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
John Chedsey
>
> On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 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!
> >
> > (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.
A really broad definition of flame. It turns into "Disagree with me and
it's a flame". Sigh.
> > > 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.
What is he talking about and how does that even fit into what I'm
saying? Relevance is the key thing to strive for in discussion. If
possible, explain the "commodity" aspect as backed by evidence.
Here's the proper analogy to use to the ORIGINAL discussion of truth
only being found in one subgenre.
"Take a pencil and hold it in front of your eyes so that all you see is
the pink eraser end. Now imagine that all your life that is the only
view you've ever seen of a pencil. For x years, when you think of
pencil, you think of that round pink circle. One day someone moves the
pencil and suddenly there is a long yellow cylinder, a sharp point,
etc...completely different image than the one you know."
The relevance of this goes back to only listening to black metal. If
you only submerge yourself in one genre, all you may be getting is the
pink circle, rather than the full truth of the pencil. What good is
truth without context? Get the point now?
> >
> > > Thank goodness I can put on Tori Amos and find enjoyment.
> >
> > Obviously not a very astute reader of my past playlists.
He must be assuming I bother to even read his posts/playlists or
anything involved with his operation.
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
N. Evermind
John Chedsey wrote:
> Paul Wilbur wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 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!
> > >
> > > (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.
>
> A really broad definition of flame. It turns into "Disagree with me and
> it's a flame". Sigh.
Dammit! I said this already! No fair!
Satankat is an algae! His momma is green! And fat!
> > > > 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.
>
> What is he talking about and how does that even fit into what I'm
> saying? Relevance is the key thing to strive for in discussion. If
> possible, explain the "commodity" aspect as backed by evidence.
Dont pay attention to shit like that. I think it's intentional provocation.
> Here's the proper analogy to use to the ORIGINAL discussion of truth
> only being found in one subgenre.
>
> "Take a pencil and hold it in front of your eyes so that all you see is
> the pink eraser end. Now imagine that all your life that is the only
> view you've ever seen of a pencil. For x years, when you think of
> pencil, you think of that round pink circle. One day someone moves the
> pencil and suddenly there is a long yellow cylinder, a sharp point,
> etc...completely different image than the one you know."
>
> The relevance of this goes back to only listening to black metal. If
> you only submerge yourself in one genre, all you may be getting is the
> pink circle, rather than the full truth of the pencil.
I dont agree with this. Consider someone who has looked at the entire pencil. Now the
part he likes in the pink circle. So he rejects the other parts (after having seen
them) and stares at this circle for the rest of his life. This is the typical
blackmetal listener, and I dont see what's wrong with that.
The point is: no one ever listens to black metal to start with. People invariably go
through Michael Jackson, Led Zeppelin, etc. And then they come to black metal, and
then they realise: "yes, this is what I've been looking for, and this is what I want".
I see nothing wrong with that. Hell, even if a person listens to only one album all
his life, and if that is truly what he wants - his deciison is based on artistic
reasons only, and not any sort of elitist "image" thing, I think that's fine! This
whole "limiting yourself to one genre only" works for pop music because that is what
one is offered, even if one just idles at home and makes no conscious effort to
"search for" other forms of music. When one rejects what he is fed, seeks out
something more "satisfying", who are we to say that he is "only limiting himself to
that which satisfies him"?
> What good is
> truth without context? Get the point now?
>
>
> --
> ====================
> Satan Stole My Teddybear
> http://www.chedsey.com
--
The Rattler
says...
> Tori Amos is the most overrated musician on earth.
But wait, where does that leave Varg Vikernes? ;)
> Whispering does not make you "artistic"
Neither does screaming.
> lyrical righteous topics don't make the music good automatically.
Actually, I find a lot of her lyrics to be a) tedious, b) predictable and
c) incoherant (with a few exceptions, mostly off the first album). The
music itself isn't half bad on average... I actually like a lot of
"Little Earthquakes" (but then, I'm a sucker for solo piano music) but
she seems to be disappearing progressively up her own arse with each
album she makes. "From The Choirgirl Hotel" was, IMPHO, utter dross. I
also find that in greater-than-60-minute doses, her voice can get
somewhat irritating (esp on the later stuff, in which she attempts far
too many 'elaborate' vocal histrionics)...
Then again, I could never *completely* write off the obvious talent of
someone who could write a song as magnificent as "Winter".
--
"Frosty the Snowman
Was peeing against the wind
In a ravenstorm" - 'Immortal Haiku' by Annatar Gorthaur.
*** UNDER THE BANNER OF FNOOGLE WE RIDE! ***
John Chedsey
> > > > 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.
> >
> > A really broad definition of flame. It turns into "Disagree with me and
> > it's a flame". Sigh.
>
> Dammit! I said this already! No fair!
>
> Satankat is an algae! His momma is green! And fat!
Now that's a flame. A really bad one. N, I had written my little thing
well before your post made it to my server, so quit pouting like the
girl they say you are.
>
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > What is he talking about and how does that even fit into what I'm
> > saying? Relevance is the key thing to strive for in discussion. If
> > possible, explain the "commodity" aspect as backed by evidence.
>
> Dont pay attention to shit like that. I think it's intentional provocation.
Duh. When all else fails, this is the tactic used to thwart attention
from the original point. I was just testing to see if he's even able to
back what he says. Which he can't...not without more vague provocations
and personall attacks.
>
> > Here's the proper analogy to use to the ORIGINAL discussion of truth
> > only being found in one subgenre.
> >
> > "Take a pencil and hold it in front of your eyes so that all you see is
> > the pink eraser end. Now imagine that all your life that is the only
> > view you've ever seen of a pencil. For x years, when you think of
> > pencil, you think of that round pink circle. One day someone moves the
> > pencil and suddenly there is a long yellow cylinder, a sharp point,
> > etc...completely different image than the one you know."
> >
> > The relevance of this goes back to only listening to black metal. If
> > you only submerge yourself in one genre, all you may be getting is the
> > pink circle, rather than the full truth of the pencil.
>
> I dont agree with this. Consider someone who has looked at the entire pencil. Now the
> part he likes in the pink circle. So he rejects the other parts (after having seen
> them) and stares at this circle for the rest of his life. This is the typical
> blackmetal listener, and I dont see what's wrong with that.
You're still looking at it backwards as well as discluding the
possibility that the truth could still be contained in the rest of the
pencil (specifically the Dance Hall Crashers part because they're as
close to the truth as you will get at this time of year). The analogy
works best for people with a narrow band of tastes who refuse to listen
to anything else.
> The point is: no one ever listens to black metal to start with. People invariably go
> through Michael Jackson, Led Zeppelin, etc. And then they come to black metal, and
> then they realise: "yes, this is what I've been looking for, and this is what I want".
Maybe, maybe not. The original impetus of this arguement had to do with
black metallists calling In Flames' melodies "happy". 98% of the world,
when exposed to In Flames, would NOT find them happy. Their
descriptions would be "angry", "aggressive" or "noisy". It's my opinion
that when one solely listens to only one thing, they are invariably
missing out on a whole lot. But that's their loss entirely.
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
>What is he talking about and how does that even fit into what I'm
> What good is truth without context? Get the point now?
as well as
>He must be assuming I bother to even read his posts/playlists [..]
Is there anything left to say here?
--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:
> >What is he talking about and how does that even fit into what I'm
> >saying? Relevance is the key thing to strive for in discussion. [..]
> > What good is truth without context? Get the point now?
>
> as well as
>
> >He must be assuming I bother to even read his posts/playlists [..]
>
> Is there anything left to say here?
I've read your three posts that really contain little merit or value to
the conversation. Come back when you can add something.
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
> i'm not trying to be accusatory
> here, but evilmetal is completely right when he says you appreciate it
> as commodity.
This is what I want explained as I do not see what you are getting at.
Mr. E is just being Mr. E and trying to provoke a negative response, the
little nut.
> if you like all things equally, that "equal" level is at
> a very, very low point.
Has it been stated as such that I like all things equally? That is in
itself a misrepresentation of anything I've stated. What should be
stated is that I give all things an equal chance to be liked. (Well,
naturally certain things are excluded, such as country, but you know
what I'm saying.) There is a huge difference between the two.
Immense. Bigger than the legends surrounding Glen Benton.
John Chedsey
>
> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 17:38:01 -0700, John Chedsey
> >
> >I've read your three posts that really contain little merit or value to
> >the conversation. Come back when you can add something.
>
That would be presuming he had one...
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 20:51:02 -0700, John Chedsey
> <kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>
> >Ninnghizhidda wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I've read your three posts that really contain little merit or value to
> >> >the conversation. Come back when you can add something.
> >>
> >> transparent. ad hominem. gayness. try responding to his point.
> >
> >That would be presuming he had one...
>
>
> hey; i saw it. where'd you go astray?
Personally I just think it's typical usenet tactics to elicit a
response. C'mon, I expect better of you.
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
>
> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 20:50:26 -0700, John Chedsey
> <kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>
> >Ninnghizhidda wrote:
> >> i'm not trying to be accusatory
> >> here, but evilmetal is completely right when he says you appreciate it
> >> as commodity.
> >
> >This is what I want explained as I do not see what you are getting at.
> >Mr. E is just being Mr. E and trying to provoke a negative response, the
> >little nut.
>
> the way it's going to be?
Come on there. You're simply not answering my question, rather using
the time honored tradition of pointing a finger to thwart the spotlight
off yourself.
Now, explain how I allegedly treat music as a commodity. For my
benefit, explain the meaning behind "commodity" and show some examples
of how I have done so. Personally, I think you're just playing grudge
war just to see if you can get a reaction from me. So far I'm simply
unimpressed.
> >That is in
> >itself a misrepresentation of anything I've stated. What should be
> >stated is that I give all things an equal chance to be liked. (Well,
> >naturally certain things are excluded, such as country, but you know
> >what I'm saying.) There is a huge difference between the two.
> >Immense. Bigger than the legends surrounding Glen Benton.
>
> problem: you are not talking about what i'm talking about.
Imagine that.
> all i will say is that you do not appreciate music in the same ways
> that many of the people you have these discussions with do. there is
> nothing "good" or "bad" about that - and unlike devamitra, i dont
> really care - but because you assume your principles as universal
> truths and disregard our principles as better standards to judge music
> in the way we do (solipsism), you end up with stupid conversations
> like this. so try to understand where i'm coming from before you say
> things which look stupid to a great many people here.
Usually this is what these "discussions" boil down to in the newsgroup.
Blah blah blah aesthetics blah blah yakkity yak solipsism yada yada
truth etc etc etc. Yes, I am mocking the tone and responses. Moreover,
the idea that I would really concern myself with the reactions of the ng
is even funnier. Music itself is a serious matter with me and there are
certain records/songs/etc that have deeper meaning for me than anything
in the world. And generally the bantering received due to various posts
just makes me smile. You can make all the assumptions you would like
about me...it's all good.
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
> > N, I had written my little thing
> > well before your post made it to my server, so quit pouting like the
> > girl they say you are.
>
> If calling me a girl makes you feel more "adequate" (about penis length), then whatever. It
> is also ok to be less endowed than most men. Really. I do pity you!
Ha! I had to interject the girl thing since I know you miss THE
SENTINEL. I'm sure he misses you too. Incidentally, he's slowly being
introduced to punk via Nomeansno, Minutemen and ALL. Again, SSMT is
here to help you.
> I do see what you mean, and I understand where you're coming from, but this simply cannot be
> applied to black metal. Also, it is a personal choice.
Heck, I think as with everyone else, we're just posting responses to
what to me has been a pretty dry subject just to see our names. Not to
belittle anyone, but this ranks low in worthiness.
PS...just got a huge stack of new CDs including some Mayhem,
Dissection's "Somberlain" and Falkenbach. Oh, and Acid Bath. I'm
looking foward to listening to these soon...
John Chedsey
> >> >That would be presuming he had one...
> >>
> >> "you are a hypocrite"
> >>
> >> hey; i saw it. where'd you go astray?
> >
> >Personally I just think it's typical usenet tactics to elicit a
> >response.
>
> sadly, intent is not relevant to whether or not he's right. and he is.
> you never respond to anything with a straight answer; almost
> everything i've ever heard you say here is bullshit. a contradiction
> was pointed out, and you're _still_ trying to dance away without
> answering.
Sigh. Contradiction with what? You just make remarks to elusive things
and never even show where you are getting this from.
Thus, you are now adding nothing to the quite dead subject at hand
(which seemingly was nothing either).
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
> that's what. "listening to the same aesthetic over and over and over
> is boring! new aesthetics! more entertainment!"
The word "boring" was never used. That may be how you interpeted it, but
the correct term would be "restrictive".
>
> genre is genre. "one genre is diverse as all others" - that is, if
> you're looking at more then just "how it appears to sound".
This could work towards BOTH arguements. If you think (I am not saying
YOU, just anyone) that all pop, blues, jazz, black metal, prog rock or
whatever is dung because it is what it is then you are not into it enough
and you are unable to judge it with any authority.
> a genre is a genre. consider: each genre is an imperfect effigy of a
> pencil. each genre attempts to show best what the pencil's image is,
> or specific aspects of a pencil, in a different manner then all the
> others. if you believe that pencil A explains it better then pencil B
> which explains it better then pencil C, what do you care of B or C? if
> A bores you, then A is only a commodity because you care not what it
> explains, but "how it looks". i listen to a vaguely wide range of
> music (metal, contemporary classical, electronic, "experimental"), not
> because i'm "bored" without variety, but because i think the material
> i've found in any one of those genres is just as worthwhile as in the
> others. they all explain the image of - not a pencil, but - ...what do
> you think?
Good analogy. I think you described what I feel. I don't listen to a bunch
of stuff because of boredom, but more because each has something to
contribute.
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
> >> a very, very low point.
> >
>
> you have strongly implied that all genres (or: most) are basically the
> same and just as worthwhile as the next. you throw around the word
> "open minded" as if it proves something.
It proves nothing to be "open minded" UNLESS it means that you don't write
something else off because it's not one thing or the other. This is what
SSMT was getting at I think. NOBODY in ANY ng would say "it's all good"
unless it was a rap newsgroup! And there it has different meaning! :)
open mindedness for you means
> liking as many aesthetically different things as you can. open minded
> for the rational world means what you said below - fair consideration
> given to music presented.
You are missing his, and my, points. To be critical of ANY type of music
there must be something of which to base it off of. Are you going to say
that you can write off whole genres because it's not black metal? The goal
is not to like as many things as we can, but to find the good stuff in
each genre we care to explore. I have the black metal bands I like, and
there are ones I feel offer nothing beautiful or new to the genre. This is
the same for other genres as well.
> > proof that you generally consider the former and not the latter: you
> say "your loss" when a person decides to stay in one genre, because
> any one single genre is not [aesthetically] "diverse" enough. genre is
> an irrelevant index of variety; genre explains "how" but not "what".
The genres can be diverse enough to have "aesthetical" value, but in this
ng there seems to be a clustering effect around about 6 groups, which is
not enough to truly appreciate any groups that are outside that "sound".
>
> i buy the fact that, deep down, you believe that what is below
> explains your "open mindedness", but your usage of the word is very
> confused. think about it.
Or you can think about it.
>
> >That is in
> >itself a misrepresentation of anything I've stated. What should be
> >stated is that I give all things an equal chance to be liked. (Well,
> >naturally certain things are excluded, such as country, but you know
> >what I'm saying.) There is a huge difference between the two.
> >Immense. Bigger than the legends surrounding Glen Benton.
If you rule out country then you may never be exposed to Son Volt or early
Johnny Cash. That would be a shame! :)
>
> problem: you are not talking about what i'm talking about. when it
> becomes "our loss" when we dont listen to (for instance) tori amos, it
> means that we "should" like all things equally; that one genre is just
> as good as the next. you will note that i'm not talking about
> individual elements here.
>
"your loss" is a polite way of not saying something meaner and less to the
point, if you know what I mean.
> all i will say is that you do not appreciate music in the same ways
> that many of the people you have these discussions with do. there is
> nothing "good" or "bad" about that - and unlike devamitra, i dont
> really care - but because you assume your principles as universal
> truths and disregard our principles as better standards to judge music
> in the way we do (solipsism), you end up with stupid conversations
> like this. so try to understand where i'm coming from before you say
> things which look stupid to a great many people here.
That's nothing new. A lot of people in this group say things that look
stupid to me. And believe me, SSMT is NOT the only one here who thinks
what he thinks is a "universal truth". That is the major problem with 99%
of the posts. Evilmusic can say that band X sucks, and I am supposed to
accept that as a universal truth? Not going to happen. We all could be
accussed of thinking that we are right and think that everyone else is
wrong.
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 ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
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:
>Paul Wilbur wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 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!
>> >
>> > (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.
>
>A really broad definition of flame. It turns into "Disagree with me and
>it's a flame". Sigh.
i think the auto- prefix means "self". what do you think?
>> > > 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.
>
>What is he talking about and how does that even fit into what I'm
>saying?
well...
>> > > Besides, one genre or
>> > > subgenre (which of course is narrower) would get extremely tiresome
>> > > after awhile and cause severe mental hemmoraging.
that's what. "listening to the same aesthetic over and over and over
is boring! new aesthetics! more entertainment!"
genre is genre. "one genre is diverse as all others" - that is, if
you're looking at more then just "how it appears to sound".
>Here's the proper analogy to use to the ORIGINAL discussion of truth
>only being found in one subgenre.
>
>"Take a pencil and hold it in front of your eyes so that all you see is
>the pink eraser end. Now imagine that all your life that is the only
>view you've ever seen of a pencil. For x years, when you think of
>pencil, you think of that round pink circle. One day someone moves the
>pencil and suddenly there is a long yellow cylinder, a sharp point,
>etc...completely different image than the one you know."
>
>The relevance of this goes back to only listening to black metal. If
>you only submerge yourself in one genre, all you may be getting is the
>pink circle, rather than the full truth of the pencil. What good is
>truth without context? Get the point now?
that was a rather horrible analogy. i'm not trying to be accusatory
here, but evilmetal is completely right when he says you appreciate it
as commodity. if you like all things equally, that "equal" level is at
a very, very low point. people who eat garbage off of the floor and
say "it all tastes fine" have never tasted something that isnt
reminiscent of shit. being overly critical is the consequence of
having strong opinions about something (instead of passing
"interest").
a genre is a genre. consider: each genre is an imperfect effigy of a
pencil. each genre attempts to show best what the pencil's image is,
or specific aspects of a pencil, in a different manner then all the
others. if you believe that pencil A explains it better then pencil B
which explains it better then pencil C, what do you care of B or C? if
A bores you, then A is only a commodity because you care not what it
explains, but "how it looks". i listen to a vaguely wide range of
music (metal, contemporary classical, electronic, "experimental"), not
because i'm "bored" without variety, but because i think the material
i've found in any one of those genres is just as worthwhile as in the
others. they all explain the image of - not a pencil, but - ...what do
you think?
-Daemonic
Ninnghizhidda
<kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>"Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman" wrote:
>>
>> John Chedsey <kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>> >What is he talking about and how does that even fit into what I'm
>> >saying? Relevance is the key thing to strive for in discussion. [..]
>> > What good is truth without context? Get the point now?
>>
>> as well as
>>
>> >He must be assuming I bother to even read his posts/playlists [..]
>>
>> Is there anything left to say here?
>
>I've read your three posts that really contain little merit or value to
>the conversation. Come back when you can add something.
transparent. ad hominem. gayness. try responding to his point.
-Daemonic
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)
--
- 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
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:
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 17:38:01 -0700, John Chedsey
>> >
>> >I've read your three posts that really contain little merit or value to
>> >the conversation. Come back when you can add something.
>>
>> transparent. ad hominem. gayness. try responding to his point.
>
>That would be presuming he had one...
"you are a hypocrite"
hey; i saw it. where'd you go astray?
-Daemonic
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
Ninnghizhidda
<kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>> i'm not trying to be accusatory
>> here, but evilmetal is completely right when he says you appreciate it
>> as commodity.
>
>This is what I want explained as I do not see what you are getting at.
>Mr. E is just being Mr. E and trying to provoke a negative response, the
>little nut.
luckily, i explained it for you. unluckily, you ignored it. is that
the way it's going to be?
>> if you like all things equally, that "equal" level is at
>> a very, very low point.
>
>Has it been stated as such that I like all things equally?
you have strongly implied that all genres (or: most) are basically the
same and just as worthwhile as the next. you throw around the word
"open minded" as if it proves something. open mindedness for you means
liking as many aesthetically different things as you can. open minded
for the rational world means what you said below - fair consideration
given to music presented.
proof that you generally consider the former and not the latter: you
say "your loss" when a person decides to stay in one genre, because
any one single genre is not [aesthetically] "diverse" enough. genre is
an irrelevant index of variety; genre explains "how" but not "what".
i buy the fact that, deep down, you believe that what is below
explains your "open mindedness", but your usage of the word is very
confused. think about it.
>That is in
>itself a misrepresentation of anything I've stated. What should be
>stated is that I give all things an equal chance to be liked. (Well,
>naturally certain things are excluded, such as country, but you know
>what I'm saying.) There is a huge difference between the two.
>Immense. Bigger than the legends surrounding Glen Benton.
problem: you are not talking about what i'm talking about. when it
becomes "our loss" when we dont listen to (for instance) tori amos, it
means that we "should" like all things equally; that one genre is just
as good as the next. you will note that i'm not talking about
individual elements here.
all i will say is that you do not appreciate music in the same ways
that many of the people you have these discussions with do. there is
nothing "good" or "bad" about that - and unlike devamitra, i dont
really care - but because you assume your principles as universal
truths and disregard our principles as better standards to judge music
in the way we do (solipsism), you end up with stupid conversations
like this. so try to understand where i'm coming from before you say
things which look stupid to a great many people here.
-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
John Chedsey wrote:
> "N. Evermind" wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > A really broad definition of flame. It turns into "Disagree with me and
> > > it's a flame". Sigh.
> >
> > Dammit! I said this already! No fair!
> >
> > Satankat is an algae! His momma is green! And fat!
>
> Now that's a flame. A really bad one.
Sure. I bet you were crying, but now you're just trying to put on a brave front. There's no
shame in crying. Really.
> N, I had written my little thing
> well before your post made it to my server, so quit pouting like the
> girl they say you are.
If calling me a girl makes you feel more "adequate" (about penis length), then whatever. It
is also ok to be less endowed than most men. Really. I do pity you!
> >
> > > Here's the proper analogy to use to the ORIGINAL discussion of truth
> > > only being found in one subgenre.
> > >
> > > "Take a pencil and hold it in front of your eyes so that all you see is
> > > the pink eraser end. Now imagine that all your life that is the only
> > > view you've ever seen of a pencil. For x years, when you think of
> > > pencil, you think of that round pink circle. One day someone moves the
> > > pencil and suddenly there is a long yellow cylinder, a sharp point,
> > > etc...completely different image than the one you know."
> > >
> > > The relevance of this goes back to only listening to black metal. If
> > > you only submerge yourself in one genre, all you may be getting is the
> > > pink circle, rather than the full truth of the pencil.
> >
> > I dont agree with this. Consider someone who has looked at the entire pencil. Now the
> > part he likes in the pink circle. So he rejects the other parts (after having seen
> > them) and stares at this circle for the rest of his life. This is the typical
> > blackmetal listener, and I dont see what's wrong with that.
>
> You're still looking at it backwards as well as discluding the
> possibility that the truth could still be contained in the rest of the
> pencil (specifically the Dance Hall Crashers part because they're as
> close to the truth as you will get at this time of year).
However, it is already understood that you *have* already looked at the pencil from all
sides.
> The analogy
> works best for people with a narrow band of tastes who refuse to listen
> to anything else.
The decision to listen to only a "narrow band of music" is, in the case of metal, not an "a
priori" decision. A person *has* to go through the mainstream, filter it out, look for
blackmetal, and then revel in it. Again, this only works for pop music: simply because
"listening to anything else" will involve effort and willingness to seek out other forms. I
dont see how you can apply this to BM when most people have reached this state after a long
period of discretionary "advancement". We have already determined that they dont like pop
music. So now where does the question come of "refusing to listen to anything else"?
However, there are also people who listen to it because it is "evil" and "loud" and "fast"
and "non-mainstream" and other image reasons (i.e. do not appreciate it as "art"). But that
is an entirely different issue.
> > The point is: no one ever listens to black metal to start with. People invariably go
> > through Michael Jackson, Led Zeppelin, etc. And then they come to black metal, and
> > then they realise: "yes, this is what I've been looking for, and this is what I want".
>
> Maybe, maybe not. The original impetus of this arguement had to do with
> black metallists calling In Flames' melodies "happy". 98% of the world,
> when exposed to In Flames, would NOT find them happy. Their
> descriptions would be "angry", "aggressive" or "noisy".
What the world thinks is irrelevant, in almost any context. Also, what does it have to do
with people listening only to a certain form of music?
> It's my opinion
> that when one solely listens to only one thing, they are invariably
> missing out on a whole lot. But that's their loss entirely.
Uh...see above.
I do see what you mean, and I understand where you're coming from, but this simply cannot be
applied to black metal. Also, it is a personal choice.
> --
> ====================
> Satan Stole My Teddybear
> http://www.chedsey.com
--
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.
>
> -Daemonic
--
Significant Pickle
John Chedsey <kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote in article
<367F28E3...@peakpeak.com>...
> Ninnghizhidda wrote:
> >
> > all i will say is that you do not appreciate music in the same ways
> > that many of the people you have these discussions with do. there is
> > nothing "good" or "bad" about that - and unlike devamitra, i dont
> > really care - but because you assume your principles as universal
> > truths and disregard our principles as better standards to judge music
> > in the way we do (solipsism), you end up with stupid conversations
> > like this. so try to understand where i'm coming from before you say
> > things which look stupid to a great many people here.
>
> Usually this is what these "discussions" boil down to in the newsgroup.
> Blah blah blah aesthetics blah blah yakkity yak solipsism yada yada
> truth etc etc etc. Yes, I am mocking the tone and responses. Moreover,
> the idea that I would really concern myself with the reactions of the ng
> is even funnier. Music itself is a serious matter with me and there are
> certain records/songs/etc that have deeper meaning for me than anything
> in the world. And generally the bantering received due to various posts
> just makes me smile. You can make all the assumptions you would like
> about me...it's all good.
I wish you could see that (despite "aesthetic" provocations....) this is
not about making assumptions about certain people.
At least it's not for me. To paraphrase a really good point made here
some time ago: this newsgroup is for discussion. Often, people mistake
the discussion for ad hominem/slander/ego-bolstering/etc, and make the
classic "personality error", choosing not to address the point but the
person making the point.
I completely agree that the egoistic "discussions" bore the fuck out of me,
but there is alot of >content< which tends to be overlooked and lumped in
with the rest of the shit-flinging.
I think Daemonic and evilmusic (!) have a valid point in this
case.....regardless of what you think of them personally.
What would you respond if the questions asked were introspective, and not
from external sources?
E.
--
******
"Don't dance for the blind man,
He is the enemy,
And will take your eyes
Fly, don't dance blindly
And bleed for an enemy
Behind the mask of a friend"
--Foundation, "Follow"
Ninnghizhidda
<kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 20:51:02 -0700, John Chedsey
>> <kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 17:38:01 -0700, John Chedsey
>> >> >
>> >> >I've read your three posts that really contain little merit or value to
>> >> >the conversation. Come back when you can add something.
>> >>
>> >> transparent. ad hominem. gayness. try responding to his point.
>> >
>> >That would be presuming he had one...
>>
>> "you are a hypocrite"
>>
>> hey; i saw it. where'd you go astray?
>
>Personally I just think it's typical usenet tactics to elicit a
>response.
sadly, intent is not relevant to whether or not he's right. and he is.
you never respond to anything with a straight answer; almost
everything i've ever heard you say here is bullshit. a contradiction
was pointed out, and you're _still_ trying to dance away without
answering.
"well, i dont like having these discussions, cuz i had them in college
once..."
yeah.
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:
>Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 20:50:26 -0700, John Chedsey
>> <kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>> >> i'm not trying to be accusatory
>> >> here, but evilmetal is completely right when he says you appreciate it
>> >> as commodity.
>> >
>> >This is what I want explained as I do not see what you are getting at.
>> >Mr. E is just being Mr. E and trying to provoke a negative response, the
>> >little nut.
>>
>> luckily, i explained it for you. unluckily, you ignored it. is that
>> the way it's going to be?
>
>Come on there. You're simply not answering my question, rather using
>the time honored tradition of pointing a finger to thwart the spotlight
>off yourself.
do you even read the posts you respond to? are you acting stupid on
purpose? let's try reposting what i said (it got no answer because you
"ignored it"):
>>that's what. "listening to the same aesthetic over and over and over
>>is boring! new aesthetics! more entertainment!"
>>genre is genre. "one genre is diverse as all others" - that is, if
>>you're looking at more then just "how it appears to sound".
then:
>>a genre is a genre. consider: each genre is an imperfect effigy of a
>>pencil. each genre attempts to show best what the pencil's image is,
>>or specific aspects of a pencil, in a different manner then all the
>>others. if you believe that pencil A explains it better then pencil B
>>which explains it better then pencil C, what do you care of B or C? if
>>A bores you, then A is only a commodity because you care not what it
>>explains, but "how it looks". i listen to a vaguely wide range of
>>music (metal, contemporary classical, electronic, "experimental"), not
>>because i'm "bored" without variety, but because i think the material
>>i've found in any one of those genres is just as worthwhile as in the
>>others. they all explain the image of - not a pencil, but - ...what do
>>you think?
so, you got a description of music as art (in contrast with what you
said), and a basic idea of what the difference between that and
"commodity" is. if you extrapolate: commodity, simply, in our analogy,
would be taking one of those pencils and shoving it vigorously up your
ass for twisted sexual pleasure unrelated to why they were created in
the way that they were. that boils down to: the distinction between
"art" and "non". and i'm not prepared to write about that right this
second in depth, as it would take quite a long time. you must have
_some_ idea of what it means unless you decide to skip over every post
in this newsgroup. if you're completely clueless, i'll have something
written up by the end of the week; try thinking about it until then.
change of plans: i seem to have written a bit all the way at the
bottom. read it.
>Now, explain how I allegedly treat music as a commodity.
you consider genres an index of variety. you use music for what
amounts to "erotic pleasure" - exemplified in your liking music
_simply because_ it affects your mood. the list continues. i'll bet
that if you compared your perceptions of music to, say, those of
james, you'd come out with mostly similarities. problem: james states
outright what he thinks, knows what i think, and simply wants to argue
the definition of art (well, i think that's what we were arguing
about). you have no clue whatsoever what i think and want to argue
about what i "should" think. i have no problem that you dont
understand me as of now (i could concievably explain it, and you could
say "ok" and continue on); i have a problem that you seem to believe
there's nothing to explain.
>For my
>benefit, explain the meaning behind "commodity" and show some examples
>of how I have done so.
for a [simple, but] satisfactory explanation: see below. for examples:
see above.
>Personally, I think you're just playing grudge
>war just to see if you can get a reaction from me. So far I'm simply
>unimpressed.
go look up "solipsist". you're simply telling us more about how you
think, rather then how we do - "if i were doing this, it would be
because of reason X, so therefore anyone else doing it must have the
same reason".
>> all i will say is that you do not appreciate music in the same ways
>> that many of the people you have these discussions with do. there is
>> nothing "good" or "bad" about that - and unlike devamitra, i dont
>> really care - but because you assume your principles as universal
>> truths and disregard our principles as better standards to judge music
>> in the way we do (solipsism), you end up with stupid conversations
>> like this. so try to understand where i'm coming from before you say
>> things which look stupid to a great many people here.
>
>Usually this is what these "discussions" boil down to in the newsgroup.
>Blah blah blah aesthetics blah blah yakkity yak solipsism yada yada
>truth etc etc etc.
sadly, it seems you cant see a "discussion" as any more then a
conglomeration of all the "big words" used in it. i say "solipsism"
here for a reason. look it up if you dont understand it; consider what
it means, consider why i applied it to you, and consider why it's not
a positive thing.
>Moreover,
>the idea that I would really concern myself with the reactions of the ng
>is even funnier.
it has nothing to do with their perception of you. it has to do with
their reaction to what you say based on a higher understanding of
certain things then you have. disconnect their thoughts from them.
consider.
>Music itself is a serious matter with me and there are
>certain records/songs/etc that have deeper meaning for me than anything
>in the world.
this is no answer. consider: drugs are just as much a commodity as
anything else, but many people would use them as something much more
and ascribe "deep meaning" to using them (perhaps rightly so). but
more importantly, we will focus on the reaction. when you decide to
get high on something, you can either A) say "wow, maaaaan, i'm so
fucking STONED!", or B) consider the sensation of being high as a
gateway to something more. neither is "correct". but if someone
decides to snort coke for reason B and someone else says "i dont
understand why you're doing that. you might kill yourself. why dont
you try drug X; it's not as strong, but it's safer and it feels pretty
good too", he ends up looking rather stupid. or even (to get a better
analagous example), "why dont you try heroin instead? i realize it's a
completely different reaction, but it makes you feel happy so i dont
understand what the difference is".
the analogy was a _bit_ stretched (too linear), but it does an
adequate job of getting the point across. there is a difference
between using music as "erotic pleasure", and using music as
"something higher". even the latter has elements of the former,
but..._only_?
simply put: music as art has a higher purpose both in itself and in
the person. the person in the above example used drugs to get at the
higher purpose in himself. likewise, "mood music", relaxation tapes,
meditation, and even brainwave synchronization serve a purpose but
have no purpose in themselves. thus, they are crap in themselves, but
they serve a purpose which may or may not be useful and beneficial to
the person (example: the purpose of meditating is obvious, but
meditating in itself is wasting time). when you convert music into
commodity, you are using it for your purpose, but disclaiming this
"higher purpose" within it. _that_ is commodity. what i suggest is: if
that's how you want to deal with it, that's fine, but dont presume to
explain to me why i should be more like you.
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:
>
>> >> >That would be presuming he had one...
>> >>
>> >> "you are a hypocrite"
>> >>
>> >> hey; i saw it. where'd you go astray?
>> >
>> >Personally I just think it's typical usenet tactics to elicit a
>> >response.
>>
>> sadly, intent is not relevant to whether or not he's right. and he is.
>> you never respond to anything with a straight answer; almost
>> everything i've ever heard you say here is bullshit. a contradiction
>> was pointed out, and you're _still_ trying to dance away without
>> answering.
>
>Sigh. Contradiction with what? You just make remarks to elusive things
>and never even show where you are getting this from.
what are you smoking? jeroen said:
>John Chedsey <kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>>What is he talking about and how does that even fit into what I'm
>>saying? Relevance is the key thing to strive for in discussion. [..]
>> What good is truth without context? Get the point now?
>as well as
>>He must be assuming I bother to even read his posts/playlists [..]
wake up. pull head out of ass. pay attention. stop acting like a
moron.
(i think perhaps i'm going to start employing some of evilmetal's
"elitism" now, because i'm wasting my time talking to someone who
doesnt even want to understand)
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
> <snip long rant>
What kills me is that I can keep this guy going all night long. Okay,
so I should find better ways to amuse myself.
Oh, and no, I didn't read that last post. The others were entirely
devoid of anything useful, thus you lose out on basis of no value.
Significant Pickle
> Heck, I think as with everyone else, we're just posting responses to
> what to me has been a pretty dry subject just to see our names. Not to
> belittle anyone, but this ranks low in worthiness.
Uh, John, this is going to sound insulting....but what you're doing is just
projecting.
Translation: "I may just be posting to this dry subject to see my name, so
the others must be doing the same!"
I won't speak for others, but trust me.....I do >not< waste my time on
something I don't consider important, for whatever reason.
To writ: "I expected better of you."
Additionally, to writ: "If you don't get anything out of this newsgroup,
your loss".
E.
--
******
"We die and are reborn with each breath,
And for each death; the shedding of a lie,
A truth is born."
--Foundation, "Morning"
Ninnghizhidda
<dapi...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>> that's what. "listening to the same aesthetic over and over and over
>> is boring! new aesthetics! more entertainment!"
>
>The word "boring" was never used. That may be how you interpeted it, but
>the correct term would be "restrictive".
i realize that. try bringing it to the next level. what does it
"restrict"? it "restricts" having "variety". and variety is important
because the result of none is "boredom". this has all been said.
for future reference: when i "quote" something in the way i did above,
its meant as a caricature of a concept. obviously he never said that.
but from everything he has said, that's what it seems like he meant.
>> genre is genre. "one genre is diverse as all others" - that is, if
>> you're looking at more then just "how it appears to sound".
>
>This could work towards BOTH arguements. If you think (I am not saying
>YOU, just anyone) that all pop, blues, jazz, black metal, prog rock or
>whatever is dung because it is what it is then you are not into it enough
>and you are unable to judge it with any authority.
yes and no. while i think there are objective standards to put music
up against, simply saying "this music displeases me on aesthetic
levels and i dont want to listen to it" is really a good reason not to
listen to it. you're not "judging it with authority" - you're giving a
subjective judgment. if you hate prog rock for no good reason and
think it's all crap, you can and should have that opinion, and you can
and should avoid all prog rock you find. however, if it bores you for
aesthetic reasons, you should not attempt to give objective appraisals
of it. in evilmetalese, it has "failed to communicate" - but that does
not mean that there wasnt anything to communicate in the first place.
>> a genre is a genre. consider: each genre is an imperfect effigy of a
>> pencil. each genre attempts to show best what the pencil's image is,
>> or specific aspects of a pencil, in a different manner then all the
>> others. if you believe that pencil A explains it better then pencil B
>> which explains it better then pencil C, what do you care of B or C? if
>> A bores you, then A is only a commodity because you care not what it
>> explains, but "how it looks". i listen to a vaguely wide range of
>> music (metal, contemporary classical, electronic, "experimental"), not
>> because i'm "bored" without variety, but because i think the material
>> i've found in any one of those genres is just as worthwhile as in the
>> others. they all explain the image of - not a pencil, but - ...what do
>> you think?
>
>Good analogy. I think you described what I feel. I don't listen to a bunch
>of stuff because of boredom, but more because each has something to
>contribute.
that's the best reason there is.
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
<kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote:
>Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>> <snip long rant>
>
>What kills me is that I can keep this guy going all night long.
to quote MC vic:
"the mouse runs through the maze and laughs because he manipulated the
scientist into taking him out."
you think i'm posting solely for your benefit? hardly. it helps me
phrase my thoughts. and other people, willing to learn, might perhaps
read it and understand. and, on the level of silly childish games, you
ended up looking rather stupid. you're a liar and you know it - you
didnt like my response, so you wrote it off to a devious attempt you
made at "getting me".
>Oh, and no, I didn't read that last post. The others were entirely
>devoid of anything useful, thus you lose out on basis of no value.
i think that explains why you've been staring at us with a blank look
and wondering why we're not making sense. if you poked your eyes out,
you would instead tell me that you made the world black. but hey - you
have to live with it, and i dont.
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.
John Chedsey
>
> John Chedsey <kraz...@peakpeak.com> wrote in article
> <367F3859...@peakpeak.com>...
> > Heck, I think as with everyone else, we're just posting responses to
> > what to me has been a pretty dry subject just to see our names. Not to
> > belittle anyone, but this ranks low in worthiness.
>
> Uh, John, this is going to sound insulting....but what you're doing is just
> projecting.
>
> Translation: "I may just be posting to this dry subject to see my name, so
> the others must be doing the same!"
>
> I won't speak for others, but trust me.....I do >not< waste my time on
> something I don't consider important, for whatever reason.
>
> To writ: "I expected better of you."
>
> Additionally, to writ: "If you don't get anything out of this newsgroup,
> your loss".
If you don't get anything out of my response, well..
heh...that was funny.
Whatever debate was at hand tonight was pretty sad indeed compared to
the good ones of the past summer. That's the whole point.
--
====================
Satan Stole My Teddybear
http://www.chedsey.com
PS...Acid Bath is the SSMT recommendation of the minute
Significant Pickle
Paul Wilbur <dapi...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.4.04.98122...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu>...
> On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Ninnghizhidda wrote:
> > that's what. "listening to the same aesthetic over and over and over
> > is boring! new aesthetics! more entertainment!"
>
> The word "boring" was never used. That may be how you interpeted it, but
> the correct term would be "restrictive".
"Aesthetic". You're still saying this is a 'bad' thing (see below).
> > genre is genre. "one genre is diverse as all others" - that is, if
> > you're looking at more then just "how it appears to sound".
>
> This could work towards BOTH arguements. If you think (I am not saying
> YOU, just anyone) that all pop, blues, jazz, black metal, prog rock or
> whatever is dung because it is what it is then you are not into it enough
> and you are unable to judge it with any authority.
Those who DO judge "all others as dung" are doing EXACTLY what you are:
judging others by their own projected standards/mindset (the term is
"solipsism").
To back that up: re-read your (and John/SSMT's) recent posts.....stating
that it is "restrictive" (connotating a negative) to listen to only one
genre. Because you listen to several genres, gaining something from each
that you cannot gain from others (because if you COULD get all you wanted
from one single genre, why would you listen to others?).
However, you project this set of values to your perception of others, with
the belief that THEY could not get all they want out of one genre. The
point that all other genres had already been looked at/analyzed should be
understood at this point - and now moot.
> > a genre is a genre. consider: each genre is an imperfect effigy of a
> > pencil. each genre attempts to show best what the pencil's image is,
> > or specific aspects of a pencil, in a different manner then all the
> > others. if you believe that pencil A explains it better then pencil B
> > which explains it better then pencil C, what do you care of B or C? if
> > A bores you, then A is only a commodity because you care not what it
> > explains, but "how it looks". i listen to a vaguely wide range of
> > music (metal, contemporary classical, electronic, "experimental"), not
> > because i'm "bored" without variety, but because i think the material
> > i've found in any one of those genres is just as worthwhile as in the
> > others. they all explain the image of - not a pencil, but - ...what do
> > you think?
>
> Good analogy. I think you described what I feel. I don't listen to a
bunch
> of stuff because of boredom, but more because each has something to
> contribute.
Being somewhat enslaved to aesthetics at times myself, I listen to other
genres (even tho I get everything I need out of metal).
Significant Pickle
> Ninnghizhidda wrote:
> > <snip long rant>
>
> so I should find better ways to amuse myself.
>
> devoid of anything useful, thus you lose out on basis of no value.
How do you ever learn anything with your eyes sewn shut like this?
(Treat that as a flame if you want....but it's not. You should know I'm
not interested in flame. It's an honest question).
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.