Selling Out
Paul Swindlehurst
What the hell are all you lot on about on here??
Why have metallica 'sold out'. They are musicians they write and perform
music they like, if you like it as well listen to it. If you dont, then dont
listen to it.
Humans are capable of many things, one of them is rational thought, I bet
the majority of people on this newsgroup own 7CD's, guess whos they are??
You can listen to more than one band, and even of you try real hard more
than one genre of music.
If you lot just chilled and listened to music, the way the artists intend
(i.e. Ignore who its by, or what it says and just listen), then this group
could actually be used for what it is intended 'News'.
Swin.
'Doesnt matter what you see,
or to do with what you read,
you can do it your own way,
if it's done just how I say!'
Lenester Taxidean
On Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:33:17, "Paul Swindlehurst" <pa...@minorplanet.com>
wrote:
> Why have metallica 'sold out'. They are musicians they write and perform
> music they like, if you like it as well listen to it. If you dont, then dont
> listen to it.
I wasn't going to make a post like this myself, because I felt it would be a
pointless argument. But I'll pipe up to agree, here. Okay, Metallica's music
has changed. Ever think maybe that's because the group is in 30s now, and
their hormones just don't rage the way they used to?
Honestly, I enjoy thrashing now and again to the older stuff, but I got into
Metallica a while after Black was released, and due to my previous musical
tastes I have a preference for creative, complex music, and lyrics that are at
least poetically arranged if they don't actually have meaning of some sort.
> You can listen to more than one band, and even of you try real hard more
> than one genre of music.
The main artists in my collection: Jethro Tull; Queen; Metallica; Peter
Gabriel; Nine Inch Nails. Hell, each one of them DEFINES genres, in some cases
more than one per artist. I'm in it for the music, not for the social
representations.
As a matter of fact, I think that any claim that a band has "sold out" is an
admission of one's own selling out: why the hell should you care that much
about what an artist is doing NOW if you like their older music? Just don't
buy the newer releases and quit being a marketing statistic.
> If you lot just chilled and listened to music, the way the artists intend
> (i.e. Ignore who its by, or what it says and just listen), then this group
> could actually be used for what it is intended 'News'.
Well, that's going a little far. ;> "Newsgroups" haven't been exclusively for
news for a decade or so; nowadays, most of them are just a more convenient
form of mailing list.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lenester Taxidean -- http://www.asis.com/~liefc/
Deep red are the sunsets in mystical places
black are the nights on summerday sands.
We'll find the speck of truth in each riddle
hold the first grain of love in our hands.
Jethro Tull, _The Whistler_
K. Henderson
On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Paul Swindlehurst wrote:
> If you lot just chilled and listened to music, the way the artists intend
> (i.e. Ignore who its by, or what it says and just listen), then this group
> could actually be used for what it is intended 'News'.
do you by any chance know someone named "NoraG1"???
-Kris
--
Sometimes I think that's the trouble with the world: too many people in high places who are
stone-cold dead.
- Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
"Cat's Cradle"
Message78
>What the hell are all you lot on about on here??
>
>
Huh?
>Why have metallica 'sold out'. They are musicians they write and perform
>music they like, if you like it as well listen to it. If you dont, then dont
>listen to it.
Well duh..
>Humans are capable of many things, one of them is rational thought, I bet
>the majority of people on this newsgroup own 7CD's, guess whos they are??
I own a hell of a lot more thatn just 7 CDs. Only having 7 would suck and be
gay.
>You can listen to more than one band, and even of you try real hard more
>than one genre of music.
>
>
No shit I listen to lots of bands and I like metal,hard rock,industrial,and the
more powerful classical stuff.
>If you lot just chilled and listened to music, the way the artists intend
>(i.e. Ignore who its by, or what it says and just listen), then this group
>could actually be used for what it is intended 'News'.
Nora is that you? Nora? Maybe we should all get a life.
"To control to manupilate the media his power slave."-Nevermore The Tianamen
Man
"Launch the polaris the end doesn't scare us when will this cease? The warheads
will all rust in peace."-Megadeth Rust in Peace...Polaris
"Hey baby wanna do it?"Butthead
Message78
>I wasn't going to make a post like this myself, because I felt it would be a
>pointless argument. But I'll pipe up to agree, here. Okay, Metallica's music
>has changed. Ever think maybe that's because the group is in 30s now, and
>their hormones just don't rage the way they used to?
>
>
Age is no excuse for a band to slow down just look at Judas Priest they must be
what in their 50's by now and Jugulator is their "heaviest" album ever.
>Honestly, I enjoy thrashing now and again to the older stuff, but I got into
>Metallica a while after Black was released, and due to my previous musical
>tastes I have a preference for creative, complex music, and lyrics that are
>at
>least poetically arranged if they don't actually have meaning of some sort.
>
Well guess what metallica's old stuff is way more complex and poetic than their
newer releases.
>The main artists in my collection: Jethro Tull; Queen; Metallica; Peter
>Gabriel; Nine Inch Nails. Hell, each one of them DEFINES genres, in some
>cases
>more than one per artist. I'm in it for the music, not for the social
>representations.
Funny me too..
>As a matter of fact, I think that any claim that a band has "sold out" is an
>admission of one's own selling out: why the hell should you care that much
>about what an artist is doing NOW if you like their older music? Just don't
>buy the newer releases and quit being a marketing statistic.
If only everyone would realize that..
>Well, that's going a little far. ;> "Newsgroups" haven't been exclusively
>for
>news for a decade or so; nowadays, most of them are just a more convenient
>form of mailing list.
You can't be Nora remember if you don't come on here and post nothing about
news you're a dork who has no life. She called me a computer dork once it made
me cry bbbooooooohhhoooo!!!!
Ninnghizhidda
On 5 Feb 1998 17:39:02 GMT, SPAMKILL...@asis.com (Lenester
Taxidean) wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:33:17, "Paul Swindlehurst" <pa...@minorplanet.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Why have metallica 'sold out'. They are musicians they write and perform
>> music they like, if you like it as well listen to it. If you dont, then dont
>> listen to it.
>
>I wasn't going to make a post like this myself, because I felt it would be a
>pointless argument. But I'll pipe up to agree, here. Okay, Metallica's music
>has changed. Ever think maybe that's because the group is in 30s now, and
>their hormones just don't rage the way they used to?
you'll explain what age and hormones have to do with anything?
>Honestly, I enjoy thrashing now and again to the older stuff, but I got into
>Metallica a while after Black was released, and due to my previous musical
>tastes I have a preference for creative, complex music,
...what does the black album have to do with this?
>and lyrics that are at
>least poetically arranged if they don't actually have meaning of some sort.
e.g. vapid combinations of words that look nice?
you'd think that badly (or unconventionally)-arranged yet meaningful
lyrics would be better. fuck content, i guess.
>> You can listen to more than one band, and even of you try real hard more
>> than one genre of music.
>
>The main artists in my collection: Jethro Tull; Queen; Metallica; Peter
>Gabriel; Nine Inch Nails. Hell, each one of them DEFINES genres, in some cases
>more than one per artist. I'm in it for the music, not for the social
>representations.
...which genre does NIN define?
>As a matter of fact, I think that any claim that a band has "sold out" is an
>admission of one's own selling out: why the hell should you care that much
>about what an artist is doing NOW if you like their older music?
because it's interesting to debate?
>Just don't
>buy the newer releases and quit being a marketing statistic.
we're all statistics.
-Daemonic
"I wonder how winter will be
With a spring that I shall never see
I wonder how night will be
With a day that I shall never see
I wonder how life will be
With a light that I shall never see
I wonder how life will be
With a pain that lasts eternally."
-Burzum
Wockawocka
>What the hell are all you lot on about on here??
>
>music they like, if you like it as well listen to it. If you dont, then
dont
>listen to it.
>
Selling out= purposely changing the sound of the music to get popular
1. Metallica's music changed
2. Metallica got popular
3. no one knows if #1 was on done on purpose to achieve #2
Jim
>Humans are capable of many things, one of them is rational thought, I bet
>the majority of people on this newsgroup own 7CD's, guess whos they are??
>
>You can listen to more than one band, and even of you try real hard more
>than one genre of music.
>
>If you lot just chilled and listened to music, the way the artists intend
>(i.e. Ignore who its by, or what it says and just listen), then this group
>could actually be used for what it is intended 'News'.
>
>
ElangII
Message78 wrote:
>Age is no excuse for a band to slow down just look at Judas Priest they must
>be
>what in their 50's by now and Jugulator is their "heaviest" album ever.
....And is it their best? Not by a LONG shot!
>Well guess what metallica's old stuff is way more complex and poetic than
>their
>newer releases.
Again, so?
>>buy the newer releases and quit being a marketing statistic.
>
>If only everyone would realize that..
If only....
>You can't be Nora remember if you don't come on here and post nothing about
>news you're a dork who has no life. She called me a computer dork once it
>made
>me cry bbbooooooohhhoooo!!!!
I thought it made you.......er.........
nevermind :)
E.
"Democracy is based on the belief that many people are
wiser than one man. This fact has been voted irrefutably true."
-Anonymous
ElangII
Daemonic wrote:
>>and lyrics that are at
>>least poetically arranged if they don't actually have meaning of some sort.
>
>e.g. vapid combinations of words that look nice?
>
>you'd think that badly (or unconventionally)-arranged yet meaningful
>lyrics would be better. fuck content, i guess.
That's a pretty extreme way of looking at it.
There is a place for both styles of lyrics.
Lenester Taxidean
On Thu, 5 Feb 1998 18:46:32, mess...@aol.com (Message78) wrote:
> Well guess what metallica's old stuff is way more complex and poetic than their
> newer releases.
I'd ask for a little of what you're smoking, but I can get my own elsewhere...
1. Difficult to play does not equal complex.
2. Having rhyme and meter does not equal poetic.
I'm not saying the older stuff is LESS complex. Hell, there was strong
Beethoven influence from the start. But just because the new stuff goes in
directions you don't fully grasp doesn't make it less profound or poetic. Just
makes it less appealing to you. There IS such a thing as respecting something
even though you dislike it... I wish more people would figure THAT out.
Rui Covelo
> Selling out= purposely changing the sound of the music to get popular
> 1. Metallica's music changed
> 2. Metallica got popular
> 3. no one knows if #1 was on done on purpose to achieve #2
>
> Jim
>
How can u say Metallica got popular by changing?? Load and Reload sold much
less than Kill'em All for example. I think Metallica has less fans because
they are doing what ever they want. If they wanted to sell, they would play
what ever fans would want. That's not what is happening is it?
--
-----
Rui Pedro Covelo I.S.T. (LEEC)
mop2...@mail.telepac.pt
l45...@alfa.ist.utl.pt
Portugal
PLEASE FORGIVE MY BAD ENGLISH
Cthulhu, Da Boyz From Da Hoodz
>What the hell are all you lot on about on here??
>
>Why have metallica 'sold out'. They are musicians they write and perform
>music they like, if you like it as well listen to it. If you dont, then dont
>listen to it.
>
wow!! that was original! i've never heard anyone say that before!
>Humans are capable of many things, one of them is rational thought, I bet
>the majority of people on this newsgroup own 7CD's, guess whos they are??
>
the majority is gay!
>If you lot just chilled and listened to music, the way the artists intend
>(i.e. Ignore who its by, or what it says and just listen), then this group
>could actually be used for what it is intended 'News'.
>
NORA???? is that you? no it can't be, this person was just slightly
more intelligent with words than nora was. nora said this:
"WHY IS IT CALLED A NEWSGROUP WHEN THERE'S NO NEWS
HERE????/??/?////????"
I am proud of having written the above message, and am very thankful that you read it!
Thank you for your cooperation! Have a lovely day!
Sincerely Yours,
Cthulhu (Da Boyz From Da Hoodz Fooz)
http://www.netkonect.co.uk/madness/ - the greatest of all the bad pages!
Goodyear15
Christ, even Dave Mustaine himself says that MetallicA hasn't sold out. Sure,
they cut their hair, most of them took out their earrings, and Kirk got a 2
inch spike in his lower lip, but they just changed their image. Aside from
Load, their music hasn't changed much.
Goodyear15
Selling out= purposely changing the sound of the music to get popular
1. Metallica's music changed
2. Metallica got popular
3. no one knows if #1 was on done on purpose to achieve #2
MetallicA has always been sort of an ambitious band. #1 was done on purpose.
Load was nothing like their others. ReLoad sounds like it was more sh-t from
either Black or Justice (minus Where the Wild Things Are, that song just plain
sucks.) MetallicA did not sell out.
BTW, Megadeth did the same thing and no one is accusing them of selling out.
Ninnghizhidda
On 6 Feb 1998 08:28:45 GMT, SPAMKILL...@asis.com (Lenester
Taxidean) wrote:
>I'm not saying the older stuff is LESS complex. Hell, there was strong
>Beethoven influence from the start.
i'm curious where you see this.
Ninnghizhidda
On 6 Feb 1998 05:16:12 GMT, ela...@aol.com (ElangII) wrote:
>Daemonic wrote:
>
>>>and lyrics that are at
>>>least poetically arranged if they don't actually have meaning of some sort.
>>
>>e.g. vapid combinations of words that look nice?
>>
>>you'd think that badly (or unconventionally)-arranged yet meaningful
>>lyrics would be better. fuck content, i guess.
>
>That's a pretty extreme way of looking at it.
>
>There is a place for both styles of lyrics.
if you're going to appreciate lyrics as part of the music, i dont see
much relevance to vapid-but-pretty words. could you explain?
Han
Wockawocka wrote:
> >What the hell are all you lot on about on here??
> >
> >Why have metallica 'sold out'. They are musicians they write and
> perform
> >music they like, if you like it as well listen to it. If you dont,
> then
> dont
> >listen to it.
>
So if all the bands you listen to changed their style and started
writing classical, bee bop and jazz music you would stop listening to
music and NOT complain about it? Gee..that's great.
Message78
>BTW, Megadeth did the same thing and no one is accusing them of selling out.
>
>
>
Actually no a lot of Deth fans are crying sell out since youthanasia.
Message78
>>Age is no excuse for a band to slow down just look at Judas Priest they must
>>be
>>what in their 50's by now and Jugulator is their "heaviest" album ever.
>
>....And is it their best? Not by a LONG shot!
I never ever said it was their best merely their "heaviest" and I was trying to
point out that just because you age doesn't mean you have to play softer music.
>>Well guess what metallica's old stuff is way more complex and poetic than
>>their
>>newer releases.
>
>Again, so?
Damnit I forgot what I was responding to in the other post so I can't tell you
so there :P
>>You can't be Nora remember if you don't come on here and post nothing about
>>news you're a dork who has no life. She called me a computer dork once it
>>made
>>me cry bbbooooooohhhoooo!!!!
>
>I thought it made you.......er.........
>
>nevermind :)
What? hhhhhmmmmmm????
Anti999
>
> > Selling out= purposely changing the sound of the music to get popular
> > 1. Metallica's music changed
> > 2. Metallica got popular
> > 3. no one knows if #1 was on done on purpose to achieve #2
> >
> >
Okay, I am not really going to say they changed their music to GET
popular. They got popular out of their own merits (TBA). Regardless of
what anyone else says, TBA was a natural progression from Justice IMO.
Okay, now, think back to 1996. Metallica is gone from the music scene
for a few years after a really succesful album. When they come back,
what do I see, but haircuts, music that is MUCH closer (though not
identical) to alternative than the other stuff I heard from them, and a
VERY alternative style video. In a scene where image sells more than
music, they could have changed to KEEP their popularity. You want a
similar analogy. Look at how popular MC Hammer got. When the "funky
dance style" was no longer popular, he went "hard", but no gangsta rap
fan took him seriously, and his music wasn't very "gangsta". He was
certainly less popular than his prime, but does that mean he didn't
"sell out"? Does anyone notice this is strikingly similar to what
happened to Metallica? Obviously nobody knows what Metallica is
thinking, and it should not even matter if they "sold out" or not as to
whether you like the music.
Personally I feel their "selling out" (which is probable, though not
necessarily true, yeah I can read their minds...) is entirely seperate
from the music. Personally I think they play metal much better than
what they are playing now, and I don't listen to it.
************************************************
"An OutKast is someone who is not considered to be part of the normal
world,
He is looked at differently
He is not accepted because of his clothes, his hair
His occupation, his beliefs, or his skin color
Now look at yourself, are you an OutKast? I know I am
As a matter of fact, fuck being anything else"
--OutKast, True Dat
*************************************************
"Tortured soul, ripping skin into ashes
Blind by pain, deaf by lies
Smell of freedom violently cuts
Forgiveness, power to a being, never dies
Suffer in truth
Narrow passage saw
Weak solutions stabbed to not know the smile of obliteration's face"
--Meshuggah, Suffer In Truth
*************************************************
Mr. Neal
Seroussi
Anti999 wrote:
>
> Okay, I am not really going to say they changed their music to GET
> popular. They got popular out of their own merits (TBA). Regardless of
> what anyone else says, TBA was a natural progression from Justice IMO.
Can you say why you think so? I'm sorry if this was answered in another
one of your posts, I've been lazy...
Lord Anarchy
I think Youthanasia is a great album. Megadeth did what they wanted to
do. I
hardly heard any Megadeth on the radio, and virtually no video play
(none after
Headbanger’s Ball was cancelled). And when Megadeth released “A Tout Le
Monde” I’m
sure they figured MTV would ban it like they did “In My Darkest Hour”
(sure enough
they did), but they released it anyway. If any album of Megadeth’s
could be
considered “sell-out”, it would be Countdown To Extinction (and I don’t
consider it
sell-out at all) because of the video and air play and the #2 peak on
Billboard.
Anyway, neither band has sold out. Metallica just happened to
appeal to more
people than Megadeth. I don’t know why, that’s just the way it is. I
don’t think
Metallica would care if their mainstream appeal were to end.
Message78 wrote:
> >BTW, Megadeth did the same thing and no one is accusing them of selling out.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Actually no a lot of Deth fans are crying sell out since youthanasia.
>
> "To control to manupilate the media his power slave."-Nevermore The Tianamen
> Man
>
> "Launch the polaris the end doesn't scare us when will this cease? The warheads
> will all rust in peace."-Megadeth Rust in Peace...Polaris
>
> "Hey baby wanna do it?"Butthead
--
- Lord Anarchy,
The Unforgiven
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
“What I’ve felt
What I’ve known
Never shined through in what I’ve shown.” - The Unforgiven (Metallica)
“A tout le monde “Don’t want no revenge
A tout mes amis Ain’t no payback time
Je vous aime It ain’t called getting even
Je dois partir Here comes the Reckoning Day.”
These are the last words - Reckoning Day (Megadeth)
I’ll ever speak
And they’ll set me free.”
- A Tout Le Monde (Megadeth)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message78
>I think Youthanasia is a great album.
So do I.
>Megadeth did what they wanted to
>do.
There's no way to prove or disprove that just like with metallica only
circumstancial evidence.
> I
>hardly heard any Megadeth on the radio,
You listen to the radio? Well I actually do now at work there's nothing better
to do and I usually hear 1-2 megadeth songs in a 4 hour time period.
>and virtually no video play
>(none after
>Headbanger’s Ball was cancelled).
MTV is well very very very,etc fucking gay.
>If any album of Megadeth’s
>could be
>considered “sell-out”, it would be Countdown To Extinction (and I don’t
>consider it
>sell-out at all)
I'm extremely fond of that album myself.
>Anyway, neither band has sold out.
It's tough to prove either way unless they come right out and say "we want to
play thrash metal but we're not because it's not popular right now." >Metallica
just happened to
>appeal to more
>people than Megadeth. I don’t know why, that’s just the way it is.
Because people are gay but someone who is a person can be kinda cool.
>I
>don’t think
>Metallica would care if their mainstream appeal were to e
You know that's kind of hard to tell I think they would care because they've
been extremely famous since Justice and for them to go back to playing clubs
like in the Kill Em All/Lightning days I just don't know..
DIADEM
I also like Youthanasia. A lot of the Megadeth fans cried sell out. I
actually think Cryptic Writings is a worse album. I just dont like the songs
as much. But better than Load and Reload. And speaking of which, I was
listening to C.O.C.'s Deliverance album. It had been a while since I last
did. I cant believe how much Metallica now sounds or is trying to sound like
them...vocals and all.
-DIADEM
"Their burning dogma..."
MORBID ANGEL
JGordon452
>Subject: Re: Selling Out
>From: Anti999 <chn...@vt.edu>
>Date: Tue, May 5, 1998 01:27 EDT
>Message-id: <34DCA3...@vt.edu>
>
>>
>> > Selling out= purposely changing the sound of the music to get popular
>> > 1. Metallica's music changed
>> > 2. Metallica got popular
>> > 3. no one knows if #1 was on done on purpose to achieve #2
>> >
>> > Jim
>> >
>
>popular. They got popular out of their own merits (TBA). Regardless of
>what anyone else says, TBA was a natural progression from Justice IMO.
>for a few years after a really succesful album. When they come back,
>what do I see, but haircuts, music that is MUCH closer (though not
>identical) to alternative than the other stuff I heard from them, and a
>VERY alternative style video. In a scene where image sells more than
>music, they could have changed to KEEP their popularity.
Well, about Metallica's new music: I'd say the resemblance to alternative is
skin deep or less; it seems like they just adapted a few superficial alt-rock
features, and scattered them sparingly through the last 2 albums. In
retrospect, I don't think their attempt to cash in on alt-rock trendiness was
anywhere nearly as pathetic as Queensryche's, who sacrificed their trademark
sheen and tightness for a very uncomfortable and forced "90s" sound. Load and
Reload are way more 70s hard-rock sounding than alternative (e.g. Devil's Dance
and the intro to Fixxxer sound like they were taken from unreleased 70's KISS
songs, Bleeding Me sounds a bit like Run of the Mill by J. Priest mixed with
Zeppelin, etc. etc.). Nonetheless, at least a couple of Metallica's members
are trying to cash in on 90's marketing images, and the band as a whole is
trying to use alt-rock angst imagery to market itself for now. Yeah, there's
probably a bit of selling out here.....but for now, their newer music is still
passably decent. I do think that Reload was a bit more of a commercial risk;
less obvious "hits", more weird-ass songs, and, I must say, they at least get
credit for chutzpah for actually titling a song like a movie sequel (Unforgiven
II!).
-Jim Gordon
"My cat's breath smells like cat food."- Ralph Wiggum
"My childhood was like any other.....In the spring we would make meat helmets.
When I was insolent, I would be placed in a burlap sack and beaten with
reeds..."- Dr. Evil
Lord Anarchy
I think Youthanasia is a great album. Megadeth did what they wanted to
do. I
hardly heard any Megadeth on the radio, and virtually no video play
(none after
Headbanger’s Ball was cancelled). And when Megadeth released “A Tout Le
Monde” I’m
sure they figured MTV would ban it like they did “In My Darkest Hour”
(sure enough
could be
considered “sell-out”, it would be Countdown To Extinction (and I don’t
consider it
Billboard.
Anyway, neither band has sold out. Metallica just happened to
appeal to more
people than Megadeth. I don’t know why, that’s just the way it is. I
don’t think
Metallica would care if their mainstream appeal were to end.
Message78 wrote:
> >BTW, Megadeth did the same thing and no one is accusing them of selling out.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Actually no a lot of Deth fans are crying sell out since youthanasia.
>
> "To control to manupilate the media his power slave."-Nevermore The Tianamen
> Man
>
> "Launch the polaris the end doesn't scare us when will this cease? The warheads
> will all rust in peace."-Megadeth Rust in Peace...Polaris
>
> "Hey baby wanna do it?"Butthead
--
ElangII
Daemonic wrote:
>>>>and lyrics that are at
>>>>least poetically arranged if they don't actually have meaning of some
>sort.
>>>
>>>e.g. vapid combinations of words that look nice?
>>>
>>>you'd think that badly (or unconventionally)-arranged yet meaningful
>>>lyrics would be better. fuck content, i guess.
>>
>>That's a pretty extreme way of looking at it.
>>
>>There is a place for both styles of lyrics.
>
>if you're going to appreciate lyrics as part of the music, i dont see
>much relevance to vapid-but-pretty words. could you explain?
Well, "vapid-but-pretty" words vs. "bland, merely-functional" lyrics are two
extreme views of the two main styles of lyric composition in modern music.
To compare, lets use a visual art analogy.
The way i see it, the "functionless" lyrics you dislike can be compared to
abstract art. However, they definetly _do_ serve a function, and the core of
that function is evident to many. To the detractor, abstraction in art has no
value because there is no tangible guage on which to judge it. However, there
is....the measure of "good taste" vs. "bad taste". With a few notable
exceptions, people understand a mutually agreeable boundary between the two.
This is why abstract art crititque, when taken seriously, is just as viable as
that of realist art (my analogy of functional lyrics, incidentally).
Anyhow, abstract lyrics, in most music (Mike Patton of FNM and Bruce
Dickinson's styles are my favorite examples of such) are definetly "artsy"
prose, but they serve to create an easily identifiable mood, and the core (ie.
the "point") to the song is clearly stated, although subtley understated.
I far prefer abstract, prose-oriented lyrics to functional lyrics, because of
the mood they create, and it has an overall flavor that is more in the
direction of art, not the direction of speech.
Does that make any sense?
ElangII
Message78 wrote:
>>>Age is no excuse for a band to slow down just look at Judas Priest they
>must
>>>be
>>>what in their 50's by now and Jugulator is their "heaviest" album ever.
>>
>>....And is it their best? Not by a LONG shot!
>
>I never ever said it was their best merely their "heaviest" and I was trying
>to
>point out that just because you age doesn't mean you have to play softer
>music.
I know.......it just seems to me that alot of people equate "heaviness" to
"keeping of a band's integrity".
Am I alone in this?
>>>You can't be Nora remember if you don't come on here and post nothing about
>>>news you're a dork who has no life. She called me a computer dork once it
>>>made
>>>me cry bbbooooooohhhoooo!!!!
>>
>>I thought it made you.......er.........
>>
>>nevermind :)
>
>What? hhhhhmmmmmm????
You really don't want to know......
Ninnghizhidda
On 9 Feb 1998 04:19:57 GMT, ela...@aol.com (ElangII) wrote:
>Daemonic wrote:
>
>>>>>and lyrics that are at
>>>>>least poetically arranged if they don't actually have meaning of some
>>sort.
>>>>
>>>>e.g. vapid combinations of words that look nice?
>>>>
>>>>you'd think that badly (or unconventionally)-arranged yet meaningful
>>>>lyrics would be better. fuck content, i guess.
>>>
>>>That's a pretty extreme way of looking at it.
>>>
>>>There is a place for both styles of lyrics.
>>
>>if you're going to appreciate lyrics as part of the music, i dont see
>>much relevance to vapid-but-pretty words. could you explain?
>
>Well, "vapid-but-pretty" words vs. "bland, merely-functional" lyrics
you're adding words. a good example of the latter would be slayer
("praise of death" is my favorite) - the style is...icky...but they're
definitely not bland.
>are two
>extreme views of the two main styles of lyric composition in modern music.
>To compare, lets use a visual art analogy.
>The way i see it, the "functionless" lyrics you dislike can be compared to
>abstract art.
but i disagree. abstract art can be just as meaningful as "regular"
(impressionist, baroque, whatever) art - perhaps not as evident a
meaning, but whatever. you could say that the lyrics really do have a
meaning, but it's not evident, but that makes them something other
then "meaningless".
>However, they definetly _do_ serve a function, and the core of
>that function is evident to many.
then, by definition, they're not "functionless", are they?
>To the detractor, abstraction in art has no
>value because there is no tangible guage on which to judge it.
my explanation would be lack of understanding - how could something
"stupid", "meaningless", and "talentless" like that be "good"? same
argument against "stupid" forms of music like death metal.
>However, there
>is....the measure of "good taste" vs. "bad taste". With a few notable
>exceptions, people understand a mutually agreeable boundary between the two.
>This is why abstract art crititque, when taken seriously, is just as viable as
>that of realist art (my analogy of functional lyrics, incidentally).
it seems you kind of lost me.
>Anyhow, abstract lyrics, in most music (Mike Patton of FNM and Bruce
>Dickinson's styles are my favorite examples of such) are definetly "artsy"
>prose, but they serve to create an easily identifiable mood, and the core (ie.
>the "point") to the song is clearly stated, although subtley understated.
but now we're changing the original attributes - for instance,
stream-of-consciousness writing, by itself, is completely meaningless,
but put in another context (something meant to represent "confusion",
for instance), they become meaningful - different.
>I far prefer abstract, prose-oriented lyrics to functional lyrics, because of
>the mood they create, and it has an overall flavor that is more in the
>direction of art, not the direction of speech.
see, there's a middle ground here - you can concievably have both of
those present at once. back to slayer, a lot of what they write has
meaning, but it also creates a "mood". no?
>Does that make any sense?
in a gay way, but...what isnt gay?
Paul Swindlehurst
Han wrote in message <34DB401D...@ocean.com>...
No I wouldnt stop listening to music, I would listen to other music that I
did like, and the stuff before they changed.
K. Henderson
Why is it that every week or so this stupid "Selling Out" thread must be
started again and again? I mean, does it really matter if they have sold
out? As long as you like their music does it matter what they do? And if
you don't like the music, the solution is simple, don't listen to it...
-Kris
--
And the worst flaw is that we're just plain dumb.
Admit it!
- Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
"Hocus Pocus"
Message78
>I know.......it just seems to me that alot of people equate "heaviness" to
>"keeping of a band's integrity".
>Am I alone in this?
I have to agree with you there.
>>>I thought it made you.......er.........
>>>
>>>nevermind :)
>>
>>What? hhhhhmmmmmm????
>
>You really don't want to know......
>
>
Yeah I do come on tell me
ElangII
Daemonic wrote:
>>>much relevance to vapid-but-pretty words. could you explain?
>>
>>Well, "vapid-but-pretty" words vs. "bland, merely-functional" lyrics
>
>you're adding words. a good example of the latter would be slayer
>("praise of death" is my favorite) - the style is...icky...but they're
>definitely not bland.
I think you misunderstood me here. I _did_ say, very clearly that those two
descriptions are "extreme" points of view.
We might just be watching two completely different channels on this one.
>>The way i see it, the "functionless" lyrics you dislike can be compared to
>>abstract art.
>
>but i disagree. abstract art can be just as meaningful as "regular"
Functional and meaningful are two different things. I suppose, in order for
something to be meaningful, it needs to be of relevance to someone personally.
Functional lyrics are often meaningful to somebody because their purpose is
obvious, and for those to whom they are relevant, they are often appealing.
(That was kind of off topic, I know...)
>>However, they definetly _do_ serve a function, and the core of
>>that function is evident to many.
>
>then, by definition, they're not "functionless", are they?
Exactly. We're going to argue in circles about this one, it seems...
>
>>To the detractor, abstraction in art has no
>>value because there is no tangible guage on which to judge it.
>
>my explanation would be lack of understanding - how could something
>"stupid", "meaningless", and "talentless" like that be "good"? same
>argument against "stupid" forms of music like death metal.
Agreed.
>>This is why abstract art crititque, when taken seriously, is just as viable
>as
>>that of realist art (my analogy of functional lyrics, incidentally).
>
>it seems you kind of lost me.
Well, find some lyrics that you find to be "vapid, pretty sounding words", and
post them. I'd have a better understanding of what you mean then, too....
>but now we're changing the original attributes - for instance,
>stream-of-consciousness writing, by itself, is completely meaningless,
>but put in another context (something meant to represent "confusion",
>for instance), they become meaningful - different.
I disagree here. Stream-of-conciousness writing is rarely meaningless. For
the most part, such writing is a good indication of the writer's frame of
mind, and/or his/her views. It just takes a little more effort to understand
their meaning.
>see, there's a middle ground here - you can concievably have both of
>those present at once. back to slayer, a lot of what they write has
>meaning, but it also creates a "mood". no?
Right. But I never said there could not be a middle ground. In fact, if you
remember what started our argument, I was accusing your interpretation of some
styles of writing to be a bit extreme. Remember?
>>Does that make any sense?
>
>in a gay way, but...what isnt gay?
Kirk is not gay. Lars is not gay. Bob Rock is not gay. And people who judge
things based on narrow standards are _never_ gay.....
ElangII
Message 78 wrote:
>>>>I thought it made you.......er.........
>>>>
>>>>nevermind :)
>>>
>>>What? hhhhhmmmmmm????
>>
>>You really don't want to know......
>>
>>
>
>Yeah I do come on tell me
Well, if you really have to know, I think EOD could put it into better words
(in a manner of speaking) than I ever could.
Ninnghizhidda
On 10 Feb 1998 05:30:04 GMT, ela...@aol.com (ElangII) wrote:
>Daemonic wrote:
>
>>>>much relevance to vapid-but-pretty words. could you explain?
>>>
>>>Well, "vapid-but-pretty" words vs. "bland, merely-functional" lyrics
>>
>>you're adding words. a good example of the latter would be slayer
>>("praise of death" is my favorite) - the style is...icky...but they're
>>definitely not bland.
>
>I think you misunderstood me here. I _did_ say, very clearly that those two
>descriptions are "extreme" points of view.
but that's not the "right" extreme point of view - i offered something
else as an opposite.
>We might just be watching two completely different channels on this one.
...isnt that the best way?
>>>The way i see it, the "functionless" lyrics you dislike can be compared to
>>>abstract art.
>>
>>but i disagree. abstract art can be just as meaningful as "regular"
>
>Functional and meaningful are two different things. I suppose, in order for
>something to be meaningful, it needs to be of relevance to someone personally.
> Functional lyrics are often meaningful to somebody because their purpose is
>obvious, and for those to whom they are relevant, they are often appealing.
depends on what your definition of meaning is. if it's relevance to a
person's life, then sure, it has to touch on issues they
understand/care about. if it's objective meaning, who gives a fuck
what people think?
>(That was kind of off topic, I know...)
find something in here that isnt.
>>>However, they definetly _do_ serve a function, and the core of
>>>that function is evident to many.
>>
>>then, by definition, they're not "functionless", are they?
>
>Exactly. We're going to argue in circles about this one, it seems...
but what i'm saying is that we shouldnt be arguing in circles about
this, but "real" functionless lyrics, dammit!
!!!!!!!!!!111!11!
>>>To the detractor, abstraction in art has no
>>>value because there is no tangible guage on which to judge it.
>>
>>my explanation would be lack of understanding - how could something
>>"stupid", "meaningless", and "talentless" like that be "good"? same
>>argument against "stupid" forms of music like death metal.
>
>Agreed.
honestly now, i've actually heard that argument used (in those words,
more or less).
>>>This is why abstract art crititque, when taken seriously, is just as viable
>>as
>>>that of realist art (my analogy of functional lyrics, incidentally).
>>
>>it seems you kind of lost me.
>
>Well, find some lyrics that you find to be "vapid, pretty sounding words", and
>post them. I'd have a better understanding of what you mean then, too....
a good example would be lyrics from bush, for instance (they sound
"cool" - same thing, different perspective). they dont mean anything,
but people sing along to them anyway. i have a feeling that a lot of
"alternative" qualifies...
>>but now we're changing the original attributes - for instance,
>>stream-of-consciousness writing, by itself, is completely meaningless,
>>but put in another context (something meant to represent "confusion",
>>for instance), they become meaningful - different.
>
>I disagree here. Stream-of-conciousness writing is rarely meaningless.
well, artistically meaningless.
>For
>the most part, such writing is a good indication of the writer's frame of
>mind, and/or his/her views. It just takes a little more effort to understand
>their meaning.
depends. i hand you a stream-of-consciousness story that i wrote, and
i ask you what it means. it has no meaning. you can use it to
psychoanalyze me, but as of itself, it still doesnt mean anything. now
i show you a painting i painted over that same story (i magically put
it on the canvas so you can see it through the painting). does it have
meaning? well, i dont know, but it's certainly possible...
stream-of-consciousness implies no creative thought. but putting it in
a context which requires thought yields artistic meaning.
>>see, there's a middle ground here - you can concievably have both of
>>those present at once. back to slayer, a lot of what they write has
>>meaning, but it also creates a "mood". no?
>
>Right. But I never said there could not be a middle ground.
fucking logic.
>In fact, if you
>remember what started our argument, I was accusing your interpretation of some
>styles of writing to be a bit extreme. Remember?
well, if i said yes, i'd be held accountable, wouldnt i?
seriously, i'm still standing by my statement - it seems we're just
misunderstanding what the other means.
>>>Does that make any sense?
>>
>>in a gay way, but...what isnt gay?
>
>Kirk is not gay. Lars is not gay. Bob Rock is not gay.
they're bi.
>And people who judge
>things based on narrow standards are _never_ gay.....
are you calling me straight? i'm bi too, dammit...!
Lenester Taxidean
On Sat, 7 Feb 1998 04:13:36, yog_s...@juno.com (Ninnghizhidda) wrote:
> >Beethoven influence from the start.
>
> i'm curious where you see this.
Possibly not direct influence, but there are strong similarities. It has to do
with creating complexity from simplicity: taking a few simple themes and
playing variations and/or layers of them, and forming a whole that's greater
than the sum of its parts. Granted, Beethoven did it to far greater levels of
complexity, but then Beethoven is a composer still considered a genius several
hundred years after his death. ;>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lenester Taxidean -- http://www.asis.com/~liefc/
Deep red are the sunsets in mystical places
black are the nights on summerday sands.
We'll find the speck of truth in each riddle
hold the first grain of love in our hands.
Jethro Tull, _The Whistler_
Lenester Taxidean
On Fri, 6 Feb 1998 05:16:12, ela...@aol.com (ElangII) wrote:
(I never got Daemonic's post, thus the dual-reply here)
> Daemonic wrote:
>
> >>and lyrics that are at
> >>least poetically arranged if they don't actually have meaning of some sort.
> >
> >e.g. vapid combinations of words that look nice?
> >
> >you'd think that badly (or unconventionally)-arranged yet meaningful
> >lyrics would be better. fuck content, i guess.
No, I very much prefer content. I'm just saying that if there is no real
content, i.e. the lyrics are angst-ridden cliche, a half-written narrative, or
just there to create mood and give the crowd something to sing along with, I
prefer chanting "Sanitarium, leave me be!" over "If you drink don't drahv, doo
thuh wahturmellun crahwl."
Message78
Well since you put it that way we'll just skip it.
"Here in a church a small boy lies kneeling he prays for a god he does not know
he can not feel all of his sins of childhood we will remember we will not cry
tears he will not cry." Bruce Dickinson
M.B.
ElangII wrote:
>
> Message78 wrote:
>
> >I never ever said it was their best merely their "heaviest" and I was trying
> >to
> >point out that just because you age doesn't mean you have to play softer
> >music.
>
> "keeping of a band's integrity".
> Am I alone in this?
Well, here's what happens. I make some comment about how *Load*, etc.
is such a radical departure from the genre, leaning (whether by design
or by mere coincidence) into a musical category which is commercially
profitable at this time.
Then some one-post wonder gets on here and bitches at me for saying that
"MetallicA suxx," and then proceeds to explain why reaching your early
to mid-thirties necessarily causes a lightening of one's sound (when I
made no mention of this). Where does this come from?
Let's try a hypothetical scenario. Say a band that, for fifteen years,
had played melodic hard rock (Killer Dwarfs-style, for example). The
members are now aged 33-36. Suddenly, they begin recording black metal
records.
Is this because of their age?
Does it mean that they've "grown" musically?
Have they compromised their artistic integrity?
Does it matter which genre is more popular at the time of the switch?
Is it okay for people who were heretofore strictly black-metal listeners
to enjoy this band's older material, but not like any other artists who
had similar works?
Can we safely say that the musicians in question are especially talented
because of their "diversity?"
And should they begin wearing armor and corpsepaint, or stick with their
usual image?
Some tough questions. Let me know what you think.
--
"If they're just 'doing what they want,' why did they wait until that
kind of music was popular to do it?"
--BurnBible
M.B.
Anti999 wrote:
>
> > > Selling out= purposely changing the sound of the music to get popular
> > > 1. Metallica's music changed
> > > 2. Metallica got popular
> > > 3. no one knows if #1 was on done on purpose to achieve #2
>
> Okay, now, think back to 1996. Metallica is gone from the music scene
> for a few years after a really succesful album. When they come back,
> what do I see, but haircuts, music that is MUCH closer (though not
> identical) to alternative than the other stuff I heard from them, and a
> VERY alternative style video. In a scene where image sells more than
> music, they could have changed to KEEP their popularity.
EXACTLY. People always scream about how the new stuff hasn't sold quite
as much as TBA. Of course it hasn't; they weren't able to shed their
metal image *entirely*. Had they not tried to eliminate it at all, I
imagine they would be struggling just to go platinum.
> You want a
> similar analogy. Look at how popular MC Hammer got. When the "funky
> dance style" was no longer popular, he went "hard", but no gangsta rap
> fan took him seriously, and his music wasn't very "gangsta". He was
> certainly less popular than his prime, but does that mean he didn't
> "sell out"? Does anyone notice this is strikingly similar to what
> happened to Metallica?
Brilliant allegory. I love it.
Anti999
M.B. wrote:
>
> Anti999 wrote:
> >
> > > > Selling out= purposely changing the sound of the music to get popular
> > > > 1. Metallica's music changed
> > > > 2. Metallica got popular
> > > > 3. no one knows if #1 was on done on purpose to achieve #2
> >
> > Okay, I am not really going to say they changed their music to GET
> > popular. They got popular out of their own merits.
> > Okay, now, think back to 1996. Metallica is gone from the music scene
> > for a few years after a really succesful album. When they come back,
> > what do I see, but haircuts, music that is MUCH closer (though not
> > identical) to alternative than the other stuff I heard from them, and a
> > VERY alternative style video. In a scene where image sells more than
> > music, they could have changed to KEEP their popularity.
>
> EXACTLY. People always scream about how the new stuff hasn't sold quite
> as much as TBA. Of course it hasn't; they weren't able to shed their
> metal image *entirely*. Had they not tried to eliminate it at all, I
> imagine they would be struggling just to go platinum.
And don't forget the people who bought Metallica's black album, and
maybe (though not likely) some other Metallica albums, because it was
"kewl". They far outnumbered the actual metal fans that bought it. I
know this, just ask the majority of people (not necessarily on this NG)
who own Metallica CDs what other metal CDs they own and get a blank
response.
>
> > You want a
> > similar analogy. Look at how popular MC Hammer got. When the "funky
> > dance style" was no longer popular, he went "hard", but no gangsta rap
> > fan took him seriously, and his music wasn't very "gangsta". He was
> > certainly less popular than his prime, but does that mean he didn't
> > "sell out"? Does anyone notice this is strikingly similar to what
> > happened to Metallica?
>
> Brilliant allegory. I love it.
MC Hammer would probably fare pretty well if he tried to make a comeback
in today's mainstreem rap...
************************************************
"An OutKast is someone who is not considered to be part of the normal
world,
He is looked at differently
He is not accepted because of his clothes, his hair
His occupation, his beliefs, or his skin color
Now look at yourself, are you an OutKast? I know I am
As a matter of fact, fuck being anything else"
--OutKast, True Dat
*************************************************
"Tortured soul, ripping skin into ashes
Blind by pain, deaf by lies
Smell of freedom violently cuts
Forgiveness, power to a being, never dies
Suffer in truth
Narrow passage saw
Weak solutions stabbed to not know the smile of obliteration's face"
--Meshuggah, Suffer In Truth
*************************************************
Anti999
Anti999
JGordon452 wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Selling Out
> >From: Anti999 <chn...@vt.edu>
> >Date: Tue, May 5, 1998 01:27 EDT
> >Message-id: <34DCA3...@vt.edu>
> >
> >>
> >> > 1. Metallica's music changed
> >> > 2. Metallica got popular
> >> > 3. no one knows if #1 was on done on purpose to achieve #2
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >Okay, I am not really going to say they changed their music to GET
> >what anyone else says, TBA was a natural progression from Justice IMO.
> >for a few years after a really succesful album. When they come back,
> >what do I see, but haircuts, music that is MUCH closer (though not
> >identical) to alternative than the other stuff I heard from them, and a
> >VERY alternative style video. In a scene where image sells more than
> >music, they could have changed to KEEP their popularity.
>
> skin deep or less; it seems like they just adapted a few superficial alt-rock
> features, and scattered them sparingly through the last 2 albums.
And what is selling these days? Korn sounds a lot closer to metal than
alternative, but they got all this ADIDAS crap which makes them OK in
the mainstreem idiot's mind (or at least better than the "long hair and
leather").
> In
> retrospect, I don't think their attempt to cash in on alt-rock trendiness was
> anywhere nearly as pathetic as Queensryche's, who sacrificed their trademark
> sheen and tightness for a very uncomfortable and forced "90s" sound. Load and
> Reload are way more 70s hard-rock sounding than alternative (e.g. Devil's Dance
> and the intro to Fixxxer sound like they were taken from unreleased 70's KISS
> songs, Bleeding Me sounds a bit like Run of the Mill by J. Priest mixed with
> Zeppelin, etc. etc.).
Well if they DID in fact try to "cash in" on the alternative scene, they
DID do a very pathetic job, seeing as it doesn't sound very
alternative...
> Nonetheless, at least a couple of Metallica's members
> are trying to cash in on 90's marketing images, and the band as a whole is
> trying to use alt-rock angst imagery to market itself for now. Yeah, there's
> probably a bit of selling out here.....
And that is why people say they "sold out". Personally, I think that
their "selling out" should be kept seperate from the music. I will
never know for sure whether they "sold out", but I do know whether I
like/don't like the music. I will buy the album based on what I know
rather than some possibly false (though IMO not unlikely) conclusion.
>but for now, their newer music is still
> passably decent.
I will admit that the new music is a step above what else is on MTV.
However, most mainstreem fans won't recognize that. Did Metallica's new
stuff stay at #1 any longer than any of the dumbass videos played on
MTV?
> I do think that Reload was a bit more of a commercial risk;
> less obvious "hits", more weird-ass songs, and, I must say, they at least get
> credit for chutzpah for actually titling a song like a movie sequel (Unforgiven
> II!).
I would tend to disagree. ReLoad has quite a few songs that would make
good singles (as in songs that will entice someone to buy the album) at
least in the mainstreem sense. Load may actually have a few more, but
both albums have enough to last untill they release another album.
There might be a risk as to losing some "fan" who kind of liked Load,
but nothing else, but not a comercial risk.
Ninnghizhidda
On 10 Feb 1998 16:11:59 GMT, SPAMKILL...@asis.com (Lenester
Taxidean) wrote:
>On Sat, 7 Feb 1998 04:13:36, yog_s...@juno.com (Ninnghizhidda) wrote:
>
>> >Beethoven influence from the start.
>>
>> i'm curious where you see this.
>
>Possibly not direct influence, but there are strong similarities. It has to do
>with creating complexity from simplicity: taking a few simple themes and
>playing variations and/or layers of them, and forming a whole that's greater
>than the sum of its parts.
what you're saying is a variation of context being more important then
individual parts - with most of metallica's music being constructed as
verse/chorus, that seems kind of unlikely to me. verse/chorus works in
the exact opposite way - look at the main riffs in creeping death, for
instance. that's based around the sound of them individually (listen
to how catchy/cool/whatever the riff between verse and chorus is), not
them as an indistinct whole.
and aside from composition, the classical variation on themes isnt
really used in most metal (including metallica), so...
i have a feeling that theme variations only begin to work when you
have a wider range of instrument choices...
>Granted, Beethoven did it to far greater levels of
>complexity, but then Beethoven is a composer still considered a genius several
>hundred years after his death.
i'm much more interested in later classical composers, but different
tastes, i guess...
Anti999
M.B. wrote:
> Well, here's what happens. I make some comment about how *Load*, etc.
> is such a radical departure from the genre, leaning (whether by design
> or by mere coincidence) into a musical category which is commercially
> profitable at this time.
>
> Then some one-post wonder gets on here and bitches at me for saying that
> "MetallicA suxx," and then proceeds to explain why reaching your early
> to mid-thirties necessarily causes a lightening of one's sound (when I
> made no mention of this). Where does this come from?
>
> Let's try a hypothetical scenario. Say a band that, for fifteen years,
> had played melodic hard rock (Killer Dwarfs-style, for example). The
> members are now aged 33-36. Suddenly, they begin recording black metal
> records.
>
> Is this because of their age?
OF COURSE IT IS!!!!1111!! THEY HAVE TO EVOLVE RATHER THAN PLAY THE SAME
THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!!111!!
>
> Does it mean that they've "grown" musically?
THEY ARE ALSO SHOWING THEY ARE MORE TALENTED BECAUSE THEY CAN PLAY MORE
THAN ONE STYLE OF MUSIC!!!!!!111!! But seriously, it truely depends on
the complexity, if the switch to BM was a switch to something more
complex, than there is an undeniable growth. However, a switch to
something equally or less complex is debatable.
>
> Have they compromised their artistic integrity?
>
If the switch was not just a "one album" thing, such as Slayer's
"Undisputed Attitude" then, YES. Metallica's GDRR was NOT a compromise
for the same reason as Slayer's UA. I think if they slowly went into
the BM style, then it would be much less of a compromise than all of a
sudden.
> Does it matter which genre is more popular at the time of the switch?
Yes it does. If the genre they switch into is unusually popular at the
time, then there is almost no doubt that they are "in it for the
money". If they switch OUT of the mainstreem, that would be a
compromise as well, though not necessarily in the monetary sense (maybe
to know who your "true fans" are). Personally I see the monetary
motives as much more evil than the loyalty motives.
>
> Is it okay for people who were heretofore strictly black-metal listeners
> to enjoy this band's older material, but not like any other artists who
> had similar works?
No, plain and simple.
>
> Can we safely say that the musicians in question are especially talented
> because of their "diversity?"
"Diversity" in that term has nothing to do with talent, but diversity
within a genre (or subgenre) is very good, but... I consider Puff Daddy
"diverse" for what he does (he can copy just about anyone's song,
WOW!!!) but not very talented.
>
> And should they begin wearing armor and corpsepaint, or stick with their
> usual image?
Wearing armor and corpsepaint because you want to is cool. Wearing it
for money sucks. Well, at least CHANGING to wearing it. If you wear it
for money when money is the only thing you want, I applaud you for being
a good buisnessman (ie MM).
Ninnghizhidda
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:26:48 -0500, Anti999 <chn...@vt.edu> wrote:
>M.B. wrote:
>> Does it matter which genre is more popular at the time of the switch?
>
>Yes it does. If the genre they switch into is unusually popular at the
>time, then there is almost no doubt that they are "in it for the
>money". If they switch OUT of the mainstreem, that would be a
>compromise as well, though not necessarily in the monetary sense (maybe
>to know who your "true fans" are). Personally I see the monetary
>motives as much more evil than the loyalty motives.
what would you say if cradle of filth started playing true unholy
"raw" black metal on their next album?
EraddicA
M.B. wrote:
>
> ElangII wrote:
> >
> > Message78 wrote:
> >
> > >I never ever said it was their best merely their "heaviest" and I was trying
> > >to
> > >point out that just because you age doesn't mean you have to play softer
> > >music.
> >
> > I know.......it just seems to me that alot of people equate "heaviness" to
> > "keeping of a band's integrity".
> > Am I alone in this?
Firstly I'll say that if a band changes genre, I really don't care if
they did it for money... so.. yeah. =)
> Well, here's what happens. I make some comment about how *Load*, etc.
> is such a radical departure from the genre, leaning (whether by design
> or by mere coincidence) into a musical category which is commercially
> profitable at this time.
I won't go into this "commercially profitable" argument again...
> Then some one-post wonder gets on here and bitches at me for saying that
> "MetallicA suxx," and then proceeds to explain why reaching your early
> to mid-thirties necessarily causes a lightening of one's sound (when I
> made no mention of this). Where does this come from?
Of course, they could have softened... because they ..err... "matured" i
guess from psycho metal head banging etc.
> Let's try a hypothetical scenario. Say a band that, for fifteen years,
> had played melodic hard rock (Killer Dwarfs-style, for example). The
> members are now aged 33-36. Suddenly, they begin recording black metal
> records.
>
> Is this because of their age?
It could be. But it would be more likely that they may have found a band
in the Black Metal genre and started to listen to this band a lot.. and
thought that they preferred Black Metal to rock. So the songs that they
wrote started to be in the Black MEtal genre... etc etc.
> Does it mean that they've "grown" musically?
If they truthfully think that they are making better songs now, yes. So
in other words, only the band themselves can make an opinion in that.
It's really a personal thing.
> Have they compromised their artistic integrity?
Is their such thing?
> Does it matter which genre is more popular at the time of the switch?
Does it matter? Well no. Why should it be? They may have just liked to
make music in that style, is that wrong? Hell no. So what if they make
trillions of dollars, they like making songs in that genre, so that is
the only thing that matters.
> Is it okay for people who were heretofore strictly black-metal listeners
> to enjoy this band's older material, but not like any other artists who
> had similar works?
Yes. The vocals of this band may be something that attracts you to this
band, or the solos... just because something is "similar", doesn't mean
you _must_ like it. Hmm, that reminds me, I have to hunt down some stuff
from Nevermore.
> Can we safely say that the musicians in question are especially talented
> because of their "diversity?"
No. Hell no. Jeezuz, hell no.
> And should they begin wearing armor and corpsepaint, or stick with their
> usual image?
They can do what they like for all I care. If they started to wear
armour, good for them.
> Some tough questions. Let me know what you think.
Actually they aren't tough questions but anyway.
> --
> "If they're just 'doing what they want,' why did they wait until that
> kind of music was popular to do it?"
>
> --BurnBible
--
***********************
EraddicA
o...@magna.com.au
***********************
EraddicA
Anti999 wrote:
> > Does it mean that they've "grown" musically?
>
> THAN ONE STYLE OF MUSIC!!!!!!111!! But seriously, it truely depends on
> the complexity, if the switch to BM was a switch to something more
> complex, than there is an undeniable growth. However, a switch to
> something equally or less complex is debatable.
Now now, since when was making something more complex means you have
"grown" musically?"
> > Does it matter which genre is more popular at the time of the switch?
>
> Yes it does. If the genre they switch into is unusually popular at the
> time, then there is almost no doubt that they are "in it for the
> money". If they switch OUT of the mainstreem, that would be a
> compromise as well, though not necessarily in the monetary sense (maybe
> to know who your "true fans" are). Personally I see the monetary
> motives as much more evil than the loyalty motives.
Yeah, you are so SURE of everything. Yeah, yeah, If i was in a metal
band, and we started to make something lightler, like traditional rock,
than it would be selling-out? Of course it would, because you say so.
> >
> > Is it okay for people who were heretofore strictly black-metal listeners
> > to enjoy this band's older material, but not like any other artists who
> > had similar works?
>
> No, plain and simple.
Why?
> Anti999
EraddicA
Anti999 wrote:
>
> JGordon452 wrote:
> > Well, about Metallica's new music: I'd say the resemblance to alternative is
> > skin deep or less; it seems like they just adapted a few superficial alt-rock
> > features, and scattered them sparingly through the last 2 albums.
>
> And what is selling these days? Korn sounds a lot closer to metal than
> alternative, but they got all this ADIDAS crap which makes them OK in
> the mainstreem idiot's mind (or at least better than the "long hair and
> leather").
But have Korn sold-out? Are you sure they aren't just some fucked up
fucks?
> Well if they DID in fact try to "cash in" on the alternative scene, they
> DID do a very pathetic job, seeing as it doesn't sound very
> alternative...
Ooo yeah. Damn right. That's been my argument basically. If they really
wanted to sell out, why bring out an album like Load? And who the fuck
is going to look at the insert before they buy the album?
> > Nonetheless, at least a couple of Metallica's members
> > are trying to cash in on 90's marketing images, and the band as a whole is
> > trying to use alt-rock angst imagery to market itself for now. Yeah, there's
> > probably a bit of selling out here.....
>
> And that is why people say they "sold out". Personally, I think that
> their "selling out" should be kept seperate from the music. I will
> never know for sure whether they "sold out", but I do know whether I
> like/don't like the music. I will buy the album based on what I know
> rather than some possibly false (though IMO not unlikely) conclusion.
I'd agree that Kirk and Lars have sort of... drifted a bit. kirk more
so. Lars is more of the rich-rock star person. Kirk is just darn right
weird. But is this selling out?
> >but for now, their newer music is still
> > passably decent.
>
> I will admit that the new music is a step above what else is on MTV.
> However, most mainstreem fans won't recognize that. Did Metallica's new
> stuff stay at #1 any longer than any of the dumbass videos played on
> MTV?
Is that saying anything except that the albums/singles aren't quite
popular?
> > I do think that Reload was a bit more of a commercial risk;
> > less obvious "hits", more weird-ass songs, and, I must say, they at least get
> > credit for chutzpah for actually titling a song like a movie sequel (Unforgiven
> > II!).
>
> I would tend to disagree. ReLoad has quite a few songs that would make
> good singles (as in songs that will entice someone to buy the album) at
> least in the mainstreem sense. Load may actually have a few more, but
> both albums have enough to last untill they release another album.
> There might be a risk as to losing some "fan" who kind of liked Load,
> but nothing else, but not a comercial risk.
Commercial yes, because the albums songs are more metallish that
rockish. Sort of a heavy rock thing. I think most metallica songs could
make good vids/singles, Reload though having maybe only TMR/UF2/Low mans
Lyric. WTWTA would be cool too.
JGordon452
>Message-id: <34E12D...@vt.edu>
>
>JGordon452 wrote:
>>
>> >Subject: Re: Selling Out
>> >From: Anti999 <chn...@vt.edu>
>> >Date: Tue, May 5, 1998 01:27 EDT
>> >Message-id: <34DCA3...@vt.edu>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > Selling out= purposely changing the sound of the music to get
>popular
>> >> > 1. Metallica's music changed
>> >> > 2. Metallica got popular
>> >> > 3. no one knows if #1 was on done on purpose to achieve #2
>> >> >
>> >> > Jim
>> >> >
>> >
>> >Okay, I am not really going to say they changed their music to GET
>> >popular. They got popular out of their own merits (TBA). Regardless of
>> >what anyone else says, TBA was a natural progression from Justice IMO.
>> >Okay, now, think back to 1996. Metallica is gone from the music scene
>> >for a few years after a really succesful album. When they come back,
>> >what do I see, but haircuts, music that is MUCH closer (though not
>> >identical) to alternative than the other stuff I heard from them, and a
>> >VERY alternative style video. In a scene where image sells more than
>> >music, they could have changed to KEEP their popularity.
>>
>is
>> skin deep or less; it seems like they just adapted a few superficial
>alt-rock
>> features, and scattered them sparingly through the last 2 albums.
>
>And what is selling these days? Korn sounds a lot closer to metal than
>alternative, but they got all this ADIDAS crap which makes them OK in
>the mainstreem idiot's mind (or at least better than the "long hair and
>leather").
Never really listened to Korn enough to judge whether they're metal-sounding.
As for the ADIDAS crap, in the words of Daemonic, running suits are gay......
>
>> In
>> retrospect, I don't think their attempt to cash in on alt-rock trendiness
>was
>> anywhere nearly as pathetic as Queensryche's, who sacrificed their
>trademark
>> sheen and tightness for a very uncomfortable and forced "90s" sound. Load
>and
>> Reload are way more 70s hard-rock sounding than alternative (e.g. Devil's
>Dance
>> and the intro to Fixxxer sound like they were taken from unreleased 70's
>KISS
>> songs, Bleeding Me sounds a bit like Run of the Mill by J. Priest mixed
>with
>> Zeppelin, etc. etc.).
>
>Well if they DID in fact try to "cash in" on the alternative scene, they
>DID do a very pathetic job, seeing as it doesn't sound very
>alternative...
I don't know if they were honing in on alternative per se; more like a move
away from more complex musical themes which would be viewed by the average fan
of whatever hard rock form is in vogue as pretentious.....
As they say, hindsight is 20/20. I used to defend Queensryche's Hear In the
Now Frontier around the time it came out, and say, "it's much better than
Load." At the time, I was probably trying to convince myself that no more
bands would compromise like Metallica. I recently got Load used, and at an ok
price (under 8 bucks) and actually bought Reload new (!), because I heard that
Reload had better songs on it, and I had just fell into a little bit of cash.
Now that I know what to expect, and what not to expect from Metallica (unlike
when I first got Load, and was really P.O.'d), it's easy to sit back, and
analyze what the changes were like, w/o all the emotional baggage. I've pretty
much flip-flopped re: my relative opinions of new Metallica and new Queensryche
(even though there still are some decent songs on HITNF). New Metallica is
basically good as no-brainer music, which still holds some pleasant surprises
(Fixxxer was actually quite good), but doesn't have the same motivational force
as MOP, or RTL.
>
>> Nonetheless, at least a couple of Metallica's members
>> are trying to cash in on 90's marketing images, and the band as a whole is
>> trying to use alt-rock angst imagery to market itself for now. Yeah,
>there's
>> probably a bit of selling out here.....
>
>And that is why people say they "sold out". Personally, I think that
>their "selling out" should be kept seperate from the music. I will
>never know for sure whether they "sold out", but I do know whether I
>like/don't like the music. I will buy the album based on what I know
>rather than some possibly false (though IMO not unlikely) conclusion.
>
That's all anyone can try to do. But it's hard to ignore ultra-negative
comments which keep coming. I'm thinking of buying the new Priest album, but
I've heard so much negative talk about it not having enough variety, being too
Pantera-ish (which era? I like Cowboys from Hell, but Trendkill really sucked
bad, IMHO), etc. etc. I've heard Bullet Train, Cathedral Spires, and one other
song (can't remember the name)....it didn't sound like an incredibly radical
change from Painkiller, but it did sound....different.
>>but for now, their newer music is still
>> passably decent.
>
>I will admit that the new music is a step above what else is on MTV.
>However, most mainstreem fans won't recognize that. Did Metallica's new
>stuff stay at #1 any longer than any of the dumbass videos played on
>MTV?
>
I don't have MTV, so I don't know.
>> I do think that Reload was a bit more of a commercial risk;
>> less obvious "hits", more weird-ass songs, and, I must say, they at least
>get
>> credit for chutzpah for actually titling a song like a movie sequel
>(Unforgiven
>> II!).
>
>I would tend to disagree. ReLoad has quite a few songs that would make
>good singles (as in songs that will entice someone to buy the album) at
>least in the mainstreem sense. Load may actually have a few more, but
>both albums have enough to last untill they release another album.
>There might be a risk as to losing some "fan" who kind of liked Load,
>but nothing else, but not a comercial risk.
The songs which are the right length to be singles, however, tend to be
"filler" material (Prince Charming, etc.), with the exception of Unforgiven II,
which don't have the hooks to snag people into buying the album. Maybe Devil's
Dance, and Fuel, but even those aren't radio-friendly enough to have the hook
power to be repeated ad nauseam a la Hero of the Day, King Nothing, Until It
Sleeps, etc. I have noticed that an unusual choice was made with Bleeding Me
being played on the radio a lot. That's probably the only thing that got me to
rebuy Load (if used). I was shocked at how easily I was manipulated, but then
I realized I'm like putty.....:)
M.B.
EraddicA wrote:
>
> M.B. wrote:
> >
> > ElangII wrote:
> >
> > > I know.......it just seems to me that alot of people equate "heaviness" to
> > > "keeping of a band's integrity".
> > > Am I alone in this?
>
> Firstly I'll say that if a band changes genre, I really don't care if
> they did it for money...
I suppose if I *liked* what they switched to, I might not care, either.
If I was indifferent to it, I might grumble a little. If it was some
all-encompassing, monolithic force that constantly bad-mouthed the stuff
I DO like, I might get kinda pissed (hypothetically speaking, of
course).
> > Well, here's what happens. I make some comment about how *Load*, etc.
> > is such a radical departure from the genre, leaning (whether by design
> > or by mere coincidence) into a musical category which is commercially
> > profitable at this time.
>
> I won't go into this "commercially profitable" argument again...
I'm not saying that it's necessarily the central issue here, but,
nonetheless, some things do *sell* better than others.
> > Then some one-post wonder gets on here and bitches at me for saying that
> > "MetallicA suxx," and then proceeds to explain why reaching your early
> > to mid-thirties necessarily causes a lightening of one's sound (when I
> > made no mention of this). Where does this come from?
>
> Of course, they could have softened... because they ..err... "matured" i
> guess from psycho metal head banging etc.
OK, now hold that thought...
> > Let's try a hypothetical scenario. Say a band that, for fifteen years,
> > had played melodic hard rock (Killer Dwarfs-style, for example). The
> > members are now aged 33-36. Suddenly, they begin recording black metal
> > records.
> >
> > Is this because of their age?
>
> It could be.
But I thought that <AGE> varies *inversely* with <HEAVINESS> ??
(So a two-year-old would make music that's just...whoah...)
And why is a 21-year-old alternative musician considered more "mature"
than a 45-year-old metal musician?
> But it would be more likely that they may have found a band
> in the Black Metal genre and started to listen to this band a lot.. and
> thought that they preferred Black Metal to rock. So the songs that they
> wrote started to be in the Black MEtal genre... etc etc.
Now this could happen. A good number of rock guitarists have
occasionally done "side projects" relating to jazz/blues concepts. But
it tends to be under a different moniker.
If the imaginary band in question wanted to try something different
[black metal], should they maybe bill it as a completely different
project, to avoid confusion...so they don't inadvertantly drag along
hard rock fans who really aren't into black metal, and are just buying
the new albums because the old name is still on them?
> > Does it mean that they've "grown" musically?
>
> If they truthfully think that they are making better songs now, yes. So
> in other words, only the band themselves can make an opinion in that.
> It's really a personal thing.
OK, fair enough.
> > Have they compromised their artistic integrity?
>
> Is their such thing?
I have no idea. It's a term that gets tossed around a lot, so I
included it in this discussion. Daemonic?
> > Does it matter which genre is more popular at the time of the switch?
>
> Does it matter? Well no. Why should it be? They may have just liked to
> make music in that style, is that wrong? Hell no. So what if they make
> trillions of dollars, they like making songs in that genre, so that is
> the only thing that matters.
Perhaps. But if black metal were phenomenally popular, wouldn't it seem
suspicious when hundreds of artists who previously ignored the genre
began getting really into it, shouldn't we be suspicious? Why couldn't
they have been True and Unholy before...?
> > Is it okay for people who were heretofore strictly black-metal listeners
> > to enjoy this band's older material, but not like any other artists who
> > had similar works?
>
> Yes. The vocals of this band may be something that attracts you to this
> band, or the solos... just because something is "similar", doesn't mean
> you _must_ like it.
Maybe, but what about curiosity of association. When I get into a band
that's marked different than any I've listened to before, I soon start
seeking out others in a similar vein.
Say that some black metal listeners hear the new album by our pet band
here. They like it. They look into the older material. At this point,
some people hate it, some people like it. Those that like it go out and
buy the whole back catalog...
Now. If these individuals in question are going, "wow, this 'melodic
hard rock' stuff is really good; I should have given it a chance before
now," don't you think that they would be inclined to look into other
artists that might have released quality material in such a style?
> Hmm, that reminds me, I have to hunt down some stuff
> from Nevermore.
Get some Nevermore, or I send Damonshawx to your house.
> > Can we safely say that the musicians in question are especially talented
> > because of their "diversity?"
>
> No. Hell no. Jeezuz, hell no.
People say that!!
> > And should they begin wearing armor and corpsepaint, or stick with their
> > usual image?
>
> They can do what they like for all I care. If they started to wear
> armour, good for them.
Maybe I should get some viking armor...
> > Some tough questions. Let me know what you think.
>
> Actually they aren't tough questions but anyway.
You just don't appreciate my satirical wit.
Ninnghizhidda
hanson, dammit!
how old can they possibly be?
Ninnghizhidda
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:50:22 -0500, "M.B." <mic...@idt.net> wrote:
>EraddicA wrote:
>>
>> M.B. wrote:
>> > Let's try a hypothetical scenario. Say a band that, for fifteen years,
>> > had played melodic hard rock (Killer Dwarfs-style, for example). The
>> > members are now aged 33-36. Suddenly, they begin recording black metal
>> > records.
>> >
>> > Is this because of their age?
>>
>> It could be.
>
>But I thought that <AGE> varies *inversely* with <HEAVINESS> ??
>
>(So a two-year-old would make music that's just...whoah...)
hanson, dammit!
how old can they possibly be?
>And why is a 21-year-old alternative musician considered more "mature"
>than a 45-year-old metal musician?
i wouldnt say an alternative musician - but a 21 year old that plays
classic rock, or blues, or anything automatically considered "good"
regardless of quality.
>> > Have they compromised their artistic integrity?
>>
>> Is their such thing?
>
>I have no idea. It's a term that gets tossed around a lot, so I
>included it in this discussion. Daemonic?
why shouldnt there be? the man who sits around all his life writing
music because he likes it probably writes "better" music then the guy
who writes a song to get chicks and make money. coincidentally, the
former guy is said to have "artistic integrity". extrapolate from
that, and...
>> > Does it matter which genre is more popular at the time of the switch?
>>
>> Does it matter? Well no. Why should it be? They may have just liked to
>> make music in that style, is that wrong? Hell no. So what if they make
>> trillions of dollars, they like making songs in that genre, so that is
>> the only thing that matters.
>
>Perhaps. But if black metal were phenomenally popular, wouldn't it seem
>suspicious when hundreds of artists who previously ignored the genre
>began getting really into it, shouldn't we be suspicious? Why couldn't
>they have been True and Unholy before...?
there's a bigger parallel here to reality then you know.
>> > And should they begin wearing armor and corpsepaint, or stick with their
>> > usual image?
>>
>> They can do what they like for all I care. If they started to wear
>> armour, good for them.
>
>Maybe I should get some viking armor...
we all should...
Anti999
EraddicA wrote:
> >
> > And what is selling these days? Korn sounds a lot closer to metal than
> > alternative, but they got all this ADIDAS crap which makes them OK in
> > the mainstreem idiot's mind (or at least better than the "long hair and
> > leather").
>
> But have Korn sold-out? Are you sure they aren't just some fucked up
> fucks?
You can't tell for any band for sure. All I can look at is
circumstancial evidence. For Korn, there is ADIDAS which sells because
it is about _SEX_. Don't forget that their attire happens to be very
popular when they hit it. Then just about any other song sells because
it has a lot of cuss words in it. Yes, they could just be crazy, and
actually be hating all of this popularity they are getting. The
previous statement seems to be more true for Korn than Metallica. After
all, which band is doing stuff for TV shows and the like?
>
> > Well if they DID in fact try to "cash in" on the alternative scene, they
> > DID do a very pathetic job, seeing as it doesn't sound very
> > alternative...
>
> Ooo yeah. Damn right. That's been my argument basically. If they really
> wanted to sell out, why bring out an album like Load? And who the fuck
> is going to look at the insert before they buy the album?
See the MC Hammer example in one of my previous posts.
>
> > > Nonetheless, at least a couple of Metallica's members
> > > are trying to cash in on 90's marketing images, and the band as a whole is
> > > trying to use alt-rock angst imagery to market itself for now. Yeah, there's
> > > probably a bit of selling out here.....
> >
> > And that is why people say they "sold out". Personally, I think that
> > their "selling out" should be kept seperate from the music. I will
> > never know for sure whether they "sold out", but I do know whether I
> > like/don't like the music. I will buy the album based on what I know
> > rather than some possibly false (though IMO not unlikely) conclusion.
>
> I'd agree that Kirk and Lars have sort of... drifted a bit. kirk more
> so. Lars is more of the rich-rock star person. Kirk is just darn right
> weird. But is this selling out?
What do you think is selling more these days? Look at just about EVERY
popular band, including Metallica, they all have pretty much the same
image, and do pretty much the same on the charts. Look at the
correlation between image and performance on the charts. For example,
Megadeth's new music is closer to Metallica's than Metallica's are to
alt. Are Megadeth's videos faring as well as Metallica's? Sure,
Metallica's music is fairly different from alt, but (not including the
Metallica fans that also like hard rock) only the MTV fans who actually
like alternative music, and don't take Metallica seriously as an
alternative band, can see that. There are some people like you that
actually are intellegent enough to look only at the music as to decide
wheter the album is good or not, but it is a small minority.
>
> > >but for now, their newer music is still
> > > passably decent.
> >
> > I will admit that the new music is a step above what else is on MTV.
> > However, most mainstreem fans won't recognize that. Did Metallica's new
> > stuff stay at #1 any longer than any of the dumbass videos played on
> > MTV?
>
> Is that saying anything except that the albums/singles aren't quite
> popular?
No, what I implied was that the singles off Load and ReLoad are of
compareable popularity to the other videos on MTV. That is the average
MTV fan (which is actually where a lot of revenue comes in) doesn't see
Met. as any better or any worse than anything else.
>
> > > I do think that Reload was a bit more of a commercial risk;
> > > less obvious "hits", more weird-ass songs, and, I must say, they at least get
> > > credit for chutzpah for actually titling a song like a movie sequel (Unforgiven
> > > II!).
> >
> > I would tend to disagree. ReLoad has quite a few songs that would make
> > good singles (as in songs that will entice someone to buy the album) at
> > least in the mainstreem sense. Load may actually have a few more, but
> > both albums have enough to last untill they release another album.
> > There might be a risk as to losing some "fan" who kind of liked Load,
> > but nothing else, but not a comercial risk.
>
> Commercial yes, because the albums songs are more metallish that
> rockish. Sort of a heavy rock thing. I think most metallica songs could
> make good vids/singles, Reload though having maybe only TMR/UF2/Low mans
> Lyric. WTWTA would be cool too.
Personally, I don't see any metal in ReLoad at all. Other than ReLoad
"rocking more" there is not any reason why it should be less
commercially acceptable than Load (at least in the eyes of an MTV fan).
Fuel or Prince Charming would make a profitable single, for instance.
************************************************
"An OutKast is someone who is not considered to be part of the normal
world,
He is looked at differently
He is not accepted because of his clothes, his hair
His occupation, his beliefs, or his skin color
Now look at yourself, are you an OutKast? I know I am
As a matter of fact, fuck being anything else"
--OutKast, True Dat
*************************************************
"Tortured soul, ripping skin into ashes
Blind by pain, deaf by lies
Smell of freedom violently cuts
Forgiveness, power to a being, never dies
Suffer in truth
Narrow passage saw
Weak solutions stabbed to not know the smile of obliteration's face"
--Meshuggah, Suffer In Truth
*************************************************
Anti999
>
Anti999
EraddicA wrote:
>
> Anti999 wrote:
> > > Does it mean that they've "grown" musically?
> >
> > THAN ONE STYLE OF MUSIC!!!!!!111!! But seriously, it truely depends on
> > the complexity, if the switch to BM was a switch to something more
> > complex, than there is an undeniable growth. However, a switch to
> > something equally or less complex is debatable.
>
> Now now, since when was making something more complex means you have
> "grown" musically?"
Complexity is subjective. Whether someone feels that the songwriting is
more complex or whatever, obviously they will have "grown" in the ears
of the listener. Complexity <> Technicality in other words. If the new
stuff was not in any way more complex than the old stuff, there could
not possibly be any "growth".
>
> > > Does it matter which genre is more popular at the time of the switch?
> >
> > Yes it does. If the genre they switch into is unusually popular at the
> > time, then there is almost no doubt that they are "in it for the
> > money". If they switch OUT of the mainstreem, that would be a
> > compromise as well, though not necessarily in the monetary sense (maybe
> > to know who your "true fans" are). Personally I see the monetary
> > motives as much more evil than the loyalty motives.
>
> Yeah, you are so SURE of everything. Yeah, yeah, If i was in a metal
> band, and we started to make something lightler, like traditional rock,
> than it would be selling-out? Of course it would, because you say so.
Okay, fair arguement. I will never know for sure, I can only judge by
circumstancial evidence. If a genre is such a wide departure from the
original genre, and happens to be popular at the time, there is enough
circumstancial evidence to say that they are most likely "in it for the
money". With increasing closeness to the original genre, and decreasing
popularity of the new genre, the chances of a "sell out" decrease.
>
> > >
> > > Is it okay for people who were heretofore strictly black-metal listeners
> > > to enjoy this band's older material, but not like any other artists who
> > > had similar works?
> >
> > No, plain and simple.
>
> Why?
Okay, let's take an example. Let's suppose a rap band started playing
metal. I like the metal, have only previously listened to metal, and I
buy the rap CDs and I like them. Should I like Puff Daddy as well, just
because it is rap, NO. Should I like an artist that embraces the
qualities I like in the rap band, YES.
M.B.
Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:50:22 -0500, "M.B." <mic...@idt.net> wrote:
>
> hanson, dammit!
>
> how old can they possibly be?
I'll ask Damonshawx...
> >And why is a 21-year-old alternative musician considered more "mature"
> >than a 45-year-old metal musician?
>
> i wouldnt say an alternative musician - but a 21 year old that plays
> classic rock, or blues, or anything automatically considered "good"
> regardless of quality.
True. That really pisses me off, too. I don't remember who mentioned
it (maybe YOU), but someone said a while back how these days, a lot of
young musicians with *talent* go into blues, because metal gets no
respect, and they're smart enough to avoid alternative.
> >> > Have they compromised their artistic integrity?
> >>
> >> Is their such thing?
>
> why shouldnt there be? the man who sits around all his life writing
> music because he likes it probably writes "better" music then the guy
> who writes a song to get chicks and make money. coincidentally, the
> former guy is said to have "artistic integrity". extrapolate from
> that, and...
Now I'll definitely agree with that. ErradicA?
> >But if black metal were phenomenally popular, wouldn't it seem
> >suspicious when hundreds of artists who previously ignored the genre
> >began getting really into it, shouldn't we be suspicious? Why couldn't
> >they have been True and Unholy before...?
>
> there's a bigger parallel here to reality then you know.
Oh, I'm well aware of the not-so-True, not-so-Unholy bullshit that's
kind of trendy at the moment...
> >Maybe I should get some viking armor...
>
> we all should...
You probably ought to wait until you're done growing, though. ;)
--
"It's all fun and games 'til your girlfriend leaves you...then it's
fun, just you're not having any..."
--M.B.
Ninnghizhidda
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:38:58 -0500, "M.B." <mic...@idt.net> wrote:
>> >And why is a 21-year-old alternative musician considered more "mature"
>> >than a 45-year-old metal musician?
>>
>> i wouldnt say an alternative musician - but a 21 year old that plays
>> classic rock, or blues, or anything automatically considered "good"
>> regardless of quality.
>
>True. That really pisses me off, too.
why? if we're talking about having "mad phat skillz" at playing
whatever instrument they're playing, it's not such a loss (mad phat
creativity first). and if they're good composers, if they have
artistic integrity (this plays a big part in "good" music), they'll
write whatever they want anyway. though it does seem kind of bad...
go up to someone (not a trendy shit) - "i like led zeppelin", "led
zeppelin are cool, but i dont like em" - "i like 'morbd carcus' (or
whatever)", "metal sucks!".
>I don't remember who mentioned
>it (maybe YOU),
probably not. well, at least, i dont remember it...
>but someone said a while back how these days, a lot of
>young musicians with *talent* go into blues, because metal gets no
>respect, and they're smart enough to avoid alternative.
maybe they just dont like metal?
even if i was looking for "respect", i still wouldnt be playing blues
- i dont actually like it. i'd learn classical guitar. i'm assuming
everyone has SOME degree of honesty (unless they're out to be "the
most respected guitarist ever")...
>> >But if black metal were phenomenally popular, wouldn't it seem
>> >suspicious when hundreds of artists who previously ignored the genre
>> >began getting really into it, shouldn't we be suspicious? Why couldn't
>> >they have been True and Unholy before...?
>>
>> there's a bigger parallel here to reality then you know.
>
>Oh, I'm well aware of the not-so-True, not-so-Unholy bullshit that's
>kind of trendy at the moment...
CoF rules!
>> >Maybe I should get some viking armor...
>>
>> we all should...
>
>You probably ought to wait until you're done growing, though. ;)
can i still get the sword? please, mommy...
on jerry springer, they had a dominatrix. cool beyond belief. "you can
kiss my foot, now..."
Ninnghizhidda
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:38:58 -0500, "M.B." <mic...@idt.net> wrote:
>> >And why is a 21-year-old alternative musician considered more "mature"
>> >than a 45-year-old metal musician?
>>
>> i wouldnt say an alternative musician - but a 21 year old that plays
>> classic rock, or blues, or anything automatically considered "good"
>> regardless of quality.
>
>True. That really pisses me off, too.
why? if we're talking about having "mad phat skillz" at playing
whatever instrument they're playing, it's not such a loss (mad phat
creativity first). and if they're good composers, if they have
artistic integrity (this plays a big part in "good" music), they'll
write whatever they want anyway. though it does seem kind of bad...
go up to someone (not a trendy shit) - "i like led zeppelin", "led
zeppelin are cool, but i dont like em" - "i like 'morbd carcus' (or
whatever)", "metal sucks!".
>I don't remember who mentioned
>it (maybe YOU),
probably not. well, at least, i dont remember it...
>but someone said a while back how these days, a lot of
>young musicians with *talent* go into blues, because metal gets no
>respect, and they're smart enough to avoid alternative.
maybe they just dont like metal?
even if i was looking for "respect", i still wouldnt be playing blues
- i dont actually like it. i'd learn classical guitar. i'm assuming
everyone has SOME degree of honesty (unless they're out to be "the
most respected guitarist ever")...
>> >But if black metal were phenomenally popular, wouldn't it seem
>> >suspicious when hundreds of artists who previously ignored the genre
>> >began getting really into it, shouldn't we be suspicious? Why couldn't
>> >they have been True and Unholy before...?
>>
>> there's a bigger parallel here to reality then you know.
>
>Oh, I'm well aware of the not-so-True, not-so-Unholy bullshit that's
>kind of trendy at the moment...
CoF rules!
>> >Maybe I should get some viking armor...
>>
ElangII
M.B. wrote:
<snip my earlier comments>
>Let's try a hypothetical scenario. Say a band that, for fifteen years,
>had played melodic hard rock (Killer Dwarfs-style, for example). The
>members are now aged 33-36. Suddenly, they begin recording black metal
>records.
>
>Is this because of their age?
Its a viable possibilty, that should not be discounted as "irrelevant".
>Does it mean that they've "grown" musically?
That is up to the listener. Unfortunately, many people confuse musical growth
with leniency towards their own musical tastes.
>Have they compromised their artistic integrity?
See above.
>Does it matter which genre is more popular at the time of the switch?
From my perspective, not especially. However, most people _are_ concerned
with popularity/commerciality....from both sides of the fence. So, the answer
to this one depends on whether you tend to value the opinion of many more than
the opinion of a few.
>Is it okay for people who were heretofore strictly black-metal listeners
>to enjoy this band's older material, but not like any other artists who
>had similar works?
Yes, yes, yes. I've argued this one with Daemonic before (re: why I like
Testament, but not necessarily bands that sound "similar"). If you _really_
want, I could dig up the old post....
>Can we safely say that the musicians in question are especially talented
>because of their "diversity?"
Nope, not at least as far as I'm concerned. Diversity is a matter of taste.
It is perfectly fine to like music that is narrow in focus.
>And should they begin wearing armor and corpsepaint, or stick with their
>usual image?
Whatever the hell they want to do. In a perfect world, they could rip off each
other's clothes and have wild sex on stage during shows......and it wouldn't
matter. But, since we don't live in a perfect world....
Incidentally, this leads to another argument of mine. There are alot of
people who would answer your questions negatively, and point out the gayness of
our decade as the root of the problem. Why must this be true?
ElangII
Daemonic wrote:
>why shouldnt there be? the man who sits around all his life writing
>music because he likes it probably writes "better" music then the guy
>who writes a song to get chicks and make money. coincidentally, the
>former guy is said to have "artistic integrity". extrapolate from
>that, and...
I disagree completely here.
A band that (hypothetically, of course) contrives to write music that somebody
of your tastes would like would be considered to write "better" music than a
country writer who couldn't give a fuck what you think, but writes in earnest.
(Even though you say this isn't true....perspective has _ALOT_--I would go as
far as to say "almost everything"--to do with the judging of musical talent)
Case and point: Megadeth's Cryptic Writings is considered by many to be
"better" music than Reload. I've listened to both, and am able to enjoy both
(although, I like Cryptic Writings less and less each listen). Personally, I
think Metallica writes better "commerical FM rock" than Megadeth. Now, why
would my opinion not be valid?
ElangII
Daemonic wrote:
>> Functional lyrics are often meaningful to somebody because their purpose is
>>obvious, and for those to whom they are relevant, they are often appealing.
>
>depends on what your definition of meaning is. if it's relevance to a
>person's life, then sure, it has to touch on issues they
>understand/care about. if it's objective meaning, who gives a fuck
>what people think?
Objective meaning??????
You're expecting alot of people, aren't you? :)
>how could something
>>>"stupid", "meaningless", and "talentless" like that be "good"? same
>>>argument against "stupid" forms of music like death metal.
>>
>>Agreed.
>
>honestly now, i've actually heard that argument used (in those words,
>more or less).
I don't doubt it. The problem here is, it's difficult to accurately judge
someone based on a comment/opinion like that. I meet people that come off as
"typical, proletariat drones" with no opinion of their own that easily defy
this stigma---seriously.
(Back to our old argument about sheep.... :)
>>Well, find some lyrics that you find to be "vapid, pretty sounding words",
>and
>>post them. I'd have a better understanding of what you mean then, too....
>
>a good example would be lyrics from bush, for instance (they sound
>"cool" - same thing, different perspective). they dont mean anything,
>but people sing along to them anyway. i have a feeling that a lot of
>"alternative" qualifies...
Damnit....I don't really listen to bush. Contrary to what you might think, I
hardly listen to any alternative at all.....
What do you think of the lyrics in my sig?
(Those are the most "vapid and meaningless" lyrics I could find)
>>I disagree here. Stream-of-conciousness writing is rarely meaningless.
>
>well, artistically meaningless.
See below.
<snip>
>depends. i hand you a stream-of-consciousness story that i wrote, and
>i ask you what it means. it has no meaning. you can use it to
>psychoanalyze me, but as of itself, it still doesnt mean anything.
Alot of art critique is thinly veiled psyco-sociolgy.
>now
>i show you a painting i painted over that same story (i magically put
>it on the canvas so you can see it through the painting). does it have
>meaning? well, i dont know, but it's certainly possible...
I think you actually lost me here.
>stream-of-consciousness implies no creative thought. but putting it in
>a context which requires thought yields artistic meaning.
This is a matter of opinion. It depends on which scientific theory about
creative synaptic logic you agree with.
In layman's terms, I tend to agree with the philosophy (another word for
science :) that the very id-ego-subconcious-whatever which is the driving force
behind stream-of-conciousness art is the same as that which provides our meager
minds with dreams (another hot psycho-topic)......and of course, the "dream
engine" is the driving force behind all creativity, in a manner of speaking.
Yes, you could look at the above argument as pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
But I don't see it as any less viable than your opinion. What do you think?
>>Right. But I never said there could not be a middle ground.
>
>fucking logic.
Isn't it gay?
>>In fact, if you
>>remember what started our argument, I was accusing your interpretation of
>some
>>styles of writing to be a bit extreme. Remember?
>
>well, if i said yes, i'd be held accountable, wouldnt i?
Fuck accountability.
>seriously, i'm still standing by my statement - it seems we're just
>misunderstanding what the other means.
Yeah. Not like that _ever_ happens in here, huh?
>>And people who judge
>>things based on narrow standards are _never_ gay.....
>
>are you calling me straight? i'm bi too, dammit...!
Oops. That actually wasn't meant as a veiled insult :)
E.
"What an inheritance,
The salt and the kleenex,
Morbid self-attention,
Bending my pinky back,
A little discipline,
A donor by habit,
A little discipline,
Rent an opinion"
--Faith No More, "Midlife Crisis"
ElangII
M.B. wrote:
>EXACTLY. People always scream about how the new stuff hasn't sold quite
>as much as TBA. Of course it hasn't; they weren't able to shed their
>metal image *entirely*. Had they not tried to eliminate it at all, I
>imagine they would be struggling just to go platinum.
See below.
>> You want a
>> similar analogy. Look at how popular MC Hammer got. When the "funky
>> dance style" was no longer popular, he went "hard", but no gangsta rap
>> fan took him seriously, and his music wasn't very "gangsta". He was
>> certainly less popular than his prime, but does that mean he didn't
>> "sell out"? Does anyone notice this is strikingly similar to what
>> happened to Metallica?
>
>Brilliant allegory. I love it.
The problem with this one is.....
Hasn't Metallica defined the course of "popular" metal?
What I mean is, I am not unsure that Metallica followed the "trend", as opposed
to creating it.
Again....I don't really keep up with the scene. Anyone else have a better
idea?
ElangII
Anti999 wrote:
>And don't forget the people who bought Metallica's black album, and
>maybe (though not likely) some other Metallica albums, because it was
>"kewl". They far outnumbered the actual metal fans that bought it. I
>know this, just ask the majority of people (not necessarily on this NG)
>who own Metallica CDs what other metal CDs they own and get a blank
>response.
Of course. True metal fans would never buy into crap that was sold on an
image now, would they...?
ElangII
EraddicA wrote:
> But seriously, it truely depends on
>> the complexity, if the switch to BM was a switch to something more
>> complex, than there is an undeniable growth. However, a switch to
>> something equally or less complex is debatable.
>
>Now now, since when was making something more complex means you have
>"grown" musically?"
Silly, silly you. Don't you realize that you are only to be considered an
accomplished musician if your music is difficult to play?
>Personally I see the monetary
>> motives as much more evil than the loyalty motives.
>
>Yeah, you are so SURE of everything. Yeah, yeah, If i was in a metal
>band, and we started to make something lightler, like traditional rock,
>than it would be selling-out? Of course it would, because you say so.
Now you're beginning to see the big picture. Good for you.
>> No, plain and simple.
>
>Why?
If you like a band, and don't like another band that sounds similar, you are
_obviously_ not a true metal fan. Don't they teach you anything?????
ElangII
ErradicA wrote:
>> And what is selling these days? Korn sounds a lot closer to metal than
>> alternative, but they got all this ADIDAS crap which makes them OK in
>> the mainstreem idiot's mind (or at least better than the "long hair and
>> leather").
>
>But have Korn sold-out? Are you sure they aren't just some fucked up
>fucks?
The general consensus is: If you write music that is of a popular genre,
and/or become influenced by said genre, then your motives are to be questioned.
The problem is this: this general consensus tends not to allow for deviation
of opinion, rather downplaying it as worthless and/or uninformed. Ironic?
>Ooo yeah. Damn right. That's been my argument basically. If they really
>wanted to sell out, why bring out an album like Load? And who the fuck
>is going to look at the insert before they buy the album?
Apparently "mainstream idiots" do.
>I'd agree that Kirk and Lars have sort of... drifted a bit. kirk more
>so. Lars is more of the rich-rock star person. Kirk is just darn right
>weird. But is this selling out?
Metallica have _always_ been fucked up.
Honestly, I would not be surprised to find out they were all gay.
Of course, looking/being gay nowadays (in the gay corporate 90s) is kewl, so
again.....make sure to question those motives!
>> However, most mainstreem fans won't recognize that. Did Metallica's new
>> stuff stay at #1 any longer than any of the dumbass videos played on
>> MTV?
>
>Is that saying anything except that the albums/singles aren't quite
>popular?
What he is saying is that they "tried to be popular, but failed".
I refuse to have an opinion on the matter. What do you think?
>Commercial yes, because the albums songs are more metallish that
>rockish. Sort of a heavy rock thing. I think most metallica songs could
>make good vids/singles, Reload though having maybe only TMR/UF2/Low mans
>Lyric. WTWTA would be cool too.
Shhhh. Remember, commercial is evil. Any song less than 5 minutes long with a
catchy riff is worthless.
EraddicA
M.B. wrote:
>
> EraddicA wrote:
> > Firstly I'll say that if a band changes genre, I really don't care if
> > they did it for money...
>
> I suppose if I *liked* what they switched to, I might not care, either.
> If I was indifferent to it, I might grumble a little. If it was some
> all-encompassing, monolithic force that constantly bad-mouthed the stuff
> I DO like, I might get kinda pissed (hypothetically speaking, of
> course).
pissed or not, who cares really... if you don't like em, stuff em.
> > > Well, here's what happens. I make some comment about how *Load*, etc.
> > > is such a radical departure from the genre, leaning (whether by design
> > > or by mere coincidence) into a musical category which is commercially
> > > profitable at this time.
> >
> > I won't go into this "commercially profitable" argument again...
>
> I'm not saying that it's necessarily the central issue here, but,
> nonetheless, some things do *sell* better than others.
Yah indeed. There is no doubt that hard rock would sell better than
metal... whether or not in the 90's though... Does anyone else agree
that metal, possibly death metal/heavy with growling is more likely to
sell more cd's than an AC/DC like band in the 90's?
> > > Then some one-post wonder gets on here and bitches at me for saying that
> > > "MetallicA suxx," and then proceeds to explain why reaching your early
> > > to mid-thirties necessarily causes a lightening of one's sound (when I
> > > made no mention of this). Where does this come from?
> >
> > Of course, they could have softened... because they ..err... "matured" i
> > guess from psycho metal head banging etc.
>
> OK, now hold that thought...
holding on here...
> > > Let's try a hypothetical scenario. Say a band that, for fifteen years,
> > > had played melodic hard rock (Killer Dwarfs-style, for example). The
> > > members are now aged 33-36. Suddenly, they begin recording black metal
> > > records.
> > >
> > > Is this because of their age?
> >
> > It could be.
>
> But I thought that <AGE> varies *inversely* with <HEAVINESS> ??
>
> (So a two-year-old would make music that's just...whoah...)
Bananas, in pyjamas, are hunting teddy bears... or chasing or
something... i haven't watched b1 and b2 for a while =P
> And why is a 21-year-old alternative musician considered more "mature"
> than a 45-year-old metal musician?
I was talking more about the metallica situation. And when i said
"mature" i really didn't mean musically... i guess. More, errr...
emotionally etc. You know, like the difference between a 10 yo and a 50
yo...
> > But it would be more likely that they may have found a band
> > in the Black Metal genre and started to listen to this band a lot.. and
> > thought that they preferred Black Metal to rock. So the songs that they
> > wrote started to be in the Black MEtal genre... etc etc.
>
> Now this could happen. A good number of rock guitarists have
> occasionally done "side projects" relating to jazz/blues concepts. But
> it tends to be under a different moniker.
> If the imaginary band in question wanted to try something different
> [black metal], should they maybe bill it as a completely different
> project, to avoid confusion...so they don't inadvertantly drag along
> hard rock fans who really aren't into black metal, and are just buying
> the new albums because the old name is still on them?
Personally i would not do that. Simple fact is, that the band members in
my band would be in that black metal band.. or side project or whatever.
I'd keep it under 1 banner.
So, in reference in Metallica, should they have just gone under a
different name when releasing Load/Reload?
> > > Does it mean that they've "grown" musically?
> >
> > If they truthfully think that they are making better songs now, yes. So
> > in other words, only the band themselves can make an opinion in that.
> > It's really a personal thing.
>
> OK, fair enough.
>
> > > Have they compromised their artistic integrity?
> >
> > Is their such thing?
>
> I have no idea. It's a term that gets tossed around a lot, so I
> included it in this discussion. Daemonic?
I think i'll answer to daemonics response.... so go over my reply to
daemonic =P
> > > Does it matter which genre is more popular at the time of the switch?
> >
> > Does it matter? Well no. Why should it be? They may have just liked to
> > make music in that style, is that wrong? Hell no. So what if they make
> > trillions of dollars, they like making songs in that genre, so that is
> > the only thing that matters.
>
> Perhaps. But if black metal were phenomenally popular, wouldn't it seem
> suspicious when hundreds of artists who previously ignored the genre
> began getting really into it, shouldn't we be suspicious? Why couldn't
> they have been True and Unholy before...?
Again, people get influenced by this uprising. More and more people
would be interested in black metal because it would be shoved into their
face 24 hours a day. Suddenly, they start writing black metal songs,
uncontrollably... you get the idea. They like it, what's wrong with it?
> > > Is it okay for people who were heretofore strictly black-metal listeners
> > > to enjoy this band's older material, but not like any other artists who
> > > had similar works?
> >
> > Yes. The vocals of this band may be something that attracts you to this
> > band, or the solos... just because something is "similar", doesn't mean
> > you _must_ like it.
>
> Maybe, but what about curiosity of association. When I get into a band
> that's marked different than any I've listened to before, I soon start
> seeking out others in a similar vein.
>
> Say that some black metal listeners hear the new album by our pet band
> here. They like it. They look into the older material. At this point,
> some people hate it, some people like it. Those that like it go out and
> buy the whole back catalog...
>
> Now. If these individuals in question are going, "wow, this 'melodic
> hard rock' stuff is really good; I should have given it a chance before
> now," don't you think that they would be inclined to look into other
> artists that might have released quality material in such a style?
they should. but if you are like me, you have no time to go searching
for similar bands...
> > Hmm, that reminds me, I have to hunt down some stuff
> > from Nevermore.
>
> Get some Nevermore, or I send Damonshawx to your house.
i'd rather not ;)
> > > Can we safely say that the musicians in question are especially talented
> > > because of their "diversity?"
> >
> > No. Hell no. Jeezuz, hell no.
>
> People say that!!
indeed!
> > > And should they begin wearing armor and corpsepaint, or stick with their
> > > usual image?
> >
> > They can do what they like for all I care. If they started to wear
> > armour, good for them.
>
> Maybe I should get some viking armor...
Or maybe some drag queen clothes... you see, i wouldn't care what a band
looked like...
> > > Some tough questions. Let me know what you think.
> >
> > Actually they aren't tough questions but anyway.
>
> You just don't appreciate my satirical wit.
oh, sorry =)
And i had to cut some stuff cause my news server is stuffed and won't
let me send messages that have more quoted lines then the amount of
lines I have written, or something weird. =)
So to just get this thing posted, i will type some jumble text at the
bottom of this post =)
--
***********************
EraddicA
o...@magna.com.au
***********************
Remember this peoples:
Integrity:
(1) Uprightness of character; honesty
(2) The condition of quality of being unimpaired or sound
(3) The state of being complete or undivided
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Some more to go....
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
EraddicA
> >>
> >> M.B. wrote:
> >> > Have they compromised their artistic integrity?
> >>
> >> Is their such thing?
> >
> >I have no idea. It's a term that gets tossed around a lot, so I
> >included it in this discussion. Daemonic?
>
> why shouldnt there be? the man who sits around all his life writing
> music because he likes it probably writes "better" music then the guy
> who writes a song to get chicks and make money. coincidentally, the
> former guy is said to have "artistic integrity". extrapolate from
> that, and...
Yep... honest music is what that means. As long as its... err, this is
kinda corny but anyway... from the heart, then, it's honest i guess.
> >> > Does it matter which genre is more popular at the time of the switch?
> >>
> >> Does it matter? Well no. Why should it be? They may have just liked to
> >> make music in that style, is that wrong? Hell no. So what if they make
> >> trillions of dollars, they like making songs in that genre, so that is
> >> the only thing that matters.
> >
> >Perhaps. But if black metal were phenomenally popular, wouldn't it seem
> >suspicious when hundreds of artists who previously ignored the genre
> >began getting really into it, shouldn't we be suspicious? Why couldn't
> >they have been True and Unholy before...?
>
> there's a bigger parallel here to reality then you know.
see other post.
> >> > And should they begin wearing armor and corpsepaint, or stick with their
> >> > usual image?
> >>
> >> They can do what they like for all I care. If they started to wear
> >> armour, good for them.
> >
> >Maybe I should get some viking armor...
>
> we all should...
And pink slippers.
> -Daemonic
Here's that blah thing at the end of the post too =)
--
***********************
EraddicA
o...@magna.com.au
***********************
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
EraddicA
Anti999 wrote:
>
> EraddicA wrote:
> >
> > Anti999 wrote:
> > Now now, since when was making something more complex means you have
> > "grown" musically?"
>
> Complexity is subjective. Whether someone feels that the songwriting is
> more complex or whatever, obviously they will have "grown" in the ears
> of the listener. Complexity <> Technicality in other words. If the new
> stuff was not in any way more complex than the old stuff, there could
> not possibly be any "growth".
I've posted a response to the above question put forth by the one and
only MB, but i'll say it again. Only the artists themselvse can really
comment on the subject that they have "grown" musically, because if they
feel that they are writing BETTER songs (note, not _more_
_technical/complex_) then they can say truely that they have grown.
Otherwise, if you and I comment, it's just an opinion, we really don't
know what's going inside their heads right?
> > > > Does it matter which genre is more popular at the time of the switch?
> > >
> > > Yes it does. If the genre they switch into is unusually popular at the
> > > time, then there is almost no doubt that they are "in it for the
> > > money". If they switch OUT of the mainstreem, that would be a
> > > compromise as well, though not necessarily in the monetary sense (maybe
> > > to know who your "true fans" are). Personally I see the monetary
> > > motives as much more evil than the loyalty motives.
> >
> > Yeah, you are so SURE of everything. Yeah, yeah, If i was in a metal
> > band, and we started to make something lightler, like traditional rock,
> > than it would be selling-out? Of course it would, because you say so.
>
> Okay, fair arguement. I will never know for sure, I can only judge by
> circumstancial evidence. If a genre is such a wide departure from the
> original genre, and happens to be popular at the time, there is enough
> circumstancial evidence to say that they are most likely "in it for the
> money". With increasing closeness to the original genre, and decreasing
> popularity of the new genre, the chances of a "sell out" decrease.
As i posted 10 minutes ago [ =) ], a band may have been influenced by
these popular bands, and may have liked this music and then the music
that they were writing suddenly turned into, say, alternative. Is that
wrong? I bet you, that most popular bands... okay, a lot of them, okay,
a fair few of them have simply been influenced by the popular genre.
> > > > Is it okay for people who were heretofore strictly black-metal listeners
> > > > to enjoy this band's older material, but not like any other artists who
> > > > had similar works?
> > >
> > > No, plain and simple.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Okay, let's take an example. Let's suppose a rap band started playing
> metal. I like the metal, have only previously listened to metal, and I
> buy the rap CDs and I like them. Should I like Puff Daddy as well, just
> because it is rap, NO. Should I like an artist that embraces the
> qualities I like in the rap band, YES.
Yes, you basically just contridicted your argument. MB's question had
the word "similar". Now, similar is a way way away from "exactly" or
"close to". There isn't that much difference between Megadeth and
Metallica right? Do you know why I don't like megadeth very much?
Because simply, i find that most of their songs seem to have sections
that are out of place, or feel like they are, inconsistent etc...
otherwise they are mostly like Metallica. Am i wrong to say this? No,
because even though the 2 bands are SIMILAR, they aren't the same and
have DIFFERENt qualities, or at least enough of them.
I know i've written a lot, but netscape is pissing me off with this
error all the time =)
>
> Anti999
EraddicA
Anti999 wrote:
>
> EraddicA wrote:
>
> > > Well if they DID in fact try to "cash in" on the alternative scene, they
> > > DID do a very pathetic job, seeing as it doesn't sound very
> > > alternative...
> >
> > Ooo yeah. Damn right. That's been my argument basically. If they really
> > wanted to sell out, why bring out an album like Load? And who the fuck
> > is going to look at the insert before they buy the album?
>
> See the MC Hammer example in one of my previous posts.
i know what you mean, but Load is just so far away from alternative,
it's really not funny. But yet, it's so close.
> > I'd agree that Kirk and Lars have sort of... drifted a bit. kirk more
> > so. Lars is more of the rich-rock star person. Kirk is just darn right
> > weird. But is this selling out?
>
> What do you think is selling more these days? Look at just about EVERY
> popular band, including Metallica, they all have pretty much the same
> image, and do pretty much the same on the charts. Look at the
> correlation between image and performance on the charts. For example,
> Megadeth's new music is closer to Metallica's than Metallica's are to
> alt. Are Megadeth's videos faring as well as Metallica's? Sure,
> Metallica's music is fairly different from alt, but (not including the
> Metallica fans that also like hard rock) only the MTV fans who actually
> like alternative music, and don't take Metallica seriously as an
> alternative band, can see that. There are some people like you that
> actually are intellegent enough to look only at the music as to decide
> wheter the album is good or not, but it is a small minority.
I think you'd be surprised how man people just say "yeah, that sounds
kinda cool" when watching tv.
Look, those people have different tastes, but are easily influenced by
other genres, if they are smacked in their face for long enough.
Oh, and just to let you know, it took me at least 2 weeks to like every
song on all of the metallica albums, and other bands, so i don't adjust
very well. I have to force myself to listen to something to like it. I
rarely ever like something on first listen.
> > Is that saying anything except that the albums/singles aren't quite
> > popular?
>
> No, what I implied was that the singles off Load and ReLoad are of
> compareable popularity to the other videos on MTV. That is the average
> MTV fan (which is actually where a lot of revenue comes in) doesn't see
> Met. as any better or any worse than anything else.
Well that's what happens when you have a music video channel. They'll
play anything that they think will be popular between _most_ audiences,
unfortunately minorities tend to be excluded =(
> > Commercial yes, because the albums songs are more metallish that
> > rockish. Sort of a heavy rock thing. I think most metallica songs could
> > make good vids/singles, Reload though having maybe only TMR/UF2/Low mans
> > Lyric. WTWTA would be cool too.
>
> Personally, I don't see any metal in ReLoad at all. Other than ReLoad
> "rocking more" there is not any reason why it should be less
> commercially acceptable than Load (at least in the eyes of an MTV fan).
> Fuel or Prince Charming would make a profitable single, for instance.
Carpe Diem Baby... i hear a metal influence in that, same with WTWTA,
and Prince... Fuel maybe... Fixxxer maybe. There are metal influences,
and Carpe Diem Baby is one heavy song. IMO though. Not many people tend
to agree with me on that one i think.
EraddicA
ElangII wrote:
>
> EraddicA wrote:
> >Now now, since when was making something more complex means you have
> >"grown" musically?"
>
> Silly, silly you. Don't you realize that you are only to be considered an
> accomplished musician if your music is difficult to play?
umm, errr, i think i must have lost my notes on that, sorry can't
answer.
> >Yeah, you are so SURE of everything. Yeah, yeah, If i was in a metal
> >band, and we started to make something lightler, like traditional rock,
> >than it would be selling-out? Of course it would, because you say so.
>
> Now you're beginning to see the big picture. Good for you.
I always try you know ;)
> >> No, plain and simple.
> >
> >Why?
>
> If you like a band, and don't like another band that sounds similar, you are
> _obviously_ not a true metal fan. Don't they teach you anything?????
Well, Lars sorta takes up a bit of my time...
> E.
Ninnghizhidda
On 13 Feb 1998 04:12:57 GMT, ela...@aol.com (ElangII) wrote:
>M.B. wrote:
>
><snip my earlier comments>
>
>>Let's try a hypothetical scenario. Say a band that, for fifteen years,
>>had played melodic hard rock (Killer Dwarfs-style, for example). The
>>members are now aged 33-36. Suddenly, they begin recording black metal
>>records.
>>
>>Is this because of their age?
>
>Its a viable possibilty, that should not be discounted as "irrelevant".
care to elaborate? why should age (completely different from
experience) have anything to do with musical tastes? music is music,
and unless you're listening to metal to piss off your parents, there's
no logical reason to not like it past a certain age.
>Whatever the hell they want to do. In a perfect world, they could rip off each
>other's clothes and have wild sex on stage during shows......and it wouldn't
>matter. But, since we don't live in a perfect world....
>
>Incidentally, this leads to another argument of mine. There are alot of
>people who would answer your questions negatively, and point out the gayness of
>our decade as the root of the problem. Why must this be true?
i'm not sure i fully understand your point, but - it's not because of
the gayness of the decade, it's because of the gayness of society, and
more specifically, people. this decade is gay, and i'm sure many
others were gay, too, but i wasnt around, or dont remember, and
therefore dont care.
Ninnghizhidda
On 13 Feb 1998 04:42:09 GMT, ela...@aol.com (ElangII) wrote:
>Daemonic wrote:
>
>>> Functional lyrics are often meaningful to somebody because their purpose is
>>>obvious, and for those to whom they are relevant, they are often appealing.
>>
>>depends on what your definition of meaning is. if it's relevance to a
>>person's life, then sure, it has to touch on issues they
>>understand/care about. if it's objective meaning, who gives a fuck
>>what people think?
>
>Objective meaning??????
>You're expecting alot of people, aren't you? :)
how so?
i got 4 hours of sleep last night, i dont think you could say
something that wouldnt go over my head. :)
>>how could something
>>>>"stupid", "meaningless", and "talentless" like that be "good"? same
>>>>argument against "stupid" forms of music like death metal.
>>>
>>>Agreed.
>>
>>honestly now, i've actually heard that argument used (in those words,
>>more or less).
>
>I don't doubt it. The problem here is, it's difficult to accurately judge
>someone based on a comment/opinion like that. I meet people that come off as
>"typical, proletariat drones" with no opinion of their own that easily defy
>this stigma---seriously.
>(Back to our old argument about sheep.... :)
oh, what fun. :) hmm...even if i believe you, and you cant judge
people just by that, you get a pretty good insight into how they think
- what would it take to make someone say that, time and time again?
you sheep, you.
>>>Well, find some lyrics that you find to be "vapid, pretty sounding words",
>>and
>>>post them. I'd have a better understanding of what you mean then, too....
>>
>>a good example would be lyrics from bush, for instance (they sound
>>"cool" - same thing, different perspective). they dont mean anything,
>>but people sing along to them anyway. i have a feeling that a lot of
>>"alternative" qualifies...
>
>Damnit....I don't really listen to bush. Contrary to what you might think, I
>hardly listen to any alternative at all.....
still, somehow, i know some of their lyrics. people play the radio, i
understand the vocalist, and...
though i wasnt under the impression that you listened to alternative,
anyway.
>What do you think of the lyrics in my sig?
>(Those are the most "vapid and meaningless" lyrics I could find)
i think they've "vapid and meaningless", actually. :) i wouldnt
consider them to be very high quality. feel free to "drop science" on
me and laugh, though.
>>>I disagree here. Stream-of-conciousness writing is rarely meaningless.
>>
>>well, artistically meaningless.
>
>See below.
say please.
><snip>
>>depends. i hand you a stream-of-consciousness story that i wrote, and
>>i ask you what it means. it has no meaning. you can use it to
>>psychoanalyze me, but as of itself, it still doesnt mean anything.
>
>Alot of art critique is thinly veiled psyco-sociolgy.
big words that i dont understand make for me asking you what they
mean.
>>now
>>i show you a painting i painted over that same story (i magically put
>>it on the canvas so you can see it through the painting). does it have
>>meaning? well, i dont know, but it's certainly possible...
>
>I think you actually lost me here.
it's context - based on some of the stuff below, i give you everything
in my head (all my life experiences, thoughts, etc.) - what's it mean?
nothing. it's just a bunch of information. i give you the same
information, and tell you to filter it in a certain way (let's say i
was a famous artist - analyze the thoughts vs. the end result). does
it mean something now? not neccesarily, but it _CAN_, because it's in
context now.
>>stream-of-consciousness implies no creative thought. but putting it in
>>a context which requires thought yields artistic meaning.
>
>This is a matter of opinion. It depends on which scientific theory about
>creative synaptic logic you agree with.
>In layman's terms, I tend to agree with the philosophy (another word for
>science :) that the very id-ego-subconcious-whatever which is the driving force
>behind stream-of-conciousness art is the same as that which provides our meager
>minds with dreams (another hot psycho-topic)......and of course, the "dream
>engine" is the driving force behind all creativity, in a manner of speaking.
nothing you've said disagrees with my ideas - no matter how creativity
is motivated, the most creative thing, without context to give it
meaning, is completely useless. to put it into context, you need to
look at it again, devise the context, and put them together. i give
you all the riffs to the best song ever - it doesnt mean anything. i
give you the song, with riffs put in the order i've devised - now it's
something.
>Yes, you could look at the above argument as pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
>But I don't see it as any less viable than your opinion. What do you think?
i dont think they're mutually exclusive...
>>>Right. But I never said there could not be a middle ground.
>>
>>fucking logic.
>
>Isn't it gay?
i might be forced to bend it over.
>>>In fact, if you
>>>remember what started our argument, I was accusing your interpretation of
>>some
>>>styles of writing to be a bit extreme. Remember?
>>
>>well, if i said yes, i'd be held accountable, wouldnt i?
>
>Fuck accountability.
where?
>>seriously, i'm still standing by my statement - it seems we're just
>>misunderstanding what the other means.
>
>Yeah. Not like that _ever_ happens in here, huh?
funny, too, because if everyone did say "METALLICA RULZ D00D!", there
would be no misunderstanding, and therefore more efficiency. kind of
ironic..
>>>And people who judge
>>>things based on narrow standards are _never_ gay.....
>>
>>are you calling me straight? i'm bi too, dammit...!
>
>Oops. That actually wasn't meant as a veiled insult :)
probably not, but i'm not smart enough to recognize that it was in the
first place. do you think my comment actually meant something? nope -
it just seemed to fit.
Seroussi
Anti999 wrote:
>
> M.B. wrote:
> >
> > Let's try a hypothetical scenario. Say a band that, for fifteen years,
> > had played melodic hard rock (Killer Dwarfs-style, for example). The
> > members are now aged 33-36. Suddenly, they begin recording black metal
> > records.
> >
>
> the complexity, if the switch to BM was a switch to something more
> complex, than there is an undeniable growth. However, a switch to
> something equally or less complex is debatable.
Define complexity.
If the definition it technical!!!!!1 then how is technicality=growth?
> "An OutKast is someone who is not considered to be part of the normal world,
> He is looked at differently
> He is not accepted because of his clothes, his hair
> His occupation, his beliefs, or his skin color
> Now look at yourself, are you an OutKast? I know I am
> As a matter of fact, fuck being anything else"
>
> --OutKast, True Dat
Being an outkast is kewl!!!!!!!!!!11!
Seroussi
Anti999 wrote:
>
> EraddicA wrote:
> >
> > Anti999 wrote:
> > >
> > > THEY ARE ALSO SHOWING THEY ARE MORE TALENTED BECAUSE THEY CAN PLAY MORE
> > > THAN ONE STYLE OF MUSIC!!!!!!111!! But seriously, it truely depends on
> > > the complexity, if the switch to BM was a switch to something more
> > > complex, than there is an undeniable growth. However, a switch to
> > > something equally or less complex is debatable.
> >
> > "grown" musically?"
>
> more complex or whatever, obviously they will have "grown" in the ears
> of the listener. Complexity <> Technicality in other words. If the new
> stuff was not in any way more complex than the old stuff, there could
> not possibly be any "growth".
If increasing complexity is equal to growth and complexity is subjective,
then won't growth be also subjective?
Seroussi
Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>
> On 13 Feb 1998 04:12:57 GMT, ela...@aol.com (ElangII) wrote:
>
> >M.B. wrote:
> >
> ><snip my earlier comments>
> >
> >>had played melodic hard rock (Killer Dwarfs-style, for example). The
> >>members are now aged 33-36. Suddenly, they begin recording black metal
> >>records.
> >>
> >
> >Its a viable possibilty, that should not be discounted as "irrelevant".
>
> care to elaborate? why should age (completely different from
> experience) have anything to do with musical tastes? music is music,
> and unless you're listening to metal to piss off your parents, there's
> no logical reason to not like it past a certain age.
Usually, musical tastes change over time. Over time, you grow and get older,
therefore your musical tastes are probable to change when you're older. Thus,
metal may not appeal anymore to a 40 year old that has listened to metal all
his/hers life.
Seroussi
M.B. wrote:
>
> Let's try a hypothetical scenario. Say a band that, for fifteen years,
> had played melodic hard rock (Killer Dwarfs-style, for example). The
> members are now aged 33-36. Suddenly, they begin recording black metal
> records.
>
> Is this because of their age?
Maybe. Your musical tastes do usually change over time...
> Does it mean that they've "grown" musically?
Define "growth" in that sense.
> Have they compromised their artistic integrity?
No one knows but them.
> Does it matter which genre is more popular at the time of the switch?
No, though if it is a radical change to a more popular genre it may show
that they compromised their artistic intergrity.
It may matter if they're on a big label, as big labels tend to put more
pressure on the bands they have signed.
> Is it okay for people who were heretofore strictly black-metal listeners
> to enjoy this band's older material, but not like any other artists who
> had similar works?
Depends how similar these works are and what aspects of the band's older
material the listener likes.
> Can we safely say that the musicians in question are especially talented
> because of their "diversity?"
No.
> And should they begin wearing armor and corpsepaint, or stick with their
> usual image?
It's their choice.
Dom DiSpaldo
> EXACTLY. People always scream about how the new stuff hasn't sold quite
> as much as TBA. Of course it hasn't; they weren't able to shed their
> metal image *entirely*. Had they not tried to eliminate it at all, I
> imagine they would be struggling just to go platinum.
>
This is quite interesting. I recall when TBA came out, so-called Metallica fans
accused them of "selling out to become more popular" because there weren't any
speed metal tunes on it. Oh, and remember "Nothing Else Matters" -- a LOVE song --
was also a supposed indication of them "selling out."
Well, I've been a Metallica fan since Ride The Lightning, and I can remember when
THAT album came out how the "fans" called "Fade To Black" a sellout -- how dare
the speed-metal kings write a BALLAD?
Don't you people realize how ridiculous this whole thing really is? No matter what
Metallica has written over the years, there are/were always people calling them
sellouts.
Bottom line: Metallica is not stuck in 1983, 1986, 1991, or any other time period
in which they've released prior albums. Whatever they've written was a reflection
of where they were at musically, at any given point in time. Their tastes and
musical interests have changed over the years -- whose tastes don't? Some of us
have grown through their changes and accepted them.
This is one loyal Metallica fan who has learned to listen to new Metallica music
with an open mind and open ears. And I still listen to Load and Reload regularly.
And will continue to do so, as much as I listen to Puppets, Justice, and anything
else they've released over the years.
> "If they're just 'doing what they want,' why did they wait until that
> kind of music was popular to do it?"
>
> --BurnBible
Maybe their tastes have changed.... as they always have.
Ninnghizhidda
On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 17:33:42 +0100, Seroussi <sero...@algonet.se>
wrote:
>Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>>
>> On 13 Feb 1998 04:12:57 GMT, ela...@aol.com (ElangII) wrote:
>>
>> >M.B. wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip my earlier comments>
>> >
>> >>Let's try a hypothetical scenario. Say a band that, for fifteen years,
>> >>had played melodic hard rock (Killer Dwarfs-style, for example). The
>> >>members are now aged 33-36. Suddenly, they begin recording black metal
>> >>records.
>> >>
>> >>Is this because of their age?
>> >
>> >Its a viable possibilty, that should not be discounted as "irrelevant".
>>
>> care to elaborate? why should age (completely different from
>> experience) have anything to do with musical tastes? music is music,
>> and unless you're listening to metal to piss off your parents, there's
>> no logical reason to not like it past a certain age.
>
>Usually, musical tastes change over time. Over time, you grow and get older,
>therefore your musical tastes are probable to change when you're older. Thus,
>metal may not appeal anymore to a 40 year old that has listened to metal all
>his/hers life.
but that's circumstantial - and it has nothing to do with the form of
music. you can change tastes, sure, but that has to do with
experience, not age.
Ninnghizhidda
On 13 Feb 1998 04:21:00 GMT, ela...@aol.com (ElangII) wrote:
>Daemonic wrote:
>
>>why shouldnt there be? the man who sits around all his life writing
>>music because he likes it probably writes "better" music then the guy
>>who writes a song to get chicks and make money. coincidentally, the
>>former guy is said to have "artistic integrity". extrapolate from
>>that, and...
>
>I disagree completely here.
>A band that (hypothetically, of course) contrives to write music that somebody
>of your tastes would like would be considered to write "better" music than a
>country writer who couldn't give a fuck what you think, but writes in earnest.
definitely - but when i talk about music a lot of the time, i try to
look at it in an objective sense. and by this i define "good" music as
music which is creative, original, and moving (any emotion). obviously
the latter is subjective, but it can be argued that people share
similar aesthetic preferences. to go back to your point - what if both
musicians were in the same genre?
>(Even though you say this isn't true....perspective has _ALOT_--I would go as
>far as to say "almost everything"--to do with the judging of musical talent)
well, if you're judging how much you like it, then definitely. thing
is, i'll readily admit that a lot of things that i cant stand to
listen to are still good music - that's more objective.
>Case and point: Megadeth's Cryptic Writings is considered by many to be
>"better" music than Reload. I've listened to both, and am able to enjoy both
>(although, I like Cryptic Writings less and less each listen). Personally, I
>think Metallica writes better "commerical FM rock" than Megadeth. Now, why
>would my opinion not be valid?
see, i havent heard cryptic writings, and i've heard reload once
(minus a couple of songs). regardless - i'm not sure if "commercial FM
rock" is a genre (or maybe i dont understand what it is). regardless,
your opinion is valid, but if you can think up "standards" for
commercial FM rock, if the music in question doesnt fit, well...
ElangII
Daemonic wrote:
>>Objective meaning??????
>>You're expecting alot of people, aren't you? :)
>
>how so?
>
>i got 4 hours of sleep last night, i dont think you could say
>something that wouldnt go over my head. :)
Don't worry about it...
It was a stupid comment anyways.
>>(Back to our old argument about sheep.... :)
>
>oh, what fun. :) hmm...even if i believe you, and you cant judge
>people just by that, you get a pretty good insight into how they think
>- what would it take to make someone say that, time and time again?
>
>you sheep, you.
Man, you are a pain in the ass.
We can start a new thread about it if you want :)
>>Damnit....I don't really listen to bush. Contrary to what you might think,
>I
>>hardly listen to any alternative at all.....
>
>still, somehow, i know some of their lyrics. people play the radio, i
>understand the vocalist, and...
>
>though i wasnt under the impression that you listened to alternative,
>anyway.
Well, when I hear something I don't like, I tune it out completely.
The only bush lyrics I know are "breathe in, breathe out" from Machine Head.
>>What do you think of the lyrics in my sig?
>>(Those are the most "vapid and meaningless" lyrics I could find)
>
>i think they've "vapid and meaningless", actually. :) i wouldnt
>consider them to be very high quality. feel free to "drop science" on
>me and laugh, though.
Drop science?
Your opinion is valid, but I would disagree that they are meaningless. In
context of the song (assuming it is about a Midlife Crisis, of course) each
line of the lyrics does have a pretty tangible meaning to me. I wonder what
they would mean to someone else?
>>Alot of art critique is thinly veiled psyco-sociolgy.
>
>big words that i dont understand make for me asking you what they
>mean.
...and i misspelled "psycho" too :)
Basically, what I was saying, is that alot of art critique (especially of
abstract-impressionist art) is about putting the artists frame of mind (some
pop psychology here) into context with the piece. I don't find that invalid.
Apparently, you do.
>nothing you've said disagrees with my ideas - no matter how creativity
>is motivated, the most creative thing, without context to give it
>meaning, is completely useless. to put it into context, you need to
>look at it again, devise the context, and put them together. i give
>you all the riffs to the best song ever - it doesnt mean anything. i
>give you the song, with riffs put in the order i've devised - now it's
>something.
Okay. Now, at least I see where our disagreement is.
Again, I sort of disagree here. But no amount of arguing is going to change
your mind, so I'll drop it :)
>>>>Right. But I never said there could not be a middle ground.
>>>
>>>fucking logic.
>>
>>Isn't it gay?
>
>i might be forced to bend it over.
Do it at a Hanson concert, and it will get you BIG points.
>>Yeah. Not like that _ever_ happens in here, huh?
>
>funny, too, because if everyone did say "METALLICA RULZ D00D!", there
>would be no misunderstanding, and therefore more efficiency. kind of
>ironic..
Efficiency is extremely gay.
>>Oops. That actually wasn't meant as a veiled insult :)
>
>probably not, but i'm not smart enough to recognize that it was in the
>first place. do you think my comment actually meant something? nope -
>it just seemed to fit.
An interesting show of support to my argument about stream of conciousness.
It obviously meant something to me.....so why would it be meaningless?
(snicker)
Ninnghizhidda
On 13 Feb 1998 05:38:55 GMT, ela...@aol.com (ElangII) wrote:
>ErradicA wrote:
>
>>> And what is selling these days? Korn sounds a lot closer to metal than
>>> alternative, but they got all this ADIDAS crap which makes them OK in
>>> the mainstreem idiot's mind (or at least better than the "long hair and
>>> leather").
>>
>>But have Korn sold-out? Are you sure they aren't just some fucked up
>>fucks?
>
>The general consensus is: If you write music that is of a popular genre,
>and/or become influenced by said genre, then your motives are to be questioned.
and why not? music is popular because it gets continually shoved down
people's throats - it's not art at this point, just "something kewl to
listen to" ("it's just music!" -various popular music fans i know). if
it's not art, it's a product, and if most of it is a product, it's
logical to question motives. you can argue that people listen to it
because they havent checked into other forms, but then i tell you that
if they havent, they obviously dont seem to care a whole lot about
finding music that they like, and you get back to this: if you dont
care about music, i'm betting you're writing music for money/fame/etc.
>The problem is this: this general consensus tends not to allow for deviation
>of opinion, rather downplaying it as worthless and/or uninformed. Ironic?
definitely. but justified.
>>Ooo yeah. Damn right. That's been my argument basically. If they really
>>wanted to sell out, why bring out an album like Load? And who the fuck
>>is going to look at the insert before they buy the album?
>
>Apparently "mainstream idiots" do.
not true unholy metalheads who comment on what the insert looks like.
"insert"...hmm.
>>I'd agree that Kirk and Lars have sort of... drifted a bit. kirk more
>>so. Lars is more of the rich-rock star person. Kirk is just darn right
>>weird. But is this selling out?
>
>Metallica have _always_ been fucked up.
>Honestly, I would not be surprised to find out they were all gay.
>Of course, looking/being gay nowadays (in the gay corporate 90s) is kewl, so
>again.....make sure to question those motives!
yes sir! will do, sir!
>>Commercial yes, because the albums songs are more metallish that
>>rockish. Sort of a heavy rock thing. I think most metallica songs could
>>make good vids/singles, Reload though having maybe only TMR/UF2/Low mans
>>Lyric. WTWTA would be cool too.
>
>Shhhh. Remember, commercial is evil. Any song less than 5 minutes long with a
>catchy riff is worthless.
it's good to have you on our side. :)
Ninnghizhidda
On 13 Feb 1998 04:53:48 GMT, ela...@aol.com (ElangII) wrote:
>>> You want a
>>> similar analogy. Look at how popular MC Hammer got. When the "funky
>>> dance style" was no longer popular, he went "hard", but no gangsta rap
>>> fan took him seriously, and his music wasn't very "gangsta". He was
>>> certainly less popular than his prime, but does that mean he didn't
>>> "sell out"? Does anyone notice this is strikingly similar to what
>>> happened to Metallica?
>>
>>Brilliant allegory. I love it.
>
>The problem with this one is.....
>Hasn't Metallica defined the course of "popular" metal?
>What I mean is, I am not unsure that Metallica followed the "trend", as opposed
>to creating it.
>
>Again....I don't really keep up with the scene. Anyone else have a better
>idea?
here's the thing, though: popular metal is heavy rock. in that case,
you could concievably connect sabbath with today's "popular metal"
(add distortion, add "angry" vocalist, there you go). arent bands like
soundgarden ("popular metal") influenced by sabbath?
ElangII
Seroussi wrote:
>> care to elaborate? why should age (completely different from
>> experience) have anything to do with musical tastes? music is music,
>> and unless you're listening to metal to piss off your parents, there's
>> no logical reason to not like it past a certain age.
>
>Usually, musical tastes change over time. Over time, you grow and get older,
>therefore your musical tastes are probable to change when you're older. Thus,
>metal may not appeal anymore to a 40 year old that has listened to metal all
>his/hers life.
You beat me to it, it seems.
That's basically it, as far as I'm concerned.
ElangII
Daemonic wrote:
>>Usually, musical tastes change over time. Over time, you grow and get older,
>>therefore your musical tastes are probable to change when you're older.
>Thus,
>>metal may not appeal anymore to a 40 year old that has listened to metal all
>>his/hers life.
>
>but that's circumstantial - and it has nothing to do with the form of
>music. you can change tastes, sure, but that has to do with
>experience, not age.
That's not entirely untrue.
But age and experience are not mutually exclusive, automatically.
Quality of experience would be the biggest measure here, I think.
Ninnghizhidda
On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 21:43:31 +1000, EraddicA <o...@magna.com.au> wrote:
>M.B. wrote:
>> I'm not saying that it's necessarily the central issue here, but,
>> nonetheless, some things do *sell* better than others.
>
>Yah indeed. There is no doubt that hard rock would sell better than
>metal... whether or not in the 90's though... Does anyone else agree
>that metal, possibly death metal/heavy with growling is more likely to
>sell more cd's than an AC/DC like band in the 90's?
probably. but that's due to bands like pantera, machine head, and
korn, who use those "super kewl death metal vocal styles". most people
are gay aestheticists, and if it sounds the same, it is the same, so
that's why machine head is death metal.
>> Now. If these individuals in question are going, "wow, this 'melodic
>> hard rock' stuff is really good; I should have given it a chance before
>> now," don't you think that they would be inclined to look into other
>> artists that might have released quality material in such a style?
>
>they should. but if you are like me, you have no time to go searching
>for similar bands...
...but if one was presented to you, what would you say?
and why the fuck dont you have time? make time, if you care.
Ninnghizhidda
On 16 Feb 1998 04:58:38 GMT, ela...@aol.com (ElangII) wrote:
>Daemonic wrote:
>
>>>Usually, musical tastes change over time. Over time, you grow and get older,
>>>therefore your musical tastes are probable to change when you're older.
>>Thus,
>>>metal may not appeal anymore to a 40 year old that has listened to metal all
>>>his/hers life.
>>
>>but that's circumstantial - and it has nothing to do with the form of
>>music. you can change tastes, sure, but that has to do with
>>experience, not age.
>
>That's not entirely untrue.
>But age and experience are not mutually exclusive, automatically.
of course not. but experience is the cause, and age is a symptom -
you're implying that the disease IS the symptom. which is...gay.
ElangII
EraddicA wrote:
>> I DO like, I might get kinda pissed (hypothetically speaking, of
>> course).
>
>pissed or not, who cares really... if you don't like em, stuff em.
Well, I sort of agree with M.B. on this one. I'm really pissed off about
Megadeth lately, mostly because of the condescending "been there, done that"
attitude Dave tends to exhibit towards his "old" fans.
Yes, it has nothing to do with the music, but it does have a (very slight,
albeit) effect on my enjoyment of the music.
>Yah indeed. There is no doubt that hard rock would sell better than
>metal... whether or not in the 90's though... Does anyone else agree
>that metal, possibly death metal/heavy with growling is more likely to
>sell more cd's than an AC/DC like band in the 90's?
Would it?
I know that Silverchair's brand of metal is quite popular lately. Although I
_do_ have to admit, the band isn't "terrible"....
>> And why is a 21-year-old alternative musician considered more "mature"
>> than a 45-year-old metal musician?
>
>I was talking more about the metallica situation. And when i said
>"mature" i really didn't mean musically... i guess. More, errr...
>emotionally etc. You know, like the difference between a 10 yo and a 50
>yo...
I think that a diversification is a sign of maturity. Don't confuse that with
(mature=better). Anyone disagree?
>So, in reference in Metallica, should they have just gone under a
>different name when releasing Load/Reload?
Absolutely not!
Regardless of whether the Loads are appreciated, they are still Metallica.
The first time I heard The Memory Remains on radio, I knew within 5 seconds of
the song which band it was.
Hell, even the "odd" songs (hero of the day, low man's lyric, until it sleeps)
are quite recognizably them.
>Again, people get influenced by this uprising. More and more people
>would be interested in black metal because it would be shoved into their
>face 24 hours a day. Suddenly, they start writing black metal songs,
>uncontrollably... you get the idea. They like it, what's wrong with it?
That's an interesting point. Being influenced by a popular genre should not be
confused with selling out.....and, I would think, is virtually
indistinguishable.
Alot of the music I write nowadays is less "pure metal" than before. But I
like it more than my old stuff, not less.
>> hard rock' stuff is really good; I should have given it a chance before
>> now," don't you think that they would be inclined to look into other
>> artists that might have released quality material in such a style?
>
>they should. but if you are like me, you have no time to go searching
>for similar bands...
Also, I don't think the issue is "looking into other bands". I think the
original beef was "why would someone who likes band A not like band B, who
sound similar?".
>> > > because of their "diversity?"
>> >
>> > No. Hell no. Jeezuz, hell no.
>>
>> People say that!!
>
>indeed!
It _is_ a matter of opinion. If someone were to say to you "(insert genre of
music you hate here) is talentless shit", how quick would you be to argue
against them?
ElangII
EraddicA wrote:
>Oh, and just to let you know, it took me at least 2 weeks to like every
>song on all of the metallica albums, and other bands, so i don't adjust
>very well. I have to force myself to listen to something to like it. I
>rarely ever like something on first listen.
Curious here.
Do you end up liking everything you force yourself to listen to?
(It's relevant to a longstanding argument between a bunch of us here...)
>Carpe Diem Baby... i hear a metal influence in that, same with WTWTA,
>and Prince... Fuel maybe... Fixxxer maybe. There are metal influences,
>and Carpe Diem Baby is one heavy song. IMO though. Not many people tend
>to agree with me on that one i think.
I'll go you one further.
In Carpe Diem Baby, substitute a sliding power chord for the open string (the
intro and between-stanza riffs), and eliminate the minor keys....have James
growl the clean vocals, but keep all melodies exactly the same.
Now, place the song on ... And Justice For All. How out of place do you think
it would be?
Do the same for: Devil's dance, Better than You.
Am I on crack? Or is there a connection?
Ninnghizhidda
On 16 Feb 1998 04:50:44 GMT, ela...@aol.com (ElangII) wrote:
>Daemonic wrote:
>>>(Back to our old argument about sheep.... :)
>>
>>oh, what fun. :) hmm...even if i believe you, and you cant judge
>>people just by that, you get a pretty good insight into how they think
>>- what would it take to make someone say that, time and time again?
>>
>>you sheep, you.
>
>Man, you are a pain in the ass.
i practice.
>We can start a new thread about it if you want :)
i probably dont. but feel free, if you care. or you could just respond
to what i wrote before...
>>>Damnit....I don't really listen to bush. Contrary to what you might think,
>>I
>>>hardly listen to any alternative at all.....
>>
>>still, somehow, i know some of their lyrics. people play the radio, i
>>understand the vocalist, and...
>>
>>though i wasnt under the impression that you listened to alternative,
>>anyway.
>
>Well, when I hear something I don't like, I tune it out completely.
>The only bush lyrics I know are "breathe in, breathe out" from Machine Head.
i dont have those skillz. "mickey, mickey, you're so fine, you're so
fine you blow my mind" -some song my sister has on cd that i lack the
skillz to tune out
>>>What do you think of the lyrics in my sig?
>>>(Those are the most "vapid and meaningless" lyrics I could find)
>>
>>i think they've "vapid and meaningless", actually. :) i wouldnt
>>consider them to be very high quality. feel free to "drop science" on
>>me and laugh, though.
>
>Drop science?
you best be learnin ebonics soon.
>Your opinion is valid, but I would disagree that they are meaningless. In
>context of the song (assuming it is about a Midlife Crisis, of course) each
>line of the lyrics does have a pretty tangible meaning to me.
what's your interpretation?
>I wonder what
>they would mean to someone else?
does it matter? everything has one meaning, and any other meaning is
based on faulty interpretation. i say "fuck you in the ass" because i
felt like it - you find some complex metaphor within it. there's no
complex metaphor - your interpretation provided one.
>>>Alot of art critique is thinly veiled psyco-sociolgy.
>>
>>big words that i dont understand make for me asking you what they
>>mean.
>
>...and i misspelled "psycho" too :)
how gay. are you british?
>Basically, what I was saying, is that alot of art critique (especially of
>abstract-impressionist art) is about putting the artists frame of mind (some
>pop psychology here) into context with the piece. I don't find that invalid.
>Apparently, you do.
see, things are going over my head again. i have no idea what i said
before, but i'd think that trying to view a song from the perspective
of the artist is crucial to the accurate interpretation.
>>nothing you've said disagrees with my ideas - no matter how creativity
>>is motivated, the most creative thing, without context to give it
>>meaning, is completely useless. to put it into context, you need to
>>look at it again, devise the context, and put them together. i give
>>you all the riffs to the best song ever - it doesnt mean anything. i
>>give you the song, with riffs put in the order i've devised - now it's
>>something.
>
>Okay. Now, at least I see where our disagreement is.
>Again, I sort of disagree here. But no amount of arguing is going to change
>your mind, so I'll drop it :)
well, it's not about "changing people's minds" - it's about presenting
ideas. tell me what you think, and even if i disagree, maybe i'll find
something useful in your thoughts.
>>>>>Right. But I never said there could not be a middle ground.
>>>>
>>>>fucking logic.
>>>
>>>Isn't it gay?
>>
>>i might be forced to bend it over.
>
>Do it at a Hanson concert, and it will get you BIG points.
i might make hanson jeleous. that would be _extremely_ bad for me (and
my ass, i'd think)...
>>>Yeah. Not like that _ever_ happens in here, huh?
>>
>>funny, too, because if everyone did say "METALLICA RULZ D00D!", there
>>would be no misunderstanding, and therefore more efficiency. kind of
>>ironic..
>
>Efficiency is extremely gay.
i'll bend that over, too.
>>>Oops. That actually wasn't meant as a veiled insult :)
>>
>>probably not, but i'm not smart enough to recognize that it was in the
>>first place. do you think my comment actually meant something? nope -
>>it just seemed to fit.
>
>An interesting show of support to my argument about stream of conciousness.
>It obviously meant something to me.....so why would it be meaningless?
>(snicker)
my original statement was meaningless. you added meaning to it through
your interpretation - your interpretation has meaning, not the
statement. rather, your flawed interpretation makes (BOO YA) you think
that there's meaning where there's not.
foo'.
Ninnghizhidda
On 16 Feb 1998 05:18:23 GMT, ela...@aol.com (ElangII) wrote:
>EraddicA wrote:
>>> And why is a 21-year-old alternative musician considered more "mature"
>>> than a 45-year-old metal musician?
>>
>>I was talking more about the metallica situation. And when i said
>>"mature" i really didn't mean musically... i guess. More, errr...
>>emotionally etc. You know, like the difference between a 10 yo and a 50
>>yo...
>
>I think that a diversification is a sign of maturity. Don't confuse that with
>(mature=better). Anyone disagree?
why should it be?
what does "maturity" really mean?
i'd tell you that EOD was one of the most "mature" people i've known.
>>So, in reference in Metallica, should they have just gone under a
>>different name when releasing Load/Reload?
>
>Absolutely not!
>Regardless of whether the Loads are appreciated, they are still Metallica.
>The first time I heard The Memory Remains on radio, I knew within 5 seconds of
>the song which band it was.
the thing with most vocals is, you can also tell who's singing - i'm
not brushing off your opinion, but i think that's a pretty big factor
sometimes.
>>Again, people get influenced by this uprising. More and more people
>>would be interested in black metal because it would be shoved into their
>>face 24 hours a day. Suddenly, they start writing black metal songs,
>>uncontrollably... you get the idea. They like it, what's wrong with it?
>
>That's an interesting point. Being influenced by a popular genre should not be
>confused with selling out.....and, I would think, is virtually
>indistinguishable.
true (no sarcasm intended).
>Alot of the music I write nowadays is less "pure metal" than before. But I
>like it more than my old stuff, not less.
doesnt make you wrong.
>>> People say that!!
>>
>>indeed!
>
>It _is_ a matter of opinion. If someone were to say to you "(insert genre of
>music you hate here) is talentless shit", how quick would you be to argue
>against them?
for me, it would be pretty quick. i defend rap all the time, not
because i like it, but because there's nothing any "worse" about it
then another genre.
ElangII
Daemonic wrote:
>definitely - but when i talk about music a lot of the time, i try to
>look at it in an objective sense. and by this i define "good" music as
>music which is creative, original, and moving (any emotion). obviously
>the latter is subjective, but it can be argued that people share
>similar aesthetic preferences. to go back to your point - what if both
>musicians were in the same genre?
I don't know about you, but I find it hard to be objective about music I don't
like.
If both musicians were in the same genre, then it would be the beginning of a
really interesting thread, i think :)
>>(Even though you say this isn't true....perspective has _ALOT_--I would go
>as
>>far as to say "almost everything"--to do with the judging of musical talent)
>
>well, if you're judging how much you like it, then definitely. thing
>is, i'll readily admit that a lot of things that i cant stand to
>listen to are still good music - that's more
>objective.
Again, that's tough to do. I honestly think that death metal (as a genre, of
course--this brings law of averages into account) does not require any more
musical talent to compose than, say pop-folk. Now, I prefer folk to death
metal (not much, though), so....
>see, i havent heard cryptic writings, and i've heard reload once
>(minus a couple of songs). regardless - i'm not sure if "commercial FM
>rock" is a genre (or maybe i dont understand what it is). regardless,
>your opinion is valid, but if you can think up "standards" for
>commercial FM rock, if the music in question doesnt fit, well...
Personally, I think that setting standards for a genre is the root of all this
"sellout" accusation mentality.
ElangII
Daemonic wrote:
>and why not? music is popular because it gets continually shoved down
>people's throats - it's not art at this point, just "something kewl to
>listen to" ("it's just music!" -various popular music fans i know). if
>it's not art, it's a product, and if most of it is a product, it's
>logical to question motives. you can argue that people listen to it
>because they havent checked into other forms, but then i tell you that
>forms, but then i tell you that
>if they havent, they obviously dont seem to care a whole lot about
>finding music that they like, and you get back to this: if you dont
>care about music, i'm betting you're writing music for money/fame/etc.
But the idea here is that you guys are assuming that this is status quo.
>>The problem is this: this general consensus tends not to allow for
>deviation
>>of opinion, rather downplaying it as worthless and/or uninformed. Ironic?
>
>definitely. but justified.
That's your opinion.
>>>Ooo yeah. Damn right. That's been my argument basically. If they really
>>>wanted to sell out, why bring out an album like Load? And who the fuck
>>>is going to look at the insert before they buy the album?
>>
>>Apparently "mainstream idiots" do.
>
>not true unholy metalheads who comment on what the insert looks like.
I wonder how many people would buy the next Metallica album if it had two men
fucking on the cover? Hmm....
>>Shhhh. Remember, commercial is evil. Any song less than 5 minutes long
>with a
>>catchy riff is worthless.
>
>it's good to have you on our side. :)
Sarcastically responding to sarcasm is punishable by death in my perfect world
:)
Ninnghizhidda
On 16 Feb 1998 05:27:03 GMT, ela...@aol.com (ElangII) wrote:
>EraddicA wrote:
>>Carpe Diem Baby... i hear a metal influence in that, same with WTWTA,
>>and Prince... Fuel maybe... Fixxxer maybe. There are metal influences,
>>and Carpe Diem Baby is one heavy song. IMO though. Not many people tend
>>to agree with me on that one i think.
>
>I'll go you one further.
>In Carpe Diem Baby, substitute a sliding power chord for the open string (the
>intro and between-stanza riffs), and eliminate the minor keys....have James
>growl the clean vocals, but keep all melodies exactly the same.
>Now, place the song on ... And Justice For All. How out of place do you think
>it would be?
>Do the same for: Devil's dance, Better than You.
>Am I on crack? Or is there a connection?
the only song out of these i remember is devil's dance, but - for that
song, the aesthetic would be similar, but i dont think it would fit on
any other album (maybe tba, but you could do that as-is). now i'm
curious to go remember what the other songs sounded like...
ElangII
Daemonic wrote:
>here's the thing, though: popular metal is heavy rock. in that case,
>you could concievably connect sabbath with today's "popular metal"
>(add distortion, add "angry" vocalist, there you go). arent bands like
>soundgarden ("popular metal") influenced by sabbath?
It could be argued (not without justification) that ReLoad is more influenced
by sabbath than any other metallica album.
Ninnghizhidda
On 16 Feb 1998 05:39:00 GMT, ela...@aol.com (ElangII) wrote:
>Daemonic wrote:
>
>>definitely - but when i talk about music a lot of the time, i try to
>>look at it in an objective sense. and by this i define "good" music as
>>music which is creative, original, and moving (any emotion). obviously
>>the latter is subjective, but it can be argued that people share
>>similar aesthetic preferences. to go back to your point - what if both
>>musicians were in the same genre?
>
>I don't know about you, but I find it hard to be objective about music I don't
>like.
true enough. but it's possible. i'll write off 99% of jazz as crap
that i dont want to listen to, but if you get me to sit through a
couple of songs, i can make "good" comparisons, as well as a
semi-objective judgment of quality.
>If both musicians were in the same genre, then it would be the beginning of a
>really interesting thread, i think :)
it's too bad there are assholes like you who'll tell me that the
"whore" band isnt really one around. :)
>>>(Even though you say this isn't true....perspective has _ALOT_--I would go
>>as
>>>far as to say "almost everything"--to do with the judging of musical talent)
>>
>>well, if you're judging how much you like it, then definitely. thing
>>is, i'll readily admit that a lot of things that i cant stand to
>>listen to are still good music - that's more
>>objective.
>
>Again, that's tough to do. I honestly think that death metal (as a genre, of
>course--this brings law of averages into account) does not require any more
>musical talent to compose than, say pop-folk. Now, I prefer folk to death
>metal (not much, though), so....
well, i might even agree, here. now we're talking theory, but here's
my ideas on creativity:
take a creative simple song, and a creative complex song, and it takes
the same amount of "talent" to write either? why? the nature of
creativity, in my opinion, is (again), context of individual elements.
burzum "tomhet" has about three different melodies (it's 15:00), but i
would not say that it's any less creative then another song (perhaps
more). the artist sits down, says "shit, that's a great idea to write
a song based on", and then uses whatever technical ability/knowledge
of music theory he has to realize that as actual music. i'm not going
to get into a discussion about how much better these "ideas" that
death bands use are :), but theoretically, any form of music can be
just as good as another. gorecki's third symphony is the simplest
thing you'll ever hear (e.g. anyone could write it), but that says
nothing about the creativity behind it. a song that i write in a day
might be better then one that takes me three months, because i think
the ideas that one uses for this take very little time to come up with
(most of it is sitting and trying to figure something out, but the
actual time it takes to be inspired by something is negligible), and
everything else is details that probably arent extremely important. i
can play a song slow or fast, but it's still the same song. it's
_EXTREMELY_ kickass when one has a good knowledge of music theory and
high technical ability with their instrument, but at this point it's a
question of knowing when to use it, and when not to - simple music is
theoretically just as good as complex music, but it's stuff that
should be complex and isnt (lack of skillz on the part of the artist)
that brings simple music down.
>>see, i havent heard cryptic writings, and i've heard reload once
>>(minus a couple of songs). regardless - i'm not sure if "commercial FM
>>rock" is a genre (or maybe i dont understand what it is). regardless,
>>your opinion is valid, but if you can think up "standards" for
>>commercial FM rock, if the music in question doesnt fit, well...
>
>Personally, I think that setting standards for a genre is the root of all this
>"sellout" accusation mentality.
depends. most metallica fans that cry sellout want metallica to play
"good metal like in the old days" - and that's stupid. my definition
isnt about what it isnt, but what it is, and this has much less to do
with standards.
Ninnghizhidda
On 16 Feb 1998 05:45:17 GMT, ela...@aol.com (ElangII) wrote:
>Daemonic wrote:
>
>>and why not? music is popular because it gets continually shoved down
>>people's throats - it's not art at this point, just "something kewl to
>>listen to" ("it's just music!" -various popular music fans i know). if
>>it's not art, it's a product, and if most of it is a product, it's
>>logical to question motives. you can argue that people listen to it
>>because they havent checked into other forms, but then i tell you that
>>forms, but then i tell you that
>>if they havent, they obviously dont seem to care a whole lot about
>>finding music that they like, and you get back to this: if you dont
>>care about music, i'm betting you're writing music for money/fame/etc.
>
>But the idea here is that you guys are assuming that this is status quo.
not assuming - giving founded arguments. i've already gone further
with this - if you'd like to argue it, go ahead, i dont mind.
not arguing it would be gay.
>>>The problem is this: this general consensus tends not to allow for
>>deviation
>>>of opinion, rather downplaying it as worthless and/or uninformed. Ironic?
>>
>>definitely. but justified.
>
>That's your opinion.
my opinion is better then yours. :P
>>>>Ooo yeah. Damn right. That's been my argument basically. If they really
>>>>wanted to sell out, why bring out an album like Load? And who the fuck
>>>>is going to look at the insert before they buy the album?
>>>
>>>Apparently "mainstream idiots" do.
>>
>>not true unholy metalheads who comment on what the insert looks like.
>
>I wonder how many people would buy the next Metallica album if it had two men
>fucking on the cover? Hmm....
i still cant understand why people give so much of a fuck about the
sexuality of other people. or anything else that doesnt concern them.
though, in your example, i think a lot of people would decide not to
buy it (no comment on percent).
if i were them, i'd do that, just to get a reaction. of course, i'd do
a LOT of things for a reaction...
>>>Shhhh. Remember, commercial is evil. Any song less than 5 minutes long
>>with a
>>>catchy riff is worthless.
>>
>>it's good to have you on our side. :)
>
>Sarcastically responding to sarcasm is punishable by death in my perfect world
>:)
it's a good thing that neither of us was being sarcastic.
ElangII
Daemonic wrote:
>>We can start a new thread about it if you want :)
>
>i probably dont. but feel free, if you care. or you could just respond
>to what i wrote before...
Maybe later.
>>Well, when I hear something I don't like, I tune it out completely.
>>The only bush lyrics I know are "breathe in, breathe out" from Machine Head.
>
>i dont have those skillz. "mickey, mickey, you're so fine, you're so
>fine you blow my mind" -some song my sister has on cd that i lack the
>skillz to tune out
The bastard is making fun of me.... :)
>>Drop science?
>
>you best be learnin ebonics soon.
Yuck. No thanks....too much an old prude
.>>Your opinion is valid, but I would disagree that they are meaningless. In
>>context of the song (assuming it is about a Midlife Crisis, of course) each
>>line of the lyrics does have a pretty tangible meaning to me.
>
>what's your interpretation?
I'll start a new thread with it.
>does it matter? everything has one meaning, and any other meaning is
>based on faulty interpretation. i say "fuck you in the ass" because i
>felt like it - you find some complex metaphor within it. there's no
>complex metaphor - your interpretation provided one.
That's an interesting way of looking at it.
The fact that there is more than one meaning to most things is one of the
reasons human beings are more.....er......evolved intellectually than animals.
But, that's open to debate.
>>...and i misspelled "psycho" too :)
>
>how gay. are you british?
Are you kidding? We niggers arent appreciated overseas....
>well, it's not about "changing people's minds" - it's about presenting
>ideas. tell me what you think, and even if i disagree, maybe i'll find
>something useful in your thoughts.
Of course. Now, remind me, what started this argument originally? I can't
remember.
Senility is gay.
>>>i might be forced to bend it over.
>>
>>Do it at a Hanson concert, and it will get you BIG points.
>
>i might make hanson jeleous. that would be _extremely_ bad for me (and
>my ass, i'd think)...
There's proof that you've never been to a Hanson concert.
If you were a TRUE FAN, you would know that buggery onstage is not only
allowed, but appreciated.
>>Efficiency is extremely gay.
>
>i'll bend that over, too.
Do.
>my original statement was meaningless. you added meaning to it through
>your interpretation - your interpretation has meaning, not the
>statement. rather, your flawed interpretation makes (BOO YA) you think
>that there's meaning where there's not.
"I fuck you in the ass"
What does that mean to you?
I'll bet many people here will find several different meanings, and all
perfectly valid.
BITCH!
Ninnghizhidda
On 16 Feb 1998 05:47:49 GMT, ela...@aol.com (ElangII) wrote:
>Daemonic wrote:
>
>>here's the thing, though: popular metal is heavy rock. in that case,
>>you could concievably connect sabbath with today's "popular metal"
>>(add distortion, add "angry" vocalist, there you go). arent bands like
>>soundgarden ("popular metal") influenced by sabbath?
>
>It could be argued (not without justification) that ReLoad is more influenced
>by sabbath than any other metallica album.
sure - but i'd say there's a quality difference, as well as a
creativity difference (and that's not just based on time period - i
find "paranoid" extremely cool, even forgetting about when it's from).
Ninnghizhidda
On 16 Feb 1998 06:07:56 GMT, ela...@aol.com (ElangII) wrote:
>Daemonic wrote:
>
>>>We can start a new thread about it if you want :)
>>
>>i probably dont. but feel free, if you care. or you could just respond
>>to what i wrote before...
>
>Maybe later.
that's my answer to everything.
>>>Well, when I hear something I don't like, I tune it out completely.
>>>The only bush lyrics I know are "breathe in, breathe out" from Machine Head.
>>
>>i dont have those skillz. "mickey, mickey, you're so fine, you're so
>>fine you blow my mind" -some song my sister has on cd that i lack the
>>skillz to tune out
>
>The bastard is making fun of me.... :)
i'm not making fun of you, i'm...well, i'm not sure what i'm doing.
though i'm probably being a bastard, though.
>>>Drop science?
>>
>>you best be learnin ebonics soon.
>
>Yuck. No thanks....too much an old prude
dont make me drop science on you, now.
>>>Your opinion is valid, but I would disagree that they are meaningless. In
>>>context of the song (assuming it is about a Midlife Crisis, of course) each
>>>line of the lyrics does have a pretty tangible meaning to me.
>>
>>what's your interpretation?
>
>I'll start a new thread with it.
you best be!
>>does it matter? everything has one meaning, and any other meaning is
>>based on faulty interpretation. i say "fuck you in the ass" because i
>>felt like it - you find some complex metaphor within it. there's no
>>complex metaphor - your interpretation provided one.
>
>That's an interesting way of looking at it.
>The fact that there is more than one meaning to most things is one of the
>reasons human beings are more.....er......evolved intellectually than animals.
>But, that's open to debate.
i doubt that it's as simple as you're making it out to be - the fact
that human beings can identify mutiple possibilities might be more
accurate, but we cant "create" more meanings. you can tell me what
something means to you, but that may or may not be a meaning you added
yourself, which is not present in the thing in it's virgin state.
i write a song about how pretty i am. you might think it's a metaphor
about the vanity of the world and how "stupid" it is - but regardless,
it's still about how pretty i am, no matter what you might think.
you can also construe it as a comment of that nature ("look at what
people in our society write about!"), but then you're changing context
(song in context with itself vs. song contrasted to society), and
therefore making something new. the song itself is about how pretty i
am - that's it.
>>>...and i misspelled "psycho" too :)
>>
>>how gay. are you british?
>
>Are you kidding? We niggers arent appreciated overseas....
maybe you're british in spirit (inside joke with self).
>>well, it's not about "changing people's minds" - it's about presenting
>>ideas. tell me what you think, and even if i disagree, maybe i'll find
>>something useful in your thoughts.
>
>Of course. Now, remind me, what started this argument originally? I can't
>remember.
>
>Senility is gay.
you think i remember? i'm probably younger then you, and i cant
remember anything, either. well, i can remember all sorts of stupid
details from a decade ago (the _EXACT_ circumstances behind where i
bought some random piece of junk, etc.), and i was YOUNG then, but
nothing that i need to care about.
>>>>i might be forced to bend it over.
>>>
>>>Do it at a Hanson concert, and it will get you BIG points.
>>
>>i might make hanson jeleous. that would be _extremely_ bad for me (and
>>my ass, i'd think)...
>
>There's proof that you've never been to a Hanson concert.
>If you were a TRUE FAN, you would know that buggery onstage is not only
>allowed, but appreciated.
i know i'm not true. i need to get more in touch with my feelings -
only then will i enjoy the True Unholy ones violating me with their
boas. until then, i'm just another poser...
>>>Efficiency is extremely gay.
>>
>>i'll bend that over, too.
>
>Do.
way ahead of you.
>>my original statement was meaningless. you added meaning to it through
>>your interpretation - your interpretation has meaning, not the
>>statement. rather, your flawed interpretation makes (BOO YA) you think
>>that there's meaning where there's not.
>
>"I fuck you in the ass"
>
>What does that mean to you?
>I'll bet many people here will find several different meanings, and all
>perfectly valid.
why?
you created that sentance by putting words together.
only you know the meaning you gave it (or lack of meaning).
i can find 10 different things it might be (one being the lyrics to a
certain song which amuses me), but that's my interpretation - since my
interpretation lacks information (the exact process behind you
thinking up that phrase and writing it), it may be flawed.
just because a meaning is possible doesnt mean it's valid. consider:
EOD whips out his fucked up, cuban boa, and strangles you, because you
didnt like hanson. possible motives include: he's a serial killer, you
looked at him funny, you dissed his momma, you have a bigger boa then
him, he wanted your money, and you didnt like hanson. what you're
telling me is the equivolant of that each of these motives are "real"
(e.g. he did it for all those reasons). obviously this is not true,
because, being god, i know he did it because you didnt like hanson.
theorize all you want about why, but he only had one motive, even
though many are possible given the provided information.
>BITCH!
bend over.
EraddicA
Ninnghizhidda wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 21:43:31 +1000, EraddicA <o...@magna.com.au> wrote:
>
> >M.B. wrote:
>
> >> Now. If these individuals in question are going, "wow, this 'melodic
> >> now," don't you think that they would be inclined to look into other
> >> artists that might have released quality material in such a style?
> >
> >they should. but if you are like me, you have no time to go searching
> >for similar bands...
>
I dunno. Most of the bands I like i was shown, i didn't "find" them
myself.
> and why the fuck dont you have time? make time, if you care.
school, school. And also i live far enough away from a cd store. And
also i'm not on the net that much, once a day though i guess. Generally
i'm a lazy bugger. And i tend to like humming riffs i make myself
instead of trying to find that ultimate riff i like from another band =)
> -Daemonic
>
--
***********************
EraddicA
o...@magna.com.au
***********************
EraddicA
ElangII wrote:
>
> EraddicA wrote:
>
> >> I DO like, I might get kinda pissed (hypothetically speaking, of
> >> course).
> >
> >pissed or not, who cares really... if you don't like em, stuff em.
>
> Well, I sort of agree with M.B. on this one. I'm really pissed off about
> Megadeth lately, mostly because of the condescending "been there, done that"
> attitude Dave tends to exhibit towards his "old" fans.
> Yes, it has nothing to do with the music, but it does have a (very slight,
> albeit) effect on my enjoyment of the music.
Most bands, including Metallica have this attitude. I never really did
like Megadeth. Rust In Peace an exception, and a couple of songs on
Cryptic Writings (Trust & I'll get even).
> >Yah indeed. There is no doubt that hard rock would sell better than
> >metal... whether or not in the 90's though... Does anyone else agree
> >that metal, possibly death metal/heavy with growling is more likely to
> >sell more cd's than an AC/DC like band in the 90's?
>
> Would it?
> I know that Silverchair's brand of metal is quite popular lately. Although I
> _do_ have to admit, the band isn't "terrible"....
I'd place silverchair in the "grunge" genre. Some of it is sort of
leaning to metal though, a shit metal anyways. But I don't like
silverchair (god, why did they have to exist!!!!).
> >> And why is a 21-year-old alternative musician considered more "mature"
> >> than a 45-year-old metal musician?
> >
> >Again, people get influenced by this uprising. More and more people
> >would be interested in black metal because it would be shoved into their
> >face 24 hours a day. Suddenly, they start writing black metal songs,
> >uncontrollably... you get the idea. They like it, what's wrong with it?
>
> That's an interesting point. Being influenced by a popular genre should not be
> confused with selling out.....and, I would think, is virtually
> indistinguishable.
But do you see what is going on around in this newsgroup? Why have
Metallica been called sell-outs? Because their new music is much more
mainstream then ever. People have completely ignored the fact that they
could have well have been showed some hard rock, blues etc, they liked
it, and were heavily influenced by it.
> Alot of the music I write nowadays is less "pure metal" than before. But I
> like it more than my old stuff, not less.
I'm thinking my music would end up being melodic hard rock/doom metal. I
tend to like melodic stuff. =)
Once i ever get that far though, i might be, umm, 40 years old or
something =)
> >> hard rock' stuff is really good; I should have given it a chance before
> >> now," don't you think that they would be inclined to look into other
> >> artists that might have released quality material in such a style?
> >
> >they should. but if you are like me, you have no time to go searching
> >for similar bands...
>
> Also, I don't think the issue is "looking into other bands". I think the
> original beef was "why would someone who likes band A not like band B, who
> sound similar?".
Remember how lots of people have been saying that Nevermore is probably
the best alternative to old Metallica? Well i agree, but, i just can't
stand the vocals, and so I absolutely can't stand the music. So i don't
listen to Nevermore.... you see how little things such as vocals can
turn people away? Same thing happened to me with Iced Earth.
> >> > > because of their "diversity?"
> >> >
> >> > No. Hell no. Jeezuz, hell no.
> >>
> >> People say that!!
> >
> >indeed!
>
> It _is_ a matter of opinion. If someone were to say to you "(insert genre of
> music you hate here) is talentless shit", how quick would you be to argue
> against them?
With Classical i'd strongly disagree... with rap, i might say "yeah,
most of what i've heard is absolute shit...heck, all of what i have
heard is"... with death metal/black metal i'd say that most bands are
talentless, but some seem to be quite well at writing complex songs,
even if i may feel they do have stuff misplaced. Pop, well, i'd say most
is utter crap.
eh.
> E.