunar Strain.. It is much
different than Jester Race and Whoracle. You can hear the black metal
influences within the music, although I would never go as far as saying they
were black metal.
kc...@anti-social.com
Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you JESSUS CHRISST
In article <75gnv7$b96$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
cont...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Wishful thinking eh?
> BLACK SABBATH FRONT ROW TICKETS!
> You want 'em? Go to the Ultimate Band List
> "http://ubl.com" and enter to win a pair of front
> row tix to the Reunion tour. While you're
> there, why don't you check out the new
> OFFICIAL stores: "http://ozzydirect.com" and
> "http://blacksabbathdirect.com"
> Pick up the new album, t-shirt and lots more.
> It's all at: "http://content.ubl.com/cca/
> black_sabbath". Good Luck from the UBL!
>
> Note: this cross-post was done with careful
> consideration of the subject matter of each
> newsgroup on which it was posted.
>
> Keep it LOUD!
>
goden
vomited forth:
>In article <Pine.GSO.4.04.981218...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu>,
> Paul Wilbur <dapi...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>> I wouldn't call In Flames "Traditional" heavy metal, but they aren't black
>> metal either. I think they are a good blend of both which is why people
>> into black or traditional styles like them so much.
>
>They are a blend of death metal and heavy metal. They have no black metal
>elements whatsoever. Those who listen only to black metal would vomit on In
>Flames, because of their use of happy, upbeat, melodies.
Have you heard Children of Bodom? They sound much happier than In
Flames. Damn, they fucking suck. I can't believe they're from Finland.
--
"Just stay put, shit-face!"
-some guy, 'Cannibal Ferox'
Eternal Frost Webzine
<http://www.mindspring.com/~goden/eternalfrost/>
Mike
fucking sucked.. so I traded it away.. I hear they're like heroes in
Finland.. that every lil guitarist wants to be like Children Of Bodom..
scary huh? ;-)
goden
vomited forth:
>I agree... COB sux ass.. I had their "Something Wild" CD for a lil while..
>fucking sucked.. so I traded it away.. I hear they're like heroes in
>Finland.. that every lil guitarist wants to be like Children Of Bodom..
>scary huh? ;-)
I've been told they're in those teeny mags over there. Kinda like the
shit we have here called "Bop Magazine". They are the Hanson of heavy
metal.
Sybren
>Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you JESSUS CHRISST
"Murder me, murder me, I am your antichrist"
Sybren
--
__________________________________________________________________
THORHEIM
"Duisternis valt...het Licht dooft in de harten der Mensen"
http://www.lr.tudelft.nl/~lr332090/thorheim.htm
__________________________________________________________________
kc...@anti-social.com
> > They are a blend of death metal and heavy metal. They have no black metal
> > elements whatsoever. Those who listen only to black metal would vomit on In
> > Flames, because of their use of happy, upbeat, melodies.
>
> Those who limit themselves that much to any one single genre have my
> pity...
Seems to me it's a single subgenre; one could listen to only (black) metal and
still have a musical life elsewhere. Also, I see nothing wrong with it -
metal's subgenres are divisions based on compositional tendencies, and if one
finds truth more in one than the others, where's the crisis?
Also cf. Nietzsche "Genealogy of Morals" re: pity.
kc...@anti-social.com
S.J.He...@lr.tudelft.nl wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 21:20:02 GMT, kc...@anti-social.com wrote:
>
> >Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you JESSUS CHRISST
>
> "Murder me, murder me, I am your antichrist"
WHAT the FUCK is a "Furby"?
I don't need society.
Paul Wilbur
>
>
> >I wouldn't call In Flames "Traditional" heavy metal, but they aren't black
> >metal either. I think they are a good blend of both which is why people
> >into black or traditional styles like them so much.
> >
> And people in need of a nap! :-)
Nah. I get my sleep when you guys play! :)
>
> How's it going, bitch? My toilet still needs cleaning...give it a good
> tonguing...
>
> We're playing at The Cactus Club on Jan 3...is that worth mentioning
> on KDVS, or is too far to go for most people?
It's worth mention. Did you send down info?
>
> Merry Fucking Christmas
>
Thanks, fucker.
> John
Paul
>
> *
> *
> *
> ******
> *
P.S. Your cross needs work.
Paul Wilbur
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.04.981218...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu>,
> Paul Wilbur <dapi...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> > I wouldn't call In Flames "Traditional" heavy metal, but they aren't black
> > metal either. I think they are a good blend of both which is why people
> > into black or traditional styles like them so much.
>
> They are a blend of death metal and heavy metal. They have no black metal
> elements whatsoever. Those who listen only to black metal would vomit on In
> Flames, because of their use of happy, upbeat, melodies.
If your idea of "true black metal" is thinly produced speed/noise with
screechy vocals then you may be right. I still love the "happy, upbeat"
part though. I don't claim that Satan rockets out of my speakers when I
listen to In Flames, but their music is hardly upbeat (except for the Gary
Hoey-style track on Jester's). Whatever though, puke on In Flames if you
like. Anybody who "only listens to black metal" is severly lacking the
capacity to recognize the difference between good and bad outside "black
metal" anyway.
Paul
Paul Wilbur
> On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 18:30:27 GMT, technic...@my-dejanews.com
> vomited forth:
>
> >In article <Pine.GSO.4.04.981218...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu>,
> > Paul Wilbur <dapi...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> >> I wouldn't call In Flames "Traditional" heavy metal, but they aren't black
> >> metal either. I think they are a good blend of both which is why people
> >> into black or traditional styles like them so much.
> >
> >They are a blend of death metal and heavy metal. They have no black metal
> >elements whatsoever. Those who listen only to black metal would vomit on In
> >Flames, because of their use of happy, upbeat, melodies.
>
> Have you heard Children of Bodom? They sound much happier than In
> Flames. Damn, they fucking suck. I can't believe they're from Finland.
Yeah, I heard they broke up. I have that CD, I love it! Oh sure, it's
cheesy, but when I am in the mood for King Diamond meets black metal
vocals meets Yngwie Malmsteen it does the trick!
Paul
Paul Wilbur
>
>
> > > They are a blend of death metal and heavy metal. They have no black metal
> > > elements whatsoever. Those who listen only to black metal would vomit on In
> > > Flames, because of their use of happy, upbeat, melodies.
> >
> > Those who limit themselves that much to any one single genre have my
> > pity...
>
> Seems to me it's a single subgenre; one could listen to only (black) metal and
> still have a musical life elsewhere. Also, I see nothing wrong with it -
> metal's subgenres are divisions based on compositional tendencies, and if one
> finds truth more in one than the others, where's the crisis?
Oh evilmusic, back to your old tricks again. There is no "crisis". The
fact that someone wants to only listen to "black metal" is their business.
If they can grow and mature by doing so, great. However, IMO it is a
huge restraint to put on yourself and limits your ability to see "beyond
blackmetal" and leaves you at the mercy of the genre. That's fine. No
crisis.
Paul
John Chedsey
I don't think he understands the concept of limiting oneself as he lives
encapsulated within such a small "truth". One can never discover
alternate truths by keeping oneself isolated. Besides, one genre or
subgenre (which of course is narrower) would get extremely tiresome
after awhile and cause severe mental hemmoraging.
Thank goodness I can put on Tori Amos and find enjoyment.
Devamitra
> Anybody who "only listens to black metal" is severly lacking the
> capacity to recognize the difference between good and bad outside "black
> metal" anyway.
No. Lack of interest does not imply disrespect or lack of appreciation.
--
Devamitra
H E I L S A T A N
"The ancient white light writings
were just lying men and their pens.
You are the same, only in black.
Return with the knowledge
of making your own god"
SUPPORT THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN HOLOCAUST
kc...@anti-social.com
> > Oh evilmusic, back to your old tricks again. There is no "crisis". The
> > fact that someone wants to only listen to "black metal" is their business.
> > If they can grow and mature by doing so, great. However, IMO it is a
> > huge restraint to put on yourself and limits your ability to see "beyond
> > blackmetal" and leaves you at the mercy of the genre. That's fine. No
> > crisis.
Wow, an "autoflame" by both of you guys in the same post. I am cheered and
amused!
(Paul Wilbur misinterprets the pass and stumbles into the endzone, scoring
against his own team to close out the play.)
> I don't think he understands the concept of limiting oneself as he lives
> encapsulated within such a small "truth". One can never discover
> alternate truths by keeping oneself isolated. Besides, one genre or
> subgenre (which of course is narrower) would get extremely tiresome
> after awhile and cause severe mental hemmoraging.
This is exactly what I'd expect from someone who treats music as a commodity
as you do, John. One genre is as diverse as all others - if you can see into
art and not just the product you are buying.
> Thank goodness I can put on Tori Amos and find enjoyment.
Obviously not a very astute reader of my past playlists.
kc...@anti-social.com
> > Have you heard Children of Bodom? They sound much happier than In
> > Flames. Damn, they fucking suck. I can't believe they're from Finland.
>
> Yeah, I heard they broke up. I have that CD, I love it! Oh sure, it's
> cheesy, but when I am in the mood for King Diamond meets black metal
> vocals meets Yngwie Malmsteen it does the trick!
I didn't think you guys would top your commodity expression of art today, but
you have. When you see these things as ingredients, you are seeing them as
elements with composite characteristics unified into a single consistent
attribute - which is to say, you view them as products which have not
significance but a value in the aesthetic of their content, e.g. an
abstraction of their meaning to a single duplicatable value. I don't expect
you to understand the previous paragraph on the first read but anyone who
gives it a solid shot will understand this complex but rewarding concept.
Annatar Gorthaur
>
> On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 technic...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.GSO.4.04.981218...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu>,
> > Paul Wilbur <dapi...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> > > I wouldn't call In Flames "Traditional" heavy metal, but they aren't black
> > > metal either. I think they are a good blend of both which is why people
> > > into black or traditional styles like them so much.
> >
> > elements whatsoever. Those who listen only to black metal would vomit on In
> > Flames, because of their use of happy, upbeat, melodies.
>
> screechy vocals then you may be right. I still love the "happy, upbeat"
> part though. I don't claim that Satan rockets out of my speakers when I
> listen to In Flames, but their music is hardly upbeat (except for the Gary
> Hoey-style track on Jester's).
What exactly are the black metal influences in In Flames?
Whatever though, puke on In Flames if you
> like. Anybody who "only listens to black metal" is severly lacking the
> capacity to recognize the difference between good and bad outside "black
> metal" anyway.
Non-sensical stereotyping of all black metal fans.
Someone has heard all different kinds of music and does not find
profoundness in most kind of music, except in black metal... He always
returns to black metal. Thus, he has heard everything and recognizes
art, yet ends up *listening* to black metal. I do not agree wholly with
such a person, but that person is far more profound than most people...
It's not about how many genres you listen to (the usual vocabulary can
be conjured up again: aesthetics, sheep thinking, etc...) it's about
whether you can or can not appreciate art.
Annatar Gorthaur
> Paul
goden
>
>
>> > Have you heard Children of Bodom? They sound much happier than In
>> > Flames. Damn, they fucking suck. I can't believe they're from Finland.
>>
>> Yeah, I heard they broke up. I have that CD, I love it! Oh sure, it's
>> cheesy, but when I am in the mood for King Diamond meets black metal
>> vocals meets Yngwie Malmsteen it does the trick!
>
>I didn't think you guys would top your commodity expression of art today, but
>you have. When you see these things as ingredients, you are seeing them as
>elements with composite characteristics unified into a single consistent
>attribute - which is to say, you view them as products which have not
>significance but a value in the aesthetic of their content, e.g. an
>abstraction of their meaning to a single duplicatable value. I don't expect
>you to understand the previous paragraph on the first read but anyone who
>gives it a solid shot will understand this complex but rewarding concept.
All this says is you haven't heard Children of Bodom. They stink.
John Chedsey
> All this says is you haven't heard Children of Bodom. They stink.
I kinda liked this CD...but then again, I got it for 2 bucks and really
haven't listened to it since the summer. It's not as bad as everyone
makes it out to be. There is worse (Mundanus Imperium has risen to my
current band to call the worst).
James S Kang
> Thank goodness I can put on Tori Amos and find enjoyment.
Tori Amos is the most overrated musician on earth. Whispering does not make
you "artistic" and lyrical righteous topics don't make the music good
automatically.
John Chedsey
Whatever. It's the quality of the compositions and the overall ability
to affect my mood and grab my attention. It's good stuff. I would
wager you're the one missing out.
Paul Wilbur
>
>
> > > Oh evilmusic, back to your old tricks again. There is no "crisis". The
> > > fact that someone wants to only listen to "black metal" is their business.
> > > If they can grow and mature by doing so, great. However, IMO it is a
> > > huge restraint to put on yourself and limits your ability to see "beyond
> > > blackmetal" and leaves you at the mercy of the genre. That's fine. No
> > > crisis.
>
> Wow, an "autoflame" by both of you guys in the same post. I am cheered and
> amused!
>
> (Paul Wilbur misinterprets the pass and stumbles into the endzone, scoring
> against his own team to close out the play.)
"Misinterprets the pass"? Once again, your metaphor falls short evilmusic.
I'm used to it. Oh, and reread my post, I hardly call what I typed a
"flame". You want discussion, I was giving you discussion. There was
nothing in my post that you should have taken as an attack.
>
> > I don't think he understands the concept of limiting oneself as he lives
> > encapsulated within such a small "truth". One can never discover
> > alternate truths by keeping oneself isolated. Besides, one genre or
> > subgenre (which of course is narrower) would get extremely tiresome
> > after awhile and cause severe mental hemmoraging.
>
> This is exactly what I'd expect from someone who treats music as a commodity
> as you do, John. One genre is as diverse as all others - if you can see into
> art and not just the product you are buying.
>
> > Thank goodness I can put on Tori Amos and find enjoyment.
>
> Obviously not a very astute reader of my past playlists.
The one thing I have learned about evilmusic is that he does not truly
believe what he types. You made some Peter Gabriel references months ago
and I knew that his words here, in this ng, are simply posted for
amusement. He does not take it seriously. Oh sure, he may be into black
metal, but that's not all he's into. I don't know what the motivation for
that could be, except for entertainment, which he accussed others of
pursueing here as well.
Paul
N. Evermind
James S Kang wrote:
> John Chedsey (kraz...@peakpeak.com) wrote:
>
> > Thank goodness I can put on Tori Amos and find enjoyment.
>
> Tori Amos is the most overrated musician on earth.
I personally think she's rather under-rated. Rejected by the mainstream *and*
the "alternative". Not necessarily a bad thing. Besides, most teenage girls
listen to her for all the wrong reasons. There isnt the typical, inarticulate
"angst" in her music which is prevalent in most of today's alternative music.
There's something purer and more "subliminal" in the mood that most of these
teenage hormone-laden girls completely miss.
> Whispering does not make
> you "artistic"
This is pointless - a secondary judgement of the music. "Playing fast" or
"growling" doesnt make you "artistic" either - and yet we love black metal. The
art is intangible - which is precisely why there's no "formula" to create
successful art, and which is why people often have "all the right moves" and
yet fail at it. Tori Amos is an excellent vocalist - she has a unique style, a
powerful yet soothing voice, and is not a commercial whore.
> and lyrical righteous topics don't make the music good
> automatically.
Of course they dont. But they contribute to the effectiveness and the
credibility of the delivery.
You're terribly cynical, Kang.
--
- nevermind
"Somniferous whisperings of scarlet fields
Sleep calling me and my dreams and wondrous
My reality abandoned (I traverse afar)
Not a care if I never wake"
- Everwake, by Anathema
N. Evermind
kc...@anti-social.com wrote:
> > > Oh evilmusic, back to your old tricks again. There is no "crisis". The
> > > fact that someone wants to only listen to "black metal" is their business.
> > > If they can grow and mature by doing so, great. However, IMO it is a
> > > huge restraint to put on yourself and limits your ability to see "beyond
> > > blackmetal" and leaves you at the mercy of the genre. That's fine. No
> > > crisis.
>
> Wow, an "autoflame" by both of you guys in the same post. I am cheered and
> amused!
That is called "disagreement". For all your vocabulary, you have trouble
differentiating between "flame" and "disagreement".
Or is this some sort of prolepsised paranoia?
> (Paul Wilbur misinterprets the pass and stumbles into the endzone, scoring
> against his own team to close out the play.)
>
> > I don't think he understands the concept of limiting oneself as he lives
> > encapsulated within such a small "truth". One can never discover
> > alternate truths by keeping oneself isolated. Besides, one genre or
> > subgenre (which of course is narrower) would get extremely tiresome
> > after awhile and cause severe mental hemmoraging.
>
> This is exactly what I'd expect from someone who treats music as a commodity
> as you do, John.
Your ignorance and condescension is disgusting.
> One genre is as diverse as all others - if you can see into
> art
I agree with this! Dammit!
> > Thank goodness I can put on Tori Amos and find enjoyment.
>
> Obviously not a very astute reader of my past playlists.
Why should it be relevant to him?
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
N. Evermind
Annatar Gorthaur wrote:
> Paul Wilbur wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 technic...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Whatever though, puke on In Flames if you
> > like. Anybody who "only listens to black metal" is severly lacking the
> > capacity to recognize the difference between good and bad outside "black
> > metal" anyway.
>
> Non-sensical stereotyping of all black metal fans.
> Someone has heard all different kinds of music and does not find
> profoundness in most kind of music, except in black metal... He always
> returns to black metal. Thus, he has heard everything and recognizes
> art, yet ends up *listening* to black metal. I do not agree wholly with
> such a person, but that person is far more profound than most people...
How so?
I agree completely with all of what you say above, 'cept for the profundity bit. I
really dont see how listening only to blackmetal makes a person "profound".
> It's not about how many genres you listen to (the usual vocabulary can
> be conjured up again: aesthetics, sheep thinking, etc...) it's about
> whether you can or can not appreciate art.
Very true.
> Annatar Gorthaur
>
> > Paul
technic...@my-dejanews.com
>
> you "artistic" and lyrical righteous topics don't make the music good
> automatically.
Her vocals lack seductiveness. Listening fatigue sets in quickly, regardless
of the fact you may own a Stereophile class A or B digital processor.
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>I'm used to it. Oh, and reread my post, I hardly call what I typed a
>"flame". You want discussion, I was giving you discussion.
It was obviously 100% flame and 0% discussion.
>The one thing I have learned about evilmusic is that he does not truly
>believe what he types. [...]
Ah yes, your bluff gets called and immediately you try another
attack..
--Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
Tiggelman jtig...@gironet.nl (private)
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>Annatar Gorthaur wrote:
>> returns to black metal. Thus, he has heard
>> everything and recognizes art, yet ends up
>> *listening* to black metal. I do not agree wholly
>> with such a person, but that person is far more
>>profound than most people...
>'cept for the profundity bit. I really dont see how
>listening only to blackmetal makes a person
>"profound".
But then, that's not what Anatar said _at all_.
I suggest you re-read the paragraph above..
--Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
Tiggelman jtig...@gironet.nl (private)
James S Kang
> James S Kang wrote:
> > John Chedsey (kraz...@peakpeak.com) wrote:
> >
> > > Thank goodness I can put on Tori Amos and find enjoyment.
> >
> > Tori Amos is the most overrated musician on earth.
> I personally think she's rather under-rated. Rejected by the mainstream *and*
> the "alternative".
Actually, she is totally embraced by the alternative "scene," especially the
critics, who often realte to words more than music, and she fills the
Rosemont Horizon (a local arena).
Not necessarily a bad thing. Besides, most teenage girls
> listen to her for all the wrong reasons. There isnt the typical, inarticulate
> "angst" in her music which is prevalent in most of today's alternative music.
> There's something purer and more "subliminal" in the mood that most of these
> teenage hormone-laden girls completely miss.
> > Whispering does not make
> > you "artistic"
> This is pointless - a secondary judgement of the music. "Playing fast" or
> "growling" doesnt make you "artistic" either
My point is that people (They Who Create the Overrating) assume this, while
playing fast and growling makes one un-artistic in their view.
- and yet we love black metal.
Not me. Except for Emperor sometimes.
The
> art is intangible - which is precisely why there's no "formula" to create
> successful art, and which is why people often have "all the right moves" and
> yet fail at it. Tori Amos is an excellent vocalist - she has a unique style, a
> powerful yet soothing voice, and is not a commercial whore.
Most of that is subjective, but the point is she is overrated.
> > and lyrical righteous topics don't make the music good
> > automatically.
> Of course they dont. But they contribute to the effectiveness and the
> credibility of the delivery.
> You're terribly cynical, Kang.
I respond appropriately.
James S Kang
> James S Kang wrote:
> >
> > John Chedsey (kraz...@peakpeak.com) wrote:
> >
> > > Thank goodness I can put on Tori Amos and find enjoyment.
> >
> > you "artistic" and lyrical righteous topics don't make the music good
> > automatically.
> Whatever. It's the quality of the compositions and the overall ability
> to affect my mood and grab my attention.
"Mood music" is bullshit. Listen to it if you want, but good music (IMO, of
course) works at a lower level than attempted emotional manipulation.
Listening to Tori Amos is like watching a sappy movie.
The compositions all seem very straightforward and two-voiced to me.
That's fine it may be what the songs need, but there's nothing to admire
compositionally.
It's good stuff. I would
> wager you're the one missing out.
So I've heard.
I'm really tired of this I listen to X therefore I'm more open-minded
name-dropping ridiculousness.
John Chedsey
>
> John Chedsey (kraz...@peakpeak.com) wrote:
> > James S Kang wrote:
> > >
> > > John Chedsey (kraz...@peakpeak.com) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thank goodness I can put on Tori Amos and find enjoyment.
> > >
> > > Tori Amos is the most overrated musician on earth. Whispering does not make
> > > you "artistic" and lyrical righteous topics don't make the music good
> > > automatically.
>
> > Whatever. It's the quality of the compositions and the overall ability
> > to affect my mood and grab my attention.
>
> "Mood music" is bullshit.
You mean nothing you listen to affects your mood? C'mon, don't be coy.
I like certain black metal bands because of their ability to affect my
mood.
> Listen to it if you want, but good music (IMO, of
> course) works at a lower level than attempted emotional manipulation.
> Listening to Tori Amos is like watching a sappy movie.
Maybe for you. That's fine.
> The compositions all seem very straightforward and two-voiced to me.
> That's fine it may be what the songs need, but there's nothing to admire
> compositionally.
>
> It's good stuff. I would
> > wager you're the one missing out.
>
> So I've heard.
>
> I'm really tired of this I listen to X therefore I'm more open-minded
> name-dropping ridiculousness.
So why do you respond to it?
John Chedsey
> > John Chedsey (kraz...@peakpeak.com) wrote:
> >
> > > Thank goodness I can put on Tori Amos and find enjoyment.
> >
> > Tori Amos is the most overrated musician on earth. Whispering does not make
> > you "artistic" and lyrical righteous topics don't make the music good
> > automatically.
>
> of the fact you may own a Stereophile class A or B digital processor.
Not everyone is seducted by every thing or the same thing. To each his
own....
John Chedsey
>
> >> > Whatever. It's the quality of the compositions and the overall ability
> >> > to affect my mood and grab my attention.
> >>
> >> "Mood music" is bullshit.
> >
> >You mean nothing you listen to affects your mood? C'mon, don't be coy.
> >I like certain black metal bands because of their ability to affect my
> >mood.
>
> mood. to start: one is crap and one isnt. the former is on the same
> level as a "relaxation tape".
I suppose so. But if you look at the above statements, I twice said
"affect your mood" while the other said mood music. For example, Lycia
affects my mood greatly. Sounds of Nature is for my mom's weird new age
friends.
John Chedsey
>
> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 17:42:02 -0700, John Chedsey
> >Not everyone is seducted by every thing or the same thing. To each his
> >own....
>
I figured I'd let you field this one and take part in the great
adventures.
John Chedsey
>
> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 20:53:06 -0700, John Chedsey
> <kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>
> >Ninnghizhidda wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > Whatever. It's the quality of the compositions and the overall ability
> >> >> > to affect my mood and grab my attention.
> >> >>
> >> >> "Mood music" is bullshit.
> >> >
> >> >You mean nothing you listen to affects your mood? C'mon, don't be coy.
> >> >I like certain black metal bands because of their ability to affect my
> >> >mood.
> >>
> >> there's a difference between "mood music" and music that affects your
> >> mood. to start: one is crap and one isnt. the former is on the same
> >> level as a "relaxation tape".
> >
> >I suppose so. But if you look at the above statements, I twice said
> >"affect your mood" while the other said mood music.
>
> renamed "music that affects your mood" as "mood music"
You're reaaalllly stretching this one. I'm looking for what it is
you're talking about and finding nothing to support your statements.
Brother. Anything for usenet "discussion". Sigh.
> (read: you
> affirmed the equivalence by acting as if it was implied). besides, you
> (or was it paul?) were talking about something very similar relating
> to moods at an earlier time.
Might want to have some reference in the future. I think you're
grasping at straws to continue kicking what is a dead horse.
>
> therefore - my critique was not uncalled for.
Nah. Just useless.
John Chedsey
>
> Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>
> > <kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > John Chedsey (kraz...@peakpeak.com) wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Thank goodness I can put on Tori Amos and find enjoyment.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Tori Amos is the most overrated musician on earth. Whispering does not make
> > >> > > you "artistic" and lyrical righteous topics don't make the music good
> > >> > > automatically.
> > >>
> > >> > to affect my mood and grab my attention.
> > >>
> > >> "Mood music" is bullshit.
> > >
> > >You mean nothing you listen to affects your mood? C'mon, don't be coy.
> > >I like certain black metal bands because of their ability to affect my
> > >mood.
> >
> > there's a difference between "mood music" and music that affects your
> > mood. to start: one is crap and one isnt. the former is on the same
> > level as a "relaxation tape".
>
> term. Satankat was saying that Tori Amos affects his mood, which I dont see a problem
> with. In fact, where does "mood music" come in, anway?
It's just something thrown in to stir up the cauldron. Typical day in
the ng.
John Chedsey
> well? either it was you or paul; i dont know where the post went, and
> honestly i dont care, because it was said by _someone_.
Gosh...those phantom posters are *everywhere*!
Paul Wilbur
> Paul Wilbur wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 technic...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Pine.GSO.4.04.981218...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu>,
> > > Paul Wilbur <dapi...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> > > > I wouldn't call In Flames "Traditional" heavy metal, but they aren't black
> > > > metal either. I think they are a good blend of both which is why people
> > > > into black or traditional styles like them so much.
> > >
> > > They are a blend of death metal and heavy metal. They have no black metal
> > > elements whatsoever. Those who listen only to black metal would vomit on In
> > > Flames, because of their use of happy, upbeat, melodies.
> >
> > If your idea of "true black metal" is thinly produced speed/noise with
> > screechy vocals then you may be right. I still love the "happy, upbeat"
> > part though. I don't claim that Satan rockets out of my speakers when I
> > listen to In Flames, but their music is hardly upbeat (except for the Gary
> > Hoey-style track on Jester's).
>
> What exactly are the black metal influences in In Flames?
That's a baited question. First, I must define "black metal" and then hope
it meets your definition, which it probably won't.
>
> Whatever though, puke on In Flames if you
> > like. Anybody who "only listens to black metal" is severly lacking the
> > capacity to recognize the difference between good and bad outside "black
> > metal" anyway.
>
> Non-sensical stereotyping of all black metal fans.
No. Not all black metal fans "only listen to black metal". So it is not a
stereotyping of all black metal fans, only those who judge without any
knowledge of other genres.
> Someone has heard all different kinds of music and does not find
> profoundness in most kind of music, except in black metal... He always
> returns to black metal.
Stereotyping? What if the "he" is a "she"? The "profoundness" a person may
seek can be found in other genres, but obviously you have listened to it
all and deemed it ALL unworthy. I have not made this error.
Thus, he has heard everything and recognizes
> art, yet ends up *listening* to black metal. I do not agree wholly with
> such a person, but that person is far more profound than most people...
> It's not about how many genres you listen to (the usual vocabulary can
> be conjured up again: aesthetics, sheep thinking, etc...) it's about
> whether you can or can not appreciate art.
Art? What is art Annatar? Define it. Art is subjective and if you think
that classical music is not "artistic" then this conversation is done.
Ever heard the DJ Shadow album "Entroducing"? Is that art? It's not black
metal, so I guess us "sheep" must have a distorted sense of "art" if we
find it deeply profound.
Paul
> > Annatar Gorthaur >
> > Paul
>
>
Paul Wilbur
> technic...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <75jmma$7...@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
> > holy-ghost@nwuSPAM_HOLOCAUST.edu wrote:
> > > John Chedsey (kraz...@peakpeak.com) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thank goodness I can put on Tori Amos and find enjoyment.
> > >
> > > Tori Amos is the most overrated musician on earth. Whispering does not make
> > > you "artistic" and lyrical righteous topics don't make the music good
> > > automatically.
> >
> > Her vocals lack seductiveness. Listening fatigue sets in quickly, regardless
> > of the fact you may own a Stereophile class A or B digital processor.
>
> Not everyone is seducted by every thing or the same thing. To each his
> own....
Plus, a good female vocalist doesn't always have to "seduce" be good.
Although Heather Nova has that effect on me! There SSMT, now I can start
taking the heat for this pointless attack.
Paul
Paul Wilbur
>
>
> Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman wrote:
>
> > Paul Wilbur <dapi...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> > >I'm used to it. Oh, and reread my post, I hardly call what I typed a
> > >"flame". You want discussion, I was giving you discussion.
> >
> > It was obviously 100% flame and 0% discussion.
>
> Hardly. It might've been mildly aggressive, but no way was it a flame.
>
> This is what I would call a flame:
>
> YOUR MOMMA IS FAT!!!!!!
>
> Paul's post was nothing like that.
Thank you. I have tried discussion with evilmusic here, but maybe my past
haunts my current posts. I could understand if he thinks I am only here to
cause him grief, but that is not my intention.
>
> > >The one thing I have learned about evilmusic is that he does not truly
> > >believe what he types. [...]
> >
> > Ah yes, your bluff gets called and immediately you try another
> > attack.
>
> Or, he's just sick of what evilmusic posts. Or am I too "linear" in
> interpreting sentences?
Good call. I am just tired of him going unchallenged. I have stated before
that I think he is intellegent. His vocabulary is impressive. However, I
find a lot of his ideas to be cyclical and not what he truly believes. I
stated that despite how "evil" he tries to seem here, he does listen to
more than black metal. I also gave the example of him quoting Peter
Gabriel. It shows me that although you might think he is black metal freak
who only listens to black metal, he has proven that is untrue in here
before. This is what I wanted to draw attention to.
Paul
Paul Wilbur
> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 20:53:06 -0700, John Chedsey
> <kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>
> >Ninnghizhidda wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > Whatever. It's the quality of the compositions and the overall ability
> >> >> > to affect my mood and grab my attention.
> >> >>
> >> >> "Mood music" is bullshit.
> >> >
> >> >You mean nothing you listen to affects your mood? C'mon, don't be coy.
> >> >I like certain black metal bands because of their ability to affect my
> >> >mood.
> >>
> >> there's a difference between "mood music" and music that affects your
> >> mood. to start: one is crap and one isnt. the former is on the same
> >> level as a "relaxation tape".
> >
> >I suppose so. But if you look at the above statements, I twice said
> >"affect your mood" while the other said mood music.
>
> your response directly implies that you see no difference, because you
> renamed "music that affects your mood" as "mood music" (read: you
> affirmed the equivalence by acting as if it was implied). besides, you
> (or was it paul?) were talking about something very similar relating
> to moods at an earlier time.
It wasn't me. But let me just say that SSMT never said "mood music". That
is a different type of music that "music that effects your mood" in the
U.S.. As SSMT stated, "mood music" implies New Age type of music. The
Hellacopters are a band that effects my mood, but it is not something I
would call "mood music". I like it because it rocks, and it is fun (here
comes the flames!) so my "mood" gets more positive or happy when I listen
to "Super Shitty to the Max".
>
> therefore - my critique was not uncalled for.
I felt it was reactionary.
Paul
>
> -Daemonic
>
> A distant warm look entered Major Danby's eyes. "It must be
> nice to live like a vegetable," he conceded wistfully.
> "It's lousy," answered Yossarian.
> "No, it must be very pleasant to be free from all this
> doubt and pressure," insisted Major Danby. "I think I'd like
> to live like a vegetable and make no important decisions."
> -Catch 22
>
>
Paul Wilbur
> Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>
> > well? either it was you or paul; i dont know where the post went, and
> > honestly i dont care, because it was said by _someone_.
>
> Gosh...those phantom posters are *everywhere*!
No, I just let all my pets use my account.
feca...@yahoo.com
> > > automatically.
> >
> > Her vocals lack seductiveness. Listening fatigue sets in quickly,
regardless
> > of the fact you may own a Stereophile class A or B digital processor.
>
> Not everyone is seducted by every thing or the same thing. To each his
> own....
yeah, but some are sane and some are not. and there are many false emotions.
trust me, yung 'un, ive been fooled and i've learned not to be fooled. it
wastes less of my free time (what the fuckers don't take) anyway.
>
> --
> ====================
> Satan Stole My Teddybear
> http://www.chedsey.com
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
feca...@yahoo.com
> > "Mood music" is bullshit.
>
> You mean nothing you listen to affects your mood? C'mon, don't be coy.
> I like certain black metal bands because of their ability to affect my
> mood.
what the hell is mood anyway? how youve decided your emotions are at any
given time? geez, you people live in simple worlds
> > I'm really tired of this I listen to X therefore I'm more open-minded
> > name-dropping ridiculousness.
>
> So why do you respond to it?
why do you fight cancer with a cure?
idiot...
feca...@yahoo.com
of them suck. a few questions...
1 does the new slayer shit suck? they had some gay beer-drinking cover on the
back of reign in blood which used to be fuck cool
they should teach slayer in schools. get rid of that social studies garbag...
2 is the sound improved on obituary slowly we rot? this is like one of my
favorites of all time... this is what death metal should be
3 what kind of rip off is remastering sepultura bestial devastation? so you
cant hear shit better than you couldn't before? fucking leave as is peeps...
4 can anyone get candlemass e.d.m. anymore?
5 what is this shit about hellhammer apocalyptic raids being dead in the
catalogs?
6 what about these mercyful fate remasters?
7 doesnt metallica suck
feca...@yahoo.com
hey does anyone want these - send offer
1 massacre the promise earache
2 asphyx god cries century media
3 sarcofago rotting craze
4 sexual masochist grind fuck 7"
buy 2,3,4 get 1 free
buy 3,1,4 get 2 free
buy 4,2,1 get 3 free
also i have a promo of moribd angel domination with not booklet
Ninnghizhidda
<kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>James S Kang wrote:
>>
>> John Chedsey (kraz...@peakpeak.com) wrote:
>> > James S Kang wrote:
>> > >
>> > > John Chedsey (kraz...@peakpeak.com) wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Thank goodness I can put on Tori Amos and find enjoyment.
>> > >
>> > > Tori Amos is the most overrated musician on earth. Whispering does not make
>> > > you "artistic" and lyrical righteous topics don't make the music good
>> > > automatically.
>>
>> > Whatever. It's the quality of the compositions and the overall ability
>> > to affect my mood and grab my attention.
>>
>> "Mood music" is bullshit.
>
>You mean nothing you listen to affects your mood? C'mon, don't be coy.
>I like certain black metal bands because of their ability to affect my
>mood.
there's a difference between "mood music" and music that affects your
mood. to start: one is crap and one isnt. the former is on the same
level as a "relaxation tape".
-Daemonic
Ninnghizhidda
<kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>technic...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <75jmma$7...@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
>> holy-ghost@nwuSPAM_HOLOCAUST.edu wrote:
>> > John Chedsey (kraz...@peakpeak.com) wrote:
>> >
>> > > Thank goodness I can put on Tori Amos and find enjoyment.
>> >
>> > Tori Amos is the most overrated musician on earth. Whispering does not make
>> > you "artistic" and lyrical righteous topics don't make the music good
>> > automatically.
>>
>> Her vocals lack seductiveness. Listening fatigue sets in quickly, regardless
>> of the fact you may own a Stereophile class A or B digital processor.
>
>Not everyone is seducted by every thing or the same thing. To each his
>own....
you forgot to say "your loss".
N. Evermind
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman wrote:
> Paul Wilbur <dapi...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> >I'm used to it. Oh, and reread my post, I hardly call what I typed a
> >"flame". You want discussion, I was giving you discussion.
>
> It was obviously 100% flame and 0% discussion.
Hardly. It might've been mildly aggressive, but no way was it a flame.
This is what I would call a flame:
YOUR MOMMA IS FAT!!!!!!
Paul's post was nothing like that.
> >The one thing I have learned about evilmusic is that he does not truly
> >believe what he types. [...]
>
> Ah yes, your bluff gets called and immediately you try another
> attack.
Or, he's just sick of what evilmusic posts. Or am I too "linear" in
interpreting sentences?
> --Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
> Tiggelman jtig...@gironet.nl (private)
N. Evermind
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman wrote:
> "N. Evermind" <97s...@njc.edu.sg> wrote:
> >Annatar Gorthaur wrote:
> >> returns to black metal. Thus, he has heard
> >> everything and recognizes art, yet ends up
> >> *listening* to black metal. I do not agree wholly
> >> with such a person, but that person is far more
> >>profound than most people...
> >I agree completely with all of what you say above,
> >'cept for the profundity bit. I really dont see how
> >listening only to blackmetal makes a person
> >"profound".
>
> But then, that's not what Anatar said _at all_.
Hmm...let me try this again: he says that it is okay to listen only to
blackmetal, provided that the person sees it as art and that he rejects
all else on the same grounds. Maybe he meant that this person is more
"profound" because he sees music as art and not a commodity? I dont
know, but now I'm *really* reading between the lines here. And if this
is what he meant to say, then I dont think I'm the only one who
misinterpreted it based on the way it was expressed.
> I suggest you re-read the paragraph above..
>
Ninnghizhidda
<kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>>
>> >> > Whatever. It's the quality of the compositions and the overall ability
>> >> > to affect my mood and grab my attention.
>> >>
>> >> "Mood music" is bullshit.
>> >
>> >You mean nothing you listen to affects your mood? C'mon, don't be coy.
>> >I like certain black metal bands because of their ability to affect my
>> >mood.
>>
>> there's a difference between "mood music" and music that affects your
>> mood. to start: one is crap and one isnt. the former is on the same
>> level as a "relaxation tape".
>
>I suppose so. But if you look at the above statements, I twice said
>"affect your mood" while the other said mood music.
your response directly implies that you see no difference, because you
renamed "music that affects your mood" as "mood music" (read: you
affirmed the equivalence by acting as if it was implied). besides, you
(or was it paul?) were talking about something very similar relating
to moods at an earlier time.
therefore - my critique was not uncalled for.
-Daemonic
N. Evermind
Ninnghizhidda wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 17:41:03 -0700, John Chedsey
> <kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>
> >James S Kang wrote:
> >>
> >> John Chedsey (kraz...@peakpeak.com) wrote:
> >> > James S Kang wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > John Chedsey (kraz...@peakpeak.com) wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Thank goodness I can put on Tori Amos and find enjoyment.
> >> > >
> >> > > Tori Amos is the most overrated musician on earth. Whispering does not make
> >> > > you "artistic" and lyrical righteous topics don't make the music good
> >> > > automatically.
> >>
> >> > Whatever. It's the quality of the compositions and the overall ability
> >> > to affect my mood and grab my attention.
> >>
> >> "Mood music" is bullshit.
> >
> >You mean nothing you listen to affects your mood? C'mon, don't be coy.
> >I like certain black metal bands because of their ability to affect my
> >mood.
>
> there's a difference between "mood music" and music that affects your
> mood. to start: one is crap and one isnt. the former is on the same
> level as a "relaxation tape".
I am not aware of what "mood music" is, but notice that it was Kang who introduced the
term. Satankat was saying that Tori Amos affects his mood, which I dont see a problem
with. In fact, where does "mood music" come in, anway?
> -Daemonic
N. Evermind
Ninnghizhidda wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 20:53:06 -0700, John Chedsey
> <kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>
> >Ninnghizhidda wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > Whatever. It's the quality of the compositions and the overall ability
> >> >> > to affect my mood and grab my attention.
> >> >>
> >> >> "Mood music" is bullshit.
> >> >
> >> >You mean nothing you listen to affects your mood? C'mon, don't be coy.
> >> >I like certain black metal bands because of their ability to affect my
> >> >mood.
> >>
> >> there's a difference between "mood music" and music that affects your
> >> mood. to start: one is crap and one isnt. the former is on the same
> >> level as a "relaxation tape".
> >
> >I suppose so. But if you look at the above statements, I twice said
> >"affect your mood" while the other said mood music.
>
> your response directly implies that you see no difference, because you
> renamed "music that affects your mood" as "mood music" (read: you
> affirmed the equivalence by acting as if it was implied).
Dont you think it is rather harsh - criticising him for passive acceptance of a
term he was unfamiliar with? Satankat said: it "affects my mood". Then Kang came up
with the term "mood music". Satankat took them as being equivalent, and went on.
(He neither introduced the term, nor used it - he took it for what he thought it
meant, and went on). The only thing I can think of criticising him for is not
asking the strict meaning of "mood music" or asking to make its meaning clear. But
criticising him for that reason would be pointless.
> besides, you
> (or was it paul?) were talking about something very similar relating
> to moods at an earlier time.
>
> therefore - my critique was not uncalled for.
>
Ninnghizhidda
wrote:
>Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 20:53:06 -0700, John Chedsey
>> <kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> > Whatever. It's the quality of the compositions and the overall ability
>> >> >> > to affect my mood and grab my attention.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Mood music" is bullshit.
>> >> >
>> >> >You mean nothing you listen to affects your mood? C'mon, don't be coy.
>> >> >I like certain black metal bands because of their ability to affect my
>> >> >mood.
>> >>
>> >> there's a difference between "mood music" and music that affects your
>> >> mood. to start: one is crap and one isnt. the former is on the same
>> >> level as a "relaxation tape".
>> >
>> >I suppose so. But if you look at the above statements, I twice said
>> >"affect your mood" while the other said mood music.
>>
>> your response directly implies that you see no difference, because you
>> renamed "music that affects your mood" as "mood music" (read: you
>> affirmed the equivalence by acting as if it was implied).
>
>Dont you think it is rather harsh - criticising him for passive acceptance of a
>term he was unfamiliar with?
hold on a second. please qualify what the difference between a term
like "mood music" and, say, "angry music" is. then tell me what the
connotation of the latter is and why it would not extend to the
former. or simply tell me why "mood music" and an obviously similar
term like "angry music" are actually not similar at all and no
assosiation would be called up between them, neither because of the
similar name, nor because one is a subdivision of another, nor because
they mean and connotate similar things.
>Satankat said: it "affects my mood". Then Kang came up
>with the term "mood music".
...mocking it.
>Satankat took them as being equivalent,
why do you think that might be?
>(He neither introduced the term, nor used it
the distinction you're drawing between what he did and "use" is not
relevant.
>- he took it for what he thought it
>meant, and went on).
um - to me, solipsist that i am, it seems pretty obvious what "mood
music" might mean, and why james might not like it. in fact, i think
this distinction would be obvious to most people, assuming they had
thought for a second about what they were reading before responding.
Ninnghizhidda
<kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 20:53:06 -0700, John Chedsey
>> <kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> > Whatever. It's the quality of the compositions and the overall ability
>> >> >> > to affect my mood and grab my attention.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Mood music" is bullshit.
>> >> >
>> >> >You mean nothing you listen to affects your mood? C'mon, don't be coy.
>> >> >I like certain black metal bands because of their ability to affect my
>> >> >mood.
>> >>
>> >> there's a difference between "mood music" and music that affects your
>> >> mood. to start: one is crap and one isnt. the former is on the same
>> >> level as a "relaxation tape".
>> >
>> >I suppose so. But if you look at the above statements, I twice said
>> >"affect your mood" while the other said mood music.
>>
>> your response directly implies that you see no difference, because you
>> renamed "music that affects your mood" as "mood music"
>
>You're reaaalllly stretching this one. I'm looking for what it is
>you're talking about and finding nothing to support your statements.
>Brother. Anything for usenet "discussion". Sigh.
well:
>> >> >> "Mood music" is bullshit.
then:
>> >> >You mean nothing you listen to affects your mood?
thus, you imply that which "affects your mood" to be "mood music".
come on. this isnt hard. consider that perhaps i'm not at fault for
you not understanding. try looking harder next time.
>> (read: you
>> affirmed the equivalence by acting as if it was implied). besides, you
>> (or was it paul?) were talking about something very similar relating
>> to moods at an earlier time.
>
>Might want to have some reference in the future.
oops; i didnt explain my reference. i guess i forgot to type it. my
mistake.
you say: hey! some music is really good for listening to when i'm
feeling like X, and some for Y. examples include A, B, and C. i like
listening to A, B, and C because they compliment my mood and make me
feel all tingly inside. i would not want to listen to C with X because
they do not compliment each other and make me feel tingly inside.
well? either it was you or paul; i dont know where the post went, and
honestly i dont care, because it was said by _someone_.
-Daemonic
Ninnghizhidda
wrote:
>Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 17:41:03 -0700, John Chedsey
>> <kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>>
>> >James S Kang wrote:
>> >>
>> >> John Chedsey (kraz...@peakpeak.com) wrote:
>> >> > James S Kang wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > John Chedsey (kraz...@peakpeak.com) wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Thank goodness I can put on Tori Amos and find enjoyment.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Tori Amos is the most overrated musician on earth. Whispering does not make
>> >> > > you "artistic" and lyrical righteous topics don't make the music good
>> >> > > automatically.
>> >>
>> >> > Whatever. It's the quality of the compositions and the overall ability
>> >> > to affect my mood and grab my attention.
>> >>
>> >> "Mood music" is bullshit.
>> >
>> >You mean nothing you listen to affects your mood? C'mon, don't be coy.
>> >I like certain black metal bands because of their ability to affect my
>> >mood.
>>
>> there's a difference between "mood music" and music that affects your
>> mood. to start: one is crap and one isnt. the former is on the same
>> level as a "relaxation tape".
>
>I am not aware of what "mood music" is,
it may be because english isnt your first language (i'm saying this
with no negative connotations or condescention), but "mood music" =
"music made or used for the purpose of affecting mood" = "music that
is made or one uses to give tingly feelings because of alterations in
mood". that's the most _obvious_ definition. compare to "angry music",
a subdivision of mood music: "music made or used for the purpose of
instigating anger" = "music that is made or one uses to give tingly
feelings because of alterations in mood, specifically to anger".
>but notice that it was Kang who introduced the
>term. Satankat was saying that Tori Amos affects his mood,
...thus it becomes "mood music". think about some definitions of music
he might have based on that categorization.
>which I dont see a problem
>with.
if there were no underlying points, i agree. but there are. there
always are.
Ninnghizhidda
<kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>"N. Evermind" wrote:
>>
>> Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 17:41:03 -0700, John Chedsey
>> > <kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >James S Kang wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> John Chedsey (kraz...@peakpeak.com) wrote:
>> > >> > James S Kang wrote:
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > John Chedsey (kraz...@peakpeak.com) wrote:
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > Thank goodness I can put on Tori Amos and find enjoyment.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Tori Amos is the most overrated musician on earth. Whispering does not make
>> > >> > > you "artistic" and lyrical righteous topics don't make the music good
>> > >> > > automatically.
>> > >>
>> > >> > Whatever. It's the quality of the compositions and the overall ability
>> > >> > to affect my mood and grab my attention.
>> > >>
>> > >> "Mood music" is bullshit.
>> > >
>> > >You mean nothing you listen to affects your mood? C'mon, don't be coy.
>> > >I like certain black metal bands because of their ability to affect my
>> > >mood.
>> >
>> > there's a difference between "mood music" and music that affects your
>> > mood. to start: one is crap and one isnt. the former is on the same
>> > level as a "relaxation tape".
>>
>> I am not aware of what "mood music" is, but notice that it was Kang who introduced the
>> term. Satankat was saying that Tori Amos affects his mood, which I dont see a problem
>> with. In fact, where does "mood music" come in, anway?
>
>It's just something thrown in to stir up the cauldron. Typical day in
>the ng.
yep. we're all just being pointless reactionaries. thats it. linear
analyses r00l.
Ninnghizhidda
<kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>
>> well? either it was you or paul; i dont know where the post went, and
>> honestly i dont care, because it was said by _someone_.
>
>Gosh...those phantom posters are *everywhere*!
and you wonder why you dont understand a word that's been said here...
i'm done with you now, but i'm going to use you as an example for
something more important. myles - remember the question of ignorance
vs. stupidity? well...what do you think the problem is here? i mean,
john said he had an IQ of 130 or so - whether it's a good measurement
or not is irrelevant to the fact that it's _some_ measurement. and
john isnt stupid. he simply chooses _not to think_...
John Chedsey
Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 23:26:02 -0700, John Chedsey
> <kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>
> >Ninnghizhidda wrote:
> >
> >> well? either it was you or paul; i dont know where the post went, and
> >> honestly i dont care, because it was said by _someone_.
> >
> >Gosh...those phantom posters are *everywhere*!
>
> and you wonder why you dont understand a word that's been said here...
Ha ha! That's precisely the expected response!
("What!?! You're not playing into my hand? Then you must, must...be
unable to comprehend...")
Thbbt. (Refer to Bloom County)
>
> i'm done with you now,
Suuure you are. See below...
> but i'm going to use you as an example for
> something more important. myles - remember the question of ignorance
> vs. stupidity? well...what do you think the problem is here? i mean,
> john said he had an IQ of 130 or so
You pay WAY too much attention to me. Yikes. That discussion (such as
it was) was ages ago.
> - whether it's a good measurement
> or not is irrelevant to the fact that it's _some_ measurement. and
> john isnt stupid. he simply chooses _not to think_...
Or chooses not to buy into your drivel and games. It was a fun night
knowing I've properly gotten your goat. (Speaking of which, where has
that guy been? It's too quiet on here these days)
Ninnghizhidda
<dapi...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> I also gave the example of him quoting Peter
>Gabriel. It shows me that although you might think he is black metal freak
>who only listens to black metal, he has proven that is untrue in here
>before. This is what I wanted to draw attention to.
you know, i'm sorry, but if you think the point of him arguing against
the "open mindedness" being professed was to shout out "i only listen
to black metal!", well...
if i argued that homosexuals were no different from everyone else,
would i be a homosexual? it seems that's what you're implying.
Ninnghizhidda
<kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 23:26:02 -0700, John Chedsey
>> <kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>> >
>> >> well? either it was you or paul; i dont know where the post went, and
>> >> honestly i dont care, because it was said by _someone_.
>> >
>> >Gosh...those phantom posters are *everywhere*!
>>
>> and you wonder why you dont understand a word that's been said here...
>
>Ha ha! That's precisely the expected response!
you sure "got me". for your next fiendish plan, i suggest you walk
into, say, some random newsgroup on cartography and shout "the world
is flat!". then, you can "get them", too.
>> i'm done with you now,
>
>Suuure you are. See below...
i'm talking _about_ you.
>> but i'm going to use you as an example for
>> something more important. myles - remember the question of ignorance
>> vs. stupidity? well...what do you think the problem is here? i mean,
>> john said he had an IQ of 130 or so
>
>You pay WAY too much attention to me. Yikes. That discussion (such as
>it was) was ages ago.
you were there. so i decided to use you to make a point. but i guess
you've been "manipulating me" all this time to do that!
hint: remember repo man? was he "manipulating" anyone else? no; he was
being laughed at. in the same way that commiting a crime isnt
"manipulating" the police man to arrest you. can you figure out why?
>> - whether it's a good measurement
>> or not is irrelevant to the fact that it's _some_ measurement. and
>> john isnt stupid. he simply chooses _not to think_...
>
>Or chooses not to buy into your drivel and games.
"drivel and games" - you've explained the "not thinking" part enough
for now.
Ninnghizhidda
<dapi...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 20:53:06 -0700, John Chedsey
>> <kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> > Whatever. It's the quality of the compositions and the overall ability
>> >> >> > to affect my mood and grab my attention.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Mood music" is bullshit.
>> >> >
>> >> >You mean nothing you listen to affects your mood? C'mon, don't be coy.
>> >> >I like certain black metal bands because of their ability to affect my
>> >> >mood.
>> >>
>> >> there's a difference between "mood music" and music that affects your
>> >> mood. to start: one is crap and one isnt. the former is on the same
>> >> level as a "relaxation tape".
>> >
>> >I suppose so. But if you look at the above statements, I twice said
>> >"affect your mood" while the other said mood music.
>>
>> your response directly implies that you see no difference, because you
>> renamed "music that affects your mood" as "mood music" (read: you
>> affirmed the equivalence by acting as if it was implied). besides, you
>> (or was it paul?) were talking about something very similar relating
>> to moods at an earlier time.
>
>It wasn't me. But let me just say that SSMT never said "mood music".
i know what he said. read my paragraph again. he implied it by
renaming it to "music that affects your mood".
>> therefore - my critique was not uncalled for.
>
>I felt it was reactionary.
of course it was. that's the definition of a critique.
Paul Wilbur
> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 23:16:38 -0800, Paul Wilbur
> <dapi...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
> > I also gave the example of him quoting Peter
> >Gabriel. It shows me that although you might think he is black metal freak
> >who only listens to black metal, he has proven that is untrue in here
> >before. This is what I wanted to draw attention to.
>
> you know, i'm sorry, but if you think the point of him arguing against
> the "open mindedness" being professed was to shout out "i only listen
> to black metal!", well...
Obviously that wasn't his point. Man, you are frustrating. His attack on
open-mindedness was directed at anyone who listened to anything outside
the realm of black metal THAT HE DISLIKED WITHOUT HAVING ANY REAL SENSE OF
WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT. He commented on bands he had never heard.
> >
if i argued that homosexuals were no different from everyone
else, > would i be a homosexual? it seems that's what you're implying.
What? Ok, now I am accussing you of hitting the bottle while on usenet.
Paul
Gehenna
>buy 3,1,4 get 2 free
>buy 4,2,1 get 3 free
Heheheheheh...CuTe
Devamitra
> Art? What is art Annatar? Define it. Art is subjective and if you think
> that classical music is not "artistic" then this conversation is done.
Is truth subjective?? Can art be dishonest??
--
Devamitra
H E I L S A T A N
"The ancient white light writings
were just lying men and their pens.
You are the same, only in black.
Return with the knowledge
of making your own god"
SUPPORT THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN HOLOCAUST
N. Evermind
Devamitra wrote:
> Paul Wilbur wrote:
>
> > Art? What is art Annatar? Define it. Art is subjective and if you think
> > that classical music is not "artistic" then this conversation is done.
>
> Is truth subjective??
What is "truth"? That which is perceived by your senses, that which humanity
collectively, unanimously agrees on, that which "god told us" (bible,
etc.)...?
> Can art be dishonest??
No.
But how do we know *what* is dishonest?
> --
> Devamitra
>
> H E I L S A T A N
--
Annatar Gorthaur
>
> Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman wrote:
>
> > "N. Evermind" <97s...@njc.edu.sg> wrote:
> > >Annatar Gorthaur wrote:
> > >> returns to black metal. Thus, he has heard
> > >> everything and recognizes art, yet ends up
> > >> *listening* to black metal. I do not agree wholly
> > >> with such a person, but that person is far more
> > >>profound than most people...
> > >I agree completely with all of what you say above,
> > >'cept for the profundity bit. I really dont see how
> > >listening only to blackmetal makes a person
> > >"profound".
> >
> > But then, that's not what Anatar said _at all_.
>
> Hmm...let me try this again: he says that it is okay to listen only to
> blackmetal, provided that the person sees it as art and that he rejects
> all else on the same grounds. Maybe he meant that this person is more
> "profound" because he sees music as art and not a commodity? I dont
> know, but now I'm *really* reading between the lines here. And if this
> is what he meant to say, then I dont think I'm the only one who
> misinterpreted it based on the way it was expressed.
Perhaps it was somewhat mis-phrased, but I still think that a person
appreciating art, not listening to it for simple values (seeing black
metal as "just another genre"), is better able to think about music,
art, philosophy, life, death etc. (because all that is included in black
metal). In short, is having profound thoughts. Whether these thoughts
are adequately articulated or not, doesn't matter: black metal is
profound music.
Annatar Gorthaur
Annatar Gorthaur
> > > > > I wouldn't call In Flames "Traditional" heavy metal, but they aren't black
> > > > > metal either. I think they are a good blend of both which is why people
> > > > > into black or traditional styles like them so much.
> > > >
> > > > They are a blend of death metal and heavy metal. They have no black metal
> > > > elements whatsoever. Those who listen only to black metal would vomit on In
> > > > Flames, because of their use of happy, upbeat, melodies.
> > >
> > > If your idea of "true black metal" is thinly produced speed/noise with
> > > screechy vocals then you may be right. I still love the "happy, upbeat"
> > > part though. I don't claim that Satan rockets out of my speakers when I
> > > listen to In Flames, but their music is hardly upbeat (except for the Gary
> > > Hoey-style track on Jester's).
> >
> > What exactly are the black metal influences in In Flames?
>
> That's a baited question. First, I must define "black metal" and then hope
> it meets your definition, which it probably won't.
Creation through destruction. Evil.
> >
> > Whatever though, puke on In Flames if you
> > > like. Anybody who "only listens to black metal" is severly lacking the
> > > capacity to recognize the difference between good and bad outside "black
> > > metal" anyway.
> >
> > Non-sensical stereotyping of all black metal fans.
>
> No. Not all black metal fans "only listen to black metal". So it is not a
> stereotyping of all black metal fans, only those who judge without any
> knowledge of other genres.
Non-sensical stereotyping of all black metal fans who appreciate it as
art and have rejected other genres on those (quite valid) grounds.
"Their loss", you say. No. Yours.
> > Someone has heard all different kinds of music and does not find
> > profoundness in most kind of music, except in black metal... He always
> > returns to black metal.
>
> Stereotyping? What if the "he" is a "she"?
The next time I will remind myself to put "he/she" there instead of
"he". Thank you for this quite useful addition to the discussion. Now
address my point instead of my grammar.
> The "profoundness" a person may
> seek can be found in other genres, but obviously you have listened to it
> all and deemed it ALL unworthy.
Some people hear music, form a judgement and deem it unworthy. They
return to black metal. If someone comes their way and says "this stuff
is good", they will give it a listen. And most likely reject it because
they do not see it as art. This is not an error; it is valid judgment
based on analysis.
> I have not made this error.
And you are the one complaining about self-importance... Imagine that.
> > Thus, he has heard everything and recognizes
> > art, yet ends up *listening* to black metal. I do not agree wholly with
> > such a person, but that person is far more profound than most people...
> > It's not about how many genres you listen to (the usual vocabulary can
> > be conjured up again: aesthetics, sheep thinking, etc...) it's about
> > whether you can or can not appreciate art.
>
> Art? What is art Annatar? Define it. Art is subjective and if you think
> that classical music is not "artistic" then this conversation is done.
Art is objective, yet that remains to be seen for our interpretations.
What's classical music got to do with it? We were talking about black
metal; don't digress.
> Ever heard the DJ Shadow album "Entroducing"? Is that art?
I haven't heard it so I can't comment.
> It's not black
> metal, so I guess us "sheep" must have a distorted sense of "art" if we
> find it deeply profound.
An honest and well-meant "Fuck you" to you. You are making assumptions
about me without knowledge, and thereby insulting. Liar.
Annatar Gorthaur
> Paul
conti...@hotmail.com
feca...@yahoo.com wrote:
> ok the shit is that some of the old stuff is going through remasters and some
> of them suck. a few questions...
>
> 1 does the new slayer shit suck? they had some gay beer-drinking cover on the
> back of reign in blood which used to be fuck cool
>
They didn't remaster this, but rather added "Agressive Perfector" and a
re-mix of "Criminally Insane." Also, they fixed the track "Postmortem" so it
plays all as track 9 rather than part of 9 and and part of 10.
minh lan guy raguin
> Paul Wilbur wrote:
>
> > Art? What is art Annatar? Define it. Art is subjective and if you think
> > that classical music is not "artistic" then this conversation is done.
>
> Art is objective, yet that remains to be seen for our interpretations.
> What's classical music got to do with it? We were talking about black
> metal; don't digress.
I have a really hard time to understand how could art be objective. Could
you explain it to me ? To me art is something made by a human being (a
"he" or a "she" :) ) with a purpose of conveying a message either for
oneself or for others or both. Everyone is free to understand and feel
what they want from it. To me it is subjective, given the purpose.
Guy
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>Hardly. It might've been mildly aggressive, but no way
>was it a flame.
You appear not to understand the concept the same
way.
>This is what I would call a flame:
>YOUR MOMMA IS FAT!!!!!!
>Paul's post was nothing like that.
So you are implying that anything dissimilar is _not_ a
flame? So whatever is your definition of a "flame"?
>> >The one thing I have learned about evilmusic is that he
>> >does not truly believe what he types. [...]
>> Ah yes, your bluff gets called and immediately you try
>> another attack.
>Or, he's just sick of what evilmusic posts. Or am I too
>"linear" in interpreting sentences?
Among other things, yes.
If he is just sick of evilmetal he could state so without
the garbage assertion that evilmetal has nothing of
value to say and adding the falsehood that he does not
believe what he writes. This is simply ad hominem with
_no_ value, hence "flame".
--Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
Tiggelman jtig...@gironet.nl (private)
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>> > >The one thing I have learned about evilmusic is
>> > >that he does not truly believe what he types. [...]
>> > Ah yes, your bluff gets called and immediately you
>> > try another attack.
>> Or, he's just sick of what evilmusic posts. Or am I too
>> "linear" in interpreting sentences?
Yeah -- it was a schoolbook example of "linear" indeed.
>I am just tired of him going unchallenged.
I'll take that as a "yes" to my question: you just want to
attack him no matter what.
I find the "you are a liar!" namecalling approach an
unconstructive one though, and such attacks are
"flames" in my book.
BTW, if you could reduce the amount of noise I would
have to wade through, we might get to some core points
and get back to the situation of a few years back (=me
being evilmetal's primary opponent, in case you were not
aware).
>I have stated before that I think he is intellegent.
That at least says something for your cognitive abilities.
>His vocabulary is impressive.
Quite.
>However, I find a lot of his ideas to be cyclical and not
>what he truly believes.
You don't stand a chance in hell to get that across to
people by namecalling. You might mobilize a mob, and
we might have some flamewars, but this isn't really
convincing.
For the record, I certainly do think that he believes what he
writes, although I am very unconvinced of its overall
consistency [which is quite another topic]. But, I'd say this
could be addressed without all the noise (check the archives).
>I stated that despite how "evil" he tries to seem here, he
>does listen to more than black metal.
Well, of course he does. Did he ever claim otherwise? Do you
really think that you're not "evil" if you listen to anything but
black metal. _or_ that he thinks so? If so, I must doubt either
your reading skills or your attention span, or both.
>I also gave the example of him quoting Peter Gabriel. It shows
>me that although you might think he is black metal freak who
>only listens to black metal, he has proven that is untrue in here
>before. This is what I wanted to draw attention to.
Hello! He's stated several times over the last few months here,
in plain sight that there is not much good black metal to be found
these days at all. I recall that a year or so ago he recommended
getting old Judas Priest albums 'cause they were at least good
metal and a lot of newer shit was indeed shit. I have always(*)
understood him to be mostly a _death_ metal fan/expert..
(*) Meaning since I was aware of him as a Usenet entity, i.e.,
1992 or 1993.
--Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
Tiggelman jtig...@gironet.nl (private)
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>John Chedsey <kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>>Not everyone is seducted by every thing or the
>>same thing. To each his own....
>you forgot to say "your loss".
Now now, do we have to be that vindictive?
Let the reply stand on its own.. not particularly
profound maybe, but surely acceptable?
--Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
Tiggelman jtig...@gironet.nl (private)
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>i'm done with you now, but i'm going to use you
That's a pretty insulting statement IMO.
>myles - remember the question of ignorance vs.
>stupidity? well...what do you think the problem is
>here? i mean, john said he had an IQ of 130 or
>so - he simply chooses _not to think_...
That is not necessarily a sign of stupidity in itself,
though. Often I prefer not to think about all these
petty arguments, and I just let most of them go,
you know..
But, the reason for this reply is that I think you
should not have used John as an example for
that here... it's not that functional, while it's pretty
annoying to have done to you, so I'd rate this
as a (hidden) flame also..
--Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
Tiggelman jtig...@gironet.nl (private)
bel...@my-dejanews.com
feca...@yahoo.com wrote:
> ok the shit is that some of the old stuff is going through remasters and some
> of them suck. a few questions...
>
> 1 does the new slayer shit suck? they had some gay beer-drinking cover on the
> back of reign in blood which used to be fuck cool
Wasn't there always a picture of Slayer drinking beer on the back of Reign in
Blood? I haven't owned the original vinyl in years but I seem to remember
that being the back cover.
bel...@my-dejanews.com
John Chedsey
>
> Devamitra wrote:
>
> > Paul Wilbur wrote:
> >
> > > Art? What is art Annatar? Define it. Art is subjective and if you think
> > > that classical music is not "artistic" then this conversation is done.
> >
>
> What is "truth"? That which is perceived by your senses, that which humanity
> collectively, unanimously agrees on, that which "god told us" (bible,
> etc.)...?
>
> > Can art be dishonest??
>
> No.
>
> But how do we know *what* is dishonest?
This is getting very Clinton-esque.
myles robert hamilton
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>
> i'm done with you now, but i'm going to use you as an example for
> something more important. myles - remember the question of ignorance
> vs. stupidity? well...what do you think the problem is here? i mean,
> john said he had an IQ of 130 or so - whether it's a good measurement
> or not is irrelevant to the fact that it's _some_ measurement. and
> john isnt stupid. he simply chooses _not to think_...
I think part of this is actually just a misunderstanding. It is my
belief that you are quick to jump on chedsey with "sheep" accusations
(probably based on other posts that you felt portrayed this behavior), but
I think what he is getting at is something totally different (albeit still
in conflict with your ideals). The problem is, once it turns into a flame
war, people become less open to evaluating points, and more concerned with
adopting a defensive posture.......
I also don't think its necessarily fair to lump him in with
Wilbur's "thoughts", unless he specifically confirms that they are shared
ideas.
Well, I still have 61 more messages to go before I get
caught up in all this......
Melvin Slundersloth
myles robert hamilton
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, minh lan guy raguin wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Annatar Gorthaur wrote:
>
> > Paul Wilbur wrote:
> >
> > > Art? What is art Annatar? Define it. Art is subjective and if you think
> > > that classical music is not "artistic" then this conversation is done.
> >
> > Art is objective, yet that remains to be seen for our interpretations.
> > What's classical music got to do with it? We were talking about black
> > metal; don't digress.
>
> I have a really hard time to understand how could art be objective. Could
> you explain it to me ? To me art is something made by a human being (a
> "he" or a "she" :) ) with a purpose of conveying a message either for
> oneself or for others or both. Everyone is free to understand and feel
> what they want from it. To me it is subjective, given the purpose.
>
Exactly. Wow, you must be really well educated ;)
Melvin Slundersloth
Sybren
<dapi...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>> > Her vocals lack seductiveness. Listening fatigue sets in quickly, regardless
>> > of the fact you may own a Stereophile class A or B digital processor.
>>
>> Not everyone is seducted by every thing or the same thing. To each his
>> own....
>
>Plus, a good female vocalist doesn't always have to "seduce" be good.
>Although Heather Nova has that effect on me! There SSMT, now I can start
>taking the heat for this pointless attack.
I don't give a fuck about Tori Amos, but Heather Nova is *godly*.
Sybren
Sybren
<kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>> But how do we know *what* is dishonest?
>
>This is getting very Clinton-esque.
Clinton = Art
Sybren
Mike
Paul Wilbur
> Paul Wilbur wrote:
>
> > Art? What is art Annatar? Define it. Art is subjective and if you think
> > that classical music is not "artistic" then this conversation is done.
>
> Is truth subjective?? Can art be dishonest??
Your name is not Annatar. Let him answer. I'll deal with you later.
Paul
>
> --
> Devamitra
>
>
> H E I L S A T A N
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>On Sun, 20 Dec 1998, Annatar Gorthaur wrote:
>> > > > I wouldn't call In Flames "Traditional" heavy metal,
>> > > > but they aren't black metal either. I think they are a
>> > > They are a blend of death metal and heavy metal.
>> What exactly are the black metal influences in In Flames?
>That's a baited question. First, I must define "black metal" and
>then hope it meets your definition, which it probably won't.
Oh, COME ON, Paul.
The point of this exchange was hopefully to communicate
about music. As for the labels involved, I can only agree
with Annatar: it's a cross between death and heavy. But
that's not the point here.
You said it had black metal elements; therefore, if we are to
understand your communications in the future, it would
benefit us to understand what it is that makes you call it
"black". Whether or not that's our definition too isn't the
issue (most probably not, but so what?).
>> >Anybody who "only listens to black metal" is severly
>> >lacking the capacity to recognize the difference
>> >between good and bad outside "black metal" anyway.
>> Non-sensical stereotyping of all black metal fans.
>No. Not all black metal fans "only listen to black metal".
Semantics. It is still sill stereotyping of those that chose
only to listen to black metal (assuming such creatures
exist).
> > Someone has heard all different kinds of music and does
>> not find profoundness in most kind of music, except in
>> black metal... He always returns to black metal.
>Stereotyping? What if the "he" is a "she"?
Oh! How terrible! We have not been adequately PC around
here off late! What a shame!
You know, a few years ago it was still usual that a gender-neutral
description would be referred to with "he".
>The "profoundness" a person may seek can be found in other
>genres, but obviously you have listened to it all and deemed it
>ALL unworthy. I have not made this error.
By calling it an "error" you imply that it is objectively superior if
you derive value [partly] from aesthetic issues.
Have you any rational argument to back that claim up?
>Art? What is art Annatar? Define it. Art is subjective
No, the _appreciation_ of art is subjective.
>and if you think that classical music is not "artistic" then this
>conversation is done.
He does not, and you [clearly] have not understood what he
said.
--Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
Tiggelman jtig...@gironet.nl (private)
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>What is "truth"? That which is perceived by your
>senses, that which humanity collectively, unanimously
>agrees on, that which "god told us" (bible, etc.)...?
That which holds up under scrutinous investigation.
>But how do we know *what* is dishonest?
We cannot know anything, but we can estimate.
--Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
Tiggelman jtig...@gironet.nl (private)
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>I have a really hard time to understand how could
>art be objective. Could you explain it to me ?
I think the idea is roughly that the art is a sort of
structure that can be appreciated.
>To me art is something made by a human being (a
That is not a strict prereq for me, but okay. ;-)
>"he" or a "she" :) ) with a purpose of conveying a
>message either for oneself or for others or both.
>Everyone is free to understand and feel what they
>want from it. To me it is subjective, given the purpose.
Since everyone is free to understand etc. the purpose
of conveying isn't necessarily that important. ;-)
However, while the appreciation may be subjective,
the existence of something to be possibly appreciated
is not.. Does that make sense? :-)
--Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
Tiggelman jtig...@gironet.nl (private)
goden
forth:
>In article <75n1nf$ajb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> feca...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> ok the shit is that some of the old stuff is going through remasters and some
>> of them suck. a few questions...
>>
>> 1 does the new slayer shit suck? they had some gay beer-drinking cover on the
>> back of reign in blood which used to be fuck cool
>
>Wasn't there always a picture of Slayer drinking beer on the back of Reign in
>Blood? I haven't owned the original vinyl in years but I seem to remember
>that being the back cover.
I've got the remaster of 'Reign in Blood' and there's no beer-drinking
picture. Just the front cover art and a Slayer logo in the back of the
booklet. Eveyrthing else is brown with the red and black scratches.
--
"Just stay put, shit-face!"
-some guy, 'Cannibal Ferox'
Eternal Frost Webzine
<http://www.mindspring.com/~goden/eternalfrost/>
Paul Wilbur
> Paul Wilbur <dapi...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> >> > >The one thing I have learned about evilmusic is
> >> > >that he does not truly believe what he types. [...]
> >> > Ah yes, your bluff gets called and immediately you
> >> > try another attack.
> >> Or, he's just sick of what evilmusic posts. Or am I too
> >> "linear" in interpreting sentences?
> >Good call.
>
> Yeah -- it was a schoolbook example of "linear" indeed.
>
> >I am just tired of him going unchallenged.
>
> I'll take that as a "yes" to my question: you just want to
> attack him no matter what.
This is the last time I will read your posts for awhile until you can make
a comment based on what I write and not what you make up in your head. I
REPEAT, I did attempt conversation with evilmusic and he still seemed to
be on attack. Before I could respond he lost his account. I was attempting
to give him credit. In my previous posts I said "he quoted Peter Gabriel"
and he did in fact do so. I see that a positive, not a negative. The
problem was that he attacked others for being "open-minded" when he is
"open-minded" as well, but puts on an act in here.
> BTW, if you could reduce the amount of noise I would
> have to wade through, we might get to some core points
> and get back to the situation of a few years back (=me
> being evilmetal's primary opponent, in case you were not
> aware).
>
> >I have stated before that I think he is intellegent.
>
> That at least says something for your cognitive abilities.
>
> >His vocabulary is impressive.
>
> Quite.
>
> >However, I find a lot of his ideas to be cyclical and not
> >what he truly believes.
>
> You don't stand a chance in hell to get that across to
> people by namecalling. You might mobilize a mob, and
> we might have some flamewars, but this isn't really
> convincing.
WHAT NAMECALLING? I did refer to him as "monkey music" and "ego music",
but that was in reference to flames long ago about my "open-mindedness".
Man, you have no idea what you are talking about. Oh, and I have no "mob".
The only person I talk to via email in here is occaisionally SSMT
regarding new releases. You may need a mob, I don't.
> > For the record, I
certainly do think that he
believes what he > writes, although I am very unconvinced of its overall
> consistency [which is quite another topic]. But, I'd say this
> could be addressed without all the noise (check the archives).
>
> >I stated that despite how "evil" he tries to seem here, he
> >does listen to more than black metal.
>
> Well, of course he does. Did he ever claim otherwise? Do you
He implied it by attacking others who praised ANYTHING other than bm.
> really think that you're not "evil" if you listen to anything but
> black metal. _or_ that he thinks so? If so, I must doubt either
> your reading skills or your attention span, or both.
You have now gone so far off topic that I won't even dignify that with an
answer. It is also an insane question to even ask.
>
> >I also gave the example of him quoting Peter Gabriel. It shows
> >me that although you might think he is black metal freak who
> >only listens to black metal, he has proven that is untrue in here
> >before. This is what I wanted to draw attention to.
>
> Hello! He's stated several times over the last few months here,
> in plain sight that there is not much good black metal to be found
> these days at all. I recall that a year or so ago he recommended
> getting old Judas Priest albums 'cause they were at least good
> metal and a lot of newer shit was indeed shit. I have always(*)
> understood him to be mostly a _death_ metal fan/expert..
Yeah, and my MAIN arguement is that if you only listen to 6 black metal
bands you are A) not looking hard enough for the good stuff or B) stuck
because you have no other place to run. He may know a lot about black
metal, but his tastes have left him cynical and behind.
Paul
John Tracy
>In article <75n1nf$ajb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> feca...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> ok the shit is that some of the old stuff is going through remasters and some
>> of them suck. a few questions...
>>
>> 1 does the new slayer shit suck? they had some gay beer-drinking cover on the
>> back of reign in blood which used to be fuck cool
>
>Wasn't there always a picture of Slayer drinking beer on the back of Reign in
>Blood? I haven't owned the original vinyl in years but I seem to remember
>that being the back cover.
The picture is missing from the old CD version that gay people have.
minh lan guy raguin
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, minh lan guy raguin wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Annatar Gorthaur wrote:
> >
> > > Paul Wilbur wrote:
> > >
> > > > Art? What is art Annatar? Define it. Art is subjective and if you think
> > > > that classical music is not "artistic" then this conversation is done.
> > >
> > > Art is objective, yet that remains to be seen for our interpretations.
> > > What's classical music got to do with it? We were talking about black
> > > metal; don't digress.
> >
> > I have a really hard time to understand how could art be objective. Could
> > you explain it to me ? To me art is something made by a human being (a
> > "he" or a "she" :) ) with a purpose of conveying a message either for
> > oneself or for others or both. Everyone is free to understand and feel
> > what they want from it. To me it is subjective, given the purpose.
> >
> Exactly. Wow, you must be really well educated ;)
>
>
> Melvin Slundersloth
Probably comes from the university ... but more likely not.
Guy
minh lan guy raguin
> minh lan guy raguin <rag...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >I have a really hard time to understand how could
> >art be objective. Could you explain it to me ?
>
> I think the idea is roughly that the art is a sort of
> structure that can be appreciated.
Always appreciated ?
>
> >To me art is something made by a human being (a
>
> That is not a strict prereq for me, but okay. ;-)
Well it kind of bothered me to put on the same level (warning: stupid
example coming ...) a ballet and a couple of birds flying in the sky.
(told you it would be stupid)
> >"he" or a "she" :) ) with a purpose of conveying a
> >message either for oneself or for others or both.
> >Everyone is free to understand and feel what they
> >want from it. To me it is subjective, given the purpose.
>
> Since everyone is free to understand etc. the purpose
> of conveying isn't necessarily that important. ;-)
Possibly. I think that generally an artist put some meaning into
what he's doing whether it is for himself (to express his feelings, his
angst ...) or to address it to others. And yes an artist could be a women
but fuck PC ! ;)
> However, while the appreciation may be subjective,
> the existence of something to be possibly appreciated
> is not.. Does that make sense? :-)
Hum, one could argue that even the existence of something could be
subjective by saying that if nobody ever acknoledge it, it cannot exist
(remember the sound in the forrest, does it exist if there's nobody to
hear it ...). Are you sleeping yet ? ;)
But you're still making the assumption that a piece of art
is created to be appreciated. I do not think so. Sometimes it is only for
the artist. Therapy through art is not uncommon ... And sometimes art is
just a way to communicate, without any intent of making people appreciate
it. Example: some people find it easier to communicate through a song or
through some music than by talking. Therefore the idea of conveying a
message and it does not matter whether people will like it or not.
Guy
> --Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
> Tiggelman jtig...@gironet.nl (private)
>
John Chedsey
> > Not everyone is seducted by every thing or the same thing.
>
> You mean seduced. Seducted is not a word : ) (sorry, couldn't resist)
S'kay...I probably should ask Santa for proofreading skills for xmas...