Shallow elitism in metal

[Stevie]

I find often when talking to metalheads that the general opinion holds in most that metal knowlege is valued highest. This I find is ultimately something that metalheads will hide behind to assert some sort of authority over other metalheads, which is stupid and counterproductive when discussing metal.

A few months ago I was at one of those pointless social occasions where people swallow large amounts of alcohol in order to "enhance" their social skills, where there were a couple of absent brained metalheads. As I myself enjoy metal I conversed with these. The vacuumhead proclaimed very early in our meeting that he could probably name twice as many metal bands as I could. I didn't accept the challange, if it was a challange, I really couldn't care less about asserting authority over him, or anyone. I feel securer in myself than that. Like most discussions with metalheads I encounter at gigs or whatever the discussion is

"Do you like whatever band"
"Yes"
"Do you like whatever band"
"No"

This turned into another one of these meaningless and shallow conversations, and as soon as I mention honestly that I'd never heard of Finntroll, the guy said to his fellow vacuum head "oi, this guy says he likes extreme metal, but he can't be because he's never heard of finntroll". Because of this mentality I laughed at him and walked off. The guy had no ability to discuss anything deep about metal. He, like many other metalheads I've met have this irrational thought that knowlege (or rather experience or time within the scene) means that you are "above" the other.

I do however understand partly this mentality. For example, I do believe that you probably know jackshit about black metal if you've never heard of Burzum...

Does anybody else feel this way, or has anybody any worthwhile opinions on this matter? Thank you.

[King_Of_Terrors]

That hasn't happened to me, cause theres no metalheads in my area :lol:

But yeah I understand what you mean, but it's probably only because they were drunk.

[Lord Abortion]

For example, I do believe that you probably know jack**** about black metal if you've never heard of Burzum...
A truer word was never said.

Fintroll are pretty much a joke band, like a BM Dream Evil.
Pretty cool musically, but...

[noodles452]

Yes, I see what you mean. I've had a few of those sort of experiences. Not many, but a few.
(I've heard of Burzum, but never actually heard them. But then again I don't claim to know jack**** about black metal.)

[King_Of_Terrors]

A truer word was never said.



phrase*

And replying to your sneaky little edit, Finntroll have made too many albums to be a joke band, plus I really enjoy them.

[IheartSP]

Despite Beavis and Butthead, the majority of metalheads are intellectual people because like a lot of genres discussed on this board, they are very artistic and intricate and require a somewhat advanced brain to comprehend and discuss. Just because these idiots "listen" to metal doesn't mean they are real metalheads and actually appreciate it. Don't take them as your impression of a metalhead, there are many cool ones out there.

[GenuineImitation]

Despite Beavis and Butthead, the majority of metalheads are intellectual people because like a lot of genres discussed on this board, they are very artistic and intricate and require a somewhat advanced brain to comprehend and discuss. Just because these idiots "listen" to metal doesn't mean they are real metalheads and actually appreciate it. Don't take them as your impression of a metalhead, there are many cool ones out there.

I could not have said it better myself.

[Lord Abortion]

I'm not saying Finntroll are bad, they just aren't serious.

[dustyboy316]

That hasn't happened to me, cause theres no metalheads in my area :lol:

But yeah I understand what you mean, but it's probably only because they were drunk.
Me either. I met a guy that liked Tool at my last party. He had a Tool hat on. I was surprised that there are even tool ans here. No one really knows their music, here...

[RiceMonster]

On the internet, I've had similar experiences, but never in real life because I know more, or just as much about metal as all the metal fans in my area haha. None of them would care if I didn't know some of the bands they like anyway.

I also sometimes enjoy talking to people who listen to tons of metal and are "elitists" because they know their stuff, and many of them introduce new bands to me. Although of course, there can easily be some people who would just be assholes.

[Lord Abortion]

I have a few friends who like metal, two of them post here.
There's a few, but they're mostly just Metallica fanboys.
One of the good ones went away To Oxford Uni, but I went to see Cradle of filth with him a month back, it was cool to see him again.

[Bazarov]

I can relate to exactly to what you're talking about. I have a friend who was like that. If you liked a band he didn't he said you weren't true, or if you didn't like a band he did, you were a poseur. But now for some reason he's denying he was even a metal head and is listening to bands like Dredg and Godspeed You Black Emperor!

[Kage]

The only "rational" metalheads who actually have the brain capacity for discussion that I've met have been on these forums.

[Assault_on_357]

some elitists bother me but like someone said earlier, if you can stomach them you can hear of some great new bands. Some metalhead elitists are cool though because they are patience and on another level i can kind of understand how some elitists get pissy. When some guy tells me Slipknot (not bashing, i actually like some of their stuff) is the most extreme stuff out there it pisses me off and I have to snap on him. (Dont get me wrong, I am by no means an elitist of any sort)

[jcs499]

I can relate to exactly to what you're talking about. I have a friend who was like that. If you liked a band he didn't he said you weren't true, or if you didn't like a band he did, you were a poseur. But now for some reason he's denying he was even a metal head and is listening to bands like Dredg and Godspeed You Black Emperor!
Translation: He started smoking pot.

I know more about metal bands, instrumentality, and melody then any metalheads I talk to (although I consider myself a skahead:p ) but I don't hold it like a badge. I usually tell my friends about bands they haven't heard of, and they're enjoy. So, consequently, I enjoy too.

[Freezing Moon]

Generally, I'd rather run with the (more) elitist crowd because they know what they're talking about. Some of them are so elitist that it's just a joke, but I don't think slight to moderate elitism is nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

I think a lot of times elitism is confused with knowing and voicing an opinion on what you like and what you don't like.

[Mr. Ron]

Generally, I'd rather run with the (more) elitist crowd because they know what they're talking about. Some of them are so elitist that it's just a joke, but I don't think slight to moderate elitism is nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

I think a lot of times elitism is confused with knowing and voicing an opinion on what you like and what you don't like.
Agreed.


This also brings up bad taste in music. There IS such a thing and it goes farther than just "personal taste" or "Opinions". There is such a thing as bad music.

[Assault_on_357]

Yeah elitists are fine and all its just that some of them forget that they too use to know absolutley nothing about metal.

[Apocalyptic Raids]

Some of them are so elitist that it's just a joke
See: Soulseek chatrooms.

[Shattered_Future]

See: Soulseek chatrooms.

Oh god those are horrible...

[Assault_on_357]

ive found the hardcore/metal/grind chatroom to be filled with the least elitists (knowledge wise) but at the same time the most (attitude wise)

[Bazarov]

See: Soulseek chatrooms.
I don't think Dargon likes very much. :lol:

[Darkness]

Oh god those are horrible...
Yes... there the reason I hardly say anything on there anymore. Once I was called a mallcore Tool kiddie. :rolleyes:


The most experience I've had with this has been on the internet, no one around here likes anything beyond Slipknot and Atreyu, except for some of my friends.

[jcs499]

Agreed.


This also brings up bad taste in music. There IS such a thing and it goes farther than just "personal taste" or "Opinions". There is such a thing as bad music.
No, there is no such thing. I know plenty of people that think grindcore and noise are the best genres, but I'm assuming (although I know nothing about you) that you'd think the opposite. It really is personal taste.

There is, however, such a thing as being bad at your instrument, or being minimalistic, but that doesn't mean the music is bad (see: nu-metal, noise rock, doom metal, etc)

[Apocalyptic Raids]

Oh god those are horrible...
I had one good conversations in the Thrash Room, in a whole year of sitting in there, but I just stick to the R&M chat now.

[Moses]

I find this somewhat funny because I thought Stevie ran with the elitist crowd a while back.

[Darkness]

I find this somewhat funny because I thought Stevie ran with the elitist crowd a while back.
Now that I think about it, me to.

[slaughteredfirst]

I havnt had any problems with elitisms but from one guy when I first got into metal. That guy is now a hippie.

Ironic eh?

[jcs499]

I havnt had any problems with elitisms but from one guy when I first got into metal. That guy is now a hippie.

Ironic eh?
The only elitist I've had a problem with was Dargon, because he neg repped me for saying cryptopsy was repetitive. But I don't care, cuz he was supposedly like a 12 year old nerdy kid. I really hope he's not in this thread under another name right now....

[Kingofdudes]

The only elitist I've had a problem with was Dargon, because he neg repped me for saying cryptopsy was repetitive. But I don't care, cuz he was supposedly like a 12 year old nerdy kid. I really hope he's not in this thread under another name right now....
You havent seen him? Dargon changed his name to "Heavy Riva"

[jcs499]

You havent seen him? Dargon changed his name to "Heavy Riva"
Somehow, I don't believe that....

[Shadows Rise]

Some jock kid said to me a while ago, I bet I can name more dead kennedy's songs than you. I don't even listen to punk music and I was bored in class I said fine ok, go. He named a couple songs, I named twice as many as him.

Then he told me to go cut my hair. Hahaha... Gotta love those jock kids :thumb:

[Mr. Ron]

No, there is no such thing. I know plenty of people that think grindcore and noise are the best genres, but I'm assuming (although I know nothing about you) that you'd think the opposite. It really is personal taste.

There is, however, such a thing as being bad at your instrument, or being minimalistic, but that doesn't mean the music is bad (see: nu-metal, noise rock, doom metal, etc)
Yes there is. Bad music is by definition: Generic, over-repetitive, bland, pre processed and unorriginal.

And there is PLENTY of that around.

[IheartSP]

Yeah I have to agree with Route 1. Saying everything is an opinion is sort of extreme, there has to be some sort of standard. If you can see the rules of good music clearly it's not too tough to realize what is good and bad. The main rule, which you don't seem to realize from your post (jcs499 I mean) is that there is no such thing as a bad genre. Unless the genre's basis is on things that bad music are all about, which Route 1 briefly listed, then there's always something in a genre that is good. Good music isn't about taste, it's about its effectivness as music and if it meets the goal it set out to meet.

Although it is annoying, in English class at school the teacher always tries to tell us about good literature and such (we need to know it for some stupid standardized test) and although all the things school might call "good literature" are extremely boring and stale to a 15 year old kid, they do have a point that is closesly related to what Route 1 is talking about. You don't have to like it for it to be good music, there's a formula to good music and a formula to bad music, taste plays little part.

[jcs499]

Yeah I have to agree with Route 1. Saying everything is an opinion is sort of extreme, there has to be some sort of standard. If you can see the rules of good music clearly it's not too tough to realize what is good and bad. The main rule, which you don't seem to realize from your post (jcs499 I mean) is that there is no such thing as a bad genre. Unless the genre's basis is on things that bad music are all about, which Route 1 briefly listed, then there's always something in a genre that is good. Good music isn't about taste, it's about its effectivness as music and if it meets the goal it set out to meet.

Although it is annoying, in English class at school the teacher always tries to tell us about good literature and such (we need to know it for some stupid standardized test) and although all the things school might call "good literature" are extremely boring and stale to a 15 year old kid, they do have a point that is closesly related to what Route 1 is talking about. You don't have to like it for it to be good music, there's a formula to good music and a formula to bad music, taste plays little part.I agree with what you say, I suppose, but I don't think it's quite as simple as what route 1 said.

[ATC]

Yes there is. Bad music is by definition: Generic, over-repetitive, bland, pre processed and unorriginal.

And there is PLENTY of that around.

Begs the question. Is it inherently bad if its over-repetitive, bland and thus generic? Isn't generic in musical/marketing terms in this context something that is tried and tested to be good and not bad?

I've come to believe music is wholly relative. One man's goose is another's gander and all that. And it doesn't have to be original to be good. Its a common gripe people have with pop music. That it's generic and untalented. When the reason it became generic is because it was GOOD and not bad? Everything is sound.

[IheartSP]

Well he was being brief, there is a guidline to good and bad music and those are factors, although obviously they can be stretched, for example some music harnesses it's repetivness, but generally those attributes aren't good things.

[ATC]

Oh, generally speaking, those attributes are good things. Like everything else, they can be abused but generally speaking, you aren't making bad music if you stick to the tried and tested formulas for whatever genre you're in.

[Mr. Ron]

Begs the question. Is it inherently bad if its over-repetitive, bland and thus generic? Isn't generic in musical/marketing terms in this context something that is tried and tested to be good and not bad?

I've come to believe music is wholly relative. One man's goose is another's gander and all that. And it doesn't have to be original to be good. Its a common gripe people have with pop music. That it's generic and untalented. When the reason it became generic is because it was GOOD and not bad? Everything is sound.
Generic music is popular because the average radio listener does not like to be challenged musically. Usually, unique music is to abstract or different for the average radio lister to accept and enjoy.

[ATC]

Generic music is popular because the average radio listener does not like to be challenged musically. Usually, unique music is to abstract or different for the average radio lister to accept and enjoy.

And unchallenging music is therefore bad music? Is it too much of a leap of faith to presume that some people actually are challenged by a radio pop song like Gwen Stefani's Cool or Nickelback's Photograph, both of which are overplayed here?

[Mr. Ron]

And unchallenging music is therefore bad music? Is it too much of a leap of faith to presume that some people actually are challenged by a radio pop song like Gwen Stefani's Cool or Nickelback's Photograph, both of which are overplayed here?
If they are challenged by Nickleback, they need to stop listening to music.:p


I just think, that following a cookie-cutter formula to your music is a cop-out.

[ATC]

If they are challenged by Nickleback, they need to stop listening to music.:p


I just think, that following a cookie-cutter formula to your music is a cop-out.

Musical enjoyment usually in no way relates to someone's intelligence/sexual orientation/other abilities. The cookie cutter formula is there because it generally works. 'Copping out' would not really make the music 'bad' but just show a different intent on the part of the musicians.

PS: What happened to your Agalloch avatar? I love that album and the cover.

[Mr. Ron]

Musical enjoyment usually in no way relates to someone's intelligence/sexual orientation/other abilities. The cookie cutter formula is there because it generally works. 'Copping out' would not really make the music 'bad' but just show a different intent on the part of the musicians.

PS: What happened to your Agalloch avatar? I love that album and the cover.
I just think a band needs to be original thats all.


Yeah, the mantle is a amazing album, so atmospheric. I just wanted to get a new one.

[Dr. Jake Destructo]

Me either. I met a guy that liked Tool at my last party. He had a Tool hat on. I was surprised that there are even tool ans here. No one really knows their music, here...
Plenty of people know their music. Schism was a very popular song, as were Stinkfist and Sober.

[Darkness]

See the over 20k post thread on Tool, moron.
I don't think he was talking about the forums, Jake...

[Dr. Jake Destructo]

Sorry about that, I mistook what he said at first. :p

[Freezing Moon]

I don't think Dargon likes very much. :lol:He likes tons of music, just not much that 95% of the people here have heard of. :p

[gillygan]

haha fs used some funny words.



And i agree with him. I love metal, but there are lots of metalhead faggots.

[Bazarov]

He likes tons of music, just not much that 95% of the people here have heard of. :p

No.. It was a typo. I ment I don't think he likes me very much. But then I think it's just his over-all personality, to call everyone a Jew, fag, or towelhead.

He seemed to get pissed at me when I was browsing through his files. I didn't know such a thing was so bad.

[Freezing Moon]

No.. It was a typo. I ment I don't think he likes me very much. But then I think it's just his over-all personality, to call everyone a Jew, fag, or towelhead.

He seemed to get pissed at me when I was browsing through his files. I didn't know such a thing was so bad.
He doesn't have anything shared to the public though, does he?

[Bazarov]

He doesn't have anything shared to the public though, does he?
Nah, I didn't get to see anything he had.

[Riva]

Like most discussions with metalheads I encounter at gigs or whatever the discussion is

"Do you like whatever band"
"Yes"
"Do you like whatever band"
"No"



That's the same with me, but a lot of the time it ends up being:

They: "Do you like The Haunted"
I: "No"
They: "What about Lamb Of God"
I: "Not really"
They: "Surely Trivium then"
I: "Nope"
They: "Do you listen to any metal at all!!! :eek:
I: /recites long list of speed, thrash, heavy, death, black, power and groove metal bands spanning nearly 5 decades

Me either. I met a guy that liked Tool at my last party. He had a Tool hat on. I was surprised that there are even tool ans here. No one really knows their music, here...

Where do you live... an Anarctic research station? Also, Tool aren't metal.

You havent seen him? Dargon changed his name to "Heavy Riva"

Shut up Aaron.

/nudges.

[Amit]

elitism \m/

[Dave de Sylvia]

I: /recites long list of speed, thrash, heavy, death, black, power and groove metal bands spanning nearly 5 decades
You forgot hair metal :(

Also, you listen to crap.

Also, I listen to even worse crap which grants almost everyone the privelege to be elitist towards me.

[Jude]

Five decades?

And elitism is more rampant in metal than in any other genre I've encountered, except maybe classical. This board is full of it.

[Moses]

Five decades?

And elitism is more rampant in metal than in any other genre I've encountered, except maybe classical. This board is full of it.
I ****ing hate classical elitists. I'm a classical musician and I just don't know how those people can be so anal. Oh, well. I think it's worse in metal because there's more of them but in classical, when you do encounter an elitist, the individual tends to be really intense and elite.

[Riva]

Five decades?


Arguably, metal started in the very early '60s.

[Freezing Moon]

It would take me five decades just to list all of the bands I like. :p

[Det_Nosnip]

You've never heard of Finntroll? They actually are rather known, as far as obscure finnish folk metal bands go. ;)

Anyways, yeah...the scene sucks. It's even worse here in the States, because instead of talking about Fintroll, all of those metalheads will be talking about Killswitch Engage or Trivium. Although I enjoy alot of metal, I try to refrain from calling myself a "metalhead" simply because so many of them are idiots.

I ****ing hate classical elitists. I'm a classical musician and I just don't know how those people can be so anal. Oh, well. I think it's worse in metal because there's more of them but in classical, when you do encounter an elitist, the individual tends to be really intense and elite.

*cough* Ned *cough* *cough*

[IheartSP]

Over here in the states, especially in New England where I live cuase this is where all the new metal is coming from, if people do the whole question answer with bands thing it's like they mention all this crazy trendy metal that barely constitutes as metal then I'll mention a bunch of real metal. Instead of them saying I'm not really a metalhead or something amazingly retarded of that nature they usually do the opposite, like "oh he's one of those real metalheads" and just kind back off. It's not as bad as these elitist poser people, but it's still sort of depressing never to see a real metal fan around here.

[Watchman]

Ned's amusing.

[Shadius]

Yes there is. Bad music is by definition: Generic, over-repetitive, bland, pre processed and unorriginal.

And there is PLENTY of that around.

But many people still enjoy it. ie: They think it's good music.

It depends what standpoint you take on what makes music good. Some people like a simple easy to listen to catchy (even bland by other peoples standards) melody in 4/4 with a techno beat in the background.

[Jude]

Arguably, metal started in the very early '60s.
I would contest that, but I'm too sleepy for a debate right now.

[Thor]

Even though metalheads have the best taste in music they are often very annoying.

[Aberrationbass]

my favourite bands are Metallica, Cradle of Filth, and Dream Theater but they are said on here to be sell outs or boring so i'm not like an extreme metal head or whatever but compared to the **** most of my friends listen to its like the heayist stuff ever
i personally can't see Metallica or COF as sell outs because in England they're never played on the radio but maybe its different in America or whatever......

[Kirk's Muppet]

my favourite bands are Metallica, Cradle of Filth, and Dream Theater but they are said on here to be sell outs or boring so i'm not like an extreme metal head or whatever but compared to the **** most of my friends listen to its like the heayist stuff ever
i personally can't see Metallica or COF as sell outs because in England they're never played on the radio but maybe its different in America or whatever......

Longest. Sentence. Ever.

I'm pretty much an elitist to be honest. I laugh at people who don't listen to metal and when some people actually do, I get upset because I don't feel special anymore.

[Jondur]

I quite like elitists, or die hards as I prefer to call them. They help to keep the balance.

The guys you're describing though are idiots. I mean the guys who will laugh if you mention you listen to anything but a band's first demo (the second demo of course being a massive commercial sell out).

[GenuineImitation]

I don't really know any metal elitists because many of my friends are not really into metal.

[guitrguy]

Arguably, metal started in the very early '60s.
Would have to be past 2010 for you to say that?

Being an eltist in any genre is pretty gay IMO

[Det_Nosnip]

Ned's amusing.

He is...and, I'll be the first to tell you that he knows his ****. He's definitely a prick though. :lol:

[Lord_Hypnos]

Elitists on the whole annoy me but I feel theres a difference between being elitist and knowing alot about music.

You can have a wide knowledge of metal and point out the mistakes of other peoples knowledge but aslong as your not being arrogant about it I think thats ok. If your just being a prick to make yourself look cool and make yourself feel important then I would call that being "elitist".

[i am the robots]

I don't think that was because they're into metal, I think it's because they're idiots.

[ATC]

It only bothers me when people decide that their love of a certain band sets them apart from everyone else and if more people know of it, both the band and the listener gets compromised somehow. You're not worthy enough to hear Band X is the shallowest, most insecure music-related comment ever.

That and when people try their best to keep a band underground and hate it when it sells more than a 100 copies. You'd think they'd be happy that their favorite band can now afford a decent touring vehicle and a chocolate chip cookie when they want one. I want my favorite musicians to be successful and fairly compensated for the effort they've put in to make that quality product and not struggling just so I can feel special.

[Ve Das]

But many people still enjoy it. ie: They think it's good music.

It depends what standpoint you take on what makes music good. Some people like a simple easy to listen to catchy (even bland by other peoples standards) melody in 4/4 with a techno beat in the background.

As said before,good != good.

There is good as viewed subjectively by the person using the matter and there is another good which can also be summed up in other adjectives such as "well-made" or "skillfully constructed".

Both can be applied to music,but it is the latter which is being discussed here.

[Shadius]

People get pissed off when I tell them certain music is terrible. I think they fail to realise that I'm giving my opinion, then I can like back it up with points, ie: It's not challenging enough for me, it's shallow, repetitive, I feel like I've heard it before, it's bland... whereas usually they just say they like it and can't back anything up.

Having said that, I'm sure I like some music others would consider boring and bland and repetitive. It honestly is all subjective. The difference is, I can understand why people wouldn't like the music I listen to.

As said before,good != good.

There is good as viewed subjectively by the person using the matter and there is another good which can also be summed up in other adjectives such as "well-made" or "skillfully constructed".

Both can be applied to music,but it is the latter which is being discussed here.

Who says it is, though. Bad music was being discussed in general. You have made the key distinction though. Good production dosn't mean it's good music. On top of that, production itself is subjective. Someone could hate the production on an album, and others could love it. It's all subjective, within reason.

You can attribute factors to music, such as "It's complex", or "It has a fresh sound, due to using musical ideas which havn't been used together before", or "It's very melodic". but none of these factors are talking about good or bad music as set standards, they're all subjective. Even those factors will probably mean good music for your tastes.

[Vortigon]

Yeah I tend to insult people by stating my opinion in an abrasive and insensitive way, then not backing it up with points, cause I'm a bastard.

[Ve Das]

Who says it is, though. Bad music was being discussed in general. You have made the key distinction though. Good production dosn't mean it's good music. On top of that, production itself is subjective. Someone could hate the production on an album, and others could love it. It's all subjective, within reason.

You can attribute factors to music, such as "It's complex", or "It has a fresh sound, due to using musical ideas which havn't been used together before", or "It's very melodic". but none of these factors are talking about good or bad music as set standards, they're all subjective. Even those factors will probably mean good music for your tastes.

I hate relativism...
OK,let´s put it this way: In a work of art,there is always a certian image the artist is meaning to create.How well it appeals to the masses or individuals would fall under the "taste" category.How well he employed those tools he had in making it would fall under the "objective" category.
In terms of music,those tools would be:
a) (lack of) proficiency in playing your instrument(s)
b) skill in arranging the "big picture" aka compositional skill.A good example of this from artistic standards would be the "dotting" technique in art,where you have a pic made up of a lot of little dots which only form a coherent painting when viewed from afar.Much the same in music.If your composing is confused, it´ll sound like a mess i.e. "bad"(unless that is your specific intent.See "modern art",f.ex.).If you keep hold of the plan and manage to write a cohorent piece that expresses what you want it to,then that´s good.

Now,the objective scale from poor to genius can be summed up as followed:

The more SKILL it takes to play a piece,the better part a) is,but part a) alone does not a song make.B) plays a key role here and the better b) brings the point across,the better b) is,completely disregarding a).If both a) and b) are tops,then you have the peak of objectively definable musical achievement.

[Beef Javelin]

some guy said I was a loser for not liking thrash















i beat him into a coma


with my wang


it was kinda comical but the subtle homerotic overtones destroyed what comedy potential there was



brb

[i am the robots]

I do get kind of elitist at certain times actually, like when kids see me wearing an Alive or Just Breathing shirt and people tell me how good of a singer Howard Jones is... I tend to drop, "Jesse Leach was better," they always just look at me and say, "Who?" and I normally just shake my head.

[Reywas]

I do get kind of elitist at certain times actually, like when kids see me wearing an Alive or Just Breathing shirt and people tell me how good of a singer Howard Jones is... I tend to drop, "Jesse Leach was better," they always just look at me and say, "Who?" and I normally just shake my head.

What you're failing to understand is that those same people wanted to have a social interaction with you and you dissed them off with a tasteless comment.Next time try not to be such a prick.

[randomthought9]

You guys aren't tr00! :p

Seriously though, elitism is gay in any genre. You don't want to end up like the indie kids, and their elitism.

I personally listen to music with an artistic message/credibility, and I even listen to pop sometimes, like mainstream rap, which has nothing important to say. I'm no elitist by any means.

[Moses]

You don't want to end up like the indie kids, and their elitism.
EYE H8 JIMMIE PAdJE!!

[i am the robots]

What you're failing to understand is that those same people wanted to have a social interaction with you and you dissed them off with a tasteless comment.Next time try not to be such a prick.

It normally tends to be people I don't like to socialize with though.

[Riva]

Would have to be past 2010 for you to say that?

Being an eltist in any genre is pretty gay IMO

I said nearly fifty years, guys. Nearly. All you bloody hippy classic rockers have been smoking too much weed, I fear.

[Moses]

I said nearly fifty years, guys. Nearly. All you bloody hippy classic rockers have been smoking too much weed, I fear.
EYE H8 JIMMIE PAdJE!!

[panthersfan16]

This thread makes me sad, cuz ive had many similar conversations like those drunk guys. but asking if people have heard bands is just a way of finding common ground, and if they havent heard of some obscure metal band, i just assume they have a life outside of music, which isnt a bad thing really....

[gillygan]

Arguably, metal started in the very early '60s.




Yes.The first time the term "metal" was used, it was describing Jimi hendrix.
Correct me if im wrong.


btw i like your avatar.




Over here in the states, especially in New England where I live cuase this is where all the new metal is coming from, if people do the whole question answer with bands thing it's like they mention all this crazy trendy metal that barely constitutes as metal then I'll mention a bunch of real metal. Instead of them saying I'm not really a metalhead or something amazingly retarded of that nature they usually do the opposite, like "oh he's one of those real metalheads" and just kind back off. It's not as bad as these elitist poser people, but it's still sort of depressing never to see a real metal fan around here.




123



People get pissed off when I tell them certain music is terrible. I think they fail to realise that I'm giving my opinion, then I can like back it up with points, ie: It's not challenging enough for me, it's shallow, repetitive, I feel like I've heard it before, it's bland... whereas usually they just say they like it and can't back anything up.



123 thats very annoying.

[Shadius]

I hate relativism...
OK,let´s put it this way: In a work of art,there is always a certian image the artist is meaning to create.How well it appeals to the masses or individuals would fall under the "taste" category.How well he employed those tools he had in making it would fall under the "objective" category.
In terms of music,those tools would be:
a) (lack of) proficiency in playing your instrument(s)
b) skill in arranging the "big picture" aka compositional skill.A good example of this from artistic standards would be the "dotting" technique in art,where you have a pic made up of a lot of little dots which only form a coherent painting when viewed from afar.Much the same in music.If your composing is confused, it´ll sound like a mess i.e. "bad"(unless that is your specific intent.See "modern art",f.ex.).If you keep hold of the plan and manage to write a cohorent piece that expresses what you want it to,then that´s good.

Now,the objective scale from poor to genius can be summed up as followed:

The more SKILL it takes to play a piece,the better part a) is,but part a) alone does not a song make.B) plays a key role here and the better b) brings the point across,the better b) is,completely disregarding a).If both a) and b) are tops,then you have the peak of objectively definable musical achievement.

You could have picked a less pretentious/more clear way to structure your arguement. lol

You're talking about objectivity in terms of how well the piece is played. And yes, you're right, that isn't very subjective. If someone hits an off-key note, or dosn't change between chords very well then it should sound worse for it - Unless thats what the band was going for, in which case you enter subjectivity again. It's objective how well a piece is played, yet this has little to do with how good the music itself is.

The music itself is still subjective. A peice being complex and hard to play is objective, again, this has nothing to do with how good or bad the piece is as music. Something being well composed musically could be a terrible song to many people, and something being traditionally composed poorly could be an excellent song for many.

You're saying that if something is hard to play instrumentally, and is played well, and the composition of the piece is good (This alone is subjective) then it is a good song. This simply isn't necesserally true. The song could be played in a style that the majority of people hate, and would therefore be a terrible song for many people. Even people who enjoy that style of music may not like it because it's missing a subjective element for them.

[OldBobScoo]

Off topic but is there a soulseek for mac?

[Moses]

He could have also just said:

A: Skillful instrumentals
B: Compositional quality

The problem then is if the intent was to create a ****ing catchy *** song and it was succeeded, then isn't the compositional and technical quality exactly where it was meant to be? Then to criticize someone on having an instrumentally unskillful song, where that was not the emphasis or intent, would be irrelevant.

Besides, the grading scale on both of those is completely dependant on the listener. Not everyone looks for the same thing. You're using your own personal grading for a universal scale which atleast 70% percent of the world would disagree with you on (especially non-musicians). Suggesting that there is an objective scale on which music can be graded is rediculous.

[Apocalyptic Raids]

Off topic but is there a soulseek for mac?
http://forums.slsknet.org/ipb/index.php?showforum=18

[Vinternatt]

Even though metalheads have the best taste in music they are often very annoying.
I concur.

[Freezing Moon]

Off topic but is there a soulseek for mac?
Yes. DC++ also.

[I'm Charming]

I concur.

Eye I....

Metalheads do prefer the most talented and best genre of music, however.....

That comes with metalhead A asserting his 1337ness over metalhead 2 who will argue to the death for his band of choice....


So many people will just hear you talk about any metal band and will insist that pop punk bands are more original...

[Ve Das]

He could have also just said:

A: Skillful instrumentals
B: Compositional quality

The problem then is if the intent was to create a ****ing catchy *** song and it was succeeded, then isn't the compositional and technical quality exactly where it was meant to be? Then to criticize someone on having an instrumentally unskillful song, where that was not the emphasis or intent, would be irrelevant.



If it´s exactly where it´s meant to be it´s a complete success.While you and I both have grasped the basics,you thought I´d´ve missed the implications.Now,if the fücking catchy äss song also manages to display superb technical ability while still remaining just as catchy,that´s even better.But again,technical ability isn´t a neccessity,which is why I posted (lack of) in front of it.If a musician achieves the same goals as another,even though he is technically less proficient,then they´re both equally good in terms of composition,hence,the actual songs can be both judged as equally well-made. Technical proficiency is really just a bonus.Hmmm,you´re right,I sorta fücked up the scale.I was kinda in a hurry to get that post done...
@shadius: You missed my point.Completely.I´m not talking about taste.There are more meanings to "good" and "bad" than you can count off your fingers,I´m just stating that those words CAN be used in an objective manner when referring to music(and craftsmanship f.ex. carpenting<-think on this one a bit).This has NOTHING to do with taste.I won´t even argue about taste and I don´t give a flying fück about what the majority or minority or whatever thinks is good."Taste" is meaningless and arguing that good=what I like is likewise correct and incorrect at the same time.It´s a possibility,but it´s not the only possibility.Get my drift?

[blackthorne]

never happens to me i don't know any metalhead apart from me and my mate

[black-knight]

Yes.The first time the term "metal" was used, it was describing Jimi hendrix.
Correct me if im wrong.

no it was a review in a music mag about him that started that off they said something like:

"his music is like it raining heavy metal"
and thats what started people off with that. though if u listen to is music it is hardly metal really (though not debating if he was good or not im sure everyone knows the anwer to that)

personnaly i would say the genre "metal" started in 1976 when judaspriest released sad wings of destiny it was the first album to use slow heavy chugging power chords and allot of extended guitar solo's!

[Shadius]

If it´s exactly where it´s meant to be it´s a complete success.While you and I both have grasped the basics,you thought I´d´ve missed the implications.Now,if the fücking catchy äss song also manages to display superb technical ability while still remaining just as catchy,that´s even better.But again,technical ability isn´t a neccessity,which is why I posted (lack of) in front of it.If a musician achieves the same goals as another,even though he is technically less proficient,then they´re both equally good in terms of composition,hence,the actual songs can be both judged as equally well-made. Technical proficiency is really just a bonus.Hmmm,you´re right,I sorta fücked up the scale.I was kinda in a hurry to get that post done...
@shadius: You missed my point.Completely.I´m not talking about taste.There are more meanings to "good" and "bad" than you can count off your fingers,I´m just stating that those words CAN be used in an objective manner when referring to music(and craftsmanship f.ex. carpenting<-think on this one a bit).This has NOTHING to do with taste.I won´t even argue about taste and I don´t give a flying fück about what the majority or minority or whatever thinks is good."Taste" is meaningless and arguing that good=what I like is likewise correct and incorrect at the same time.It´s a possibility,but it´s not the only possibility.Get my drift?

No. Just because I disagree with you dosn't mean I missed your point. I simply think you're wrong.

Music is 100% subjective in terms of what good and bad music are. Good and bad music are ALL about taste, if you're ignoring taste when talking about good and bad music you're not talking abut much of anything at all. You're saying there are objective elements, and i'm saying I agree, in terms of if something is played wrong, and also, you can say this piece of music is more complex as an objective comment, yet, this has nothing to do with how GOOD the piece is, as music. You also said if a song has higher technical ability it becomes better, which is simply not true, that's your opinion, from what I assume is a musicans standpoint. Not to mention, the artists INTENT has nothing to do with how good the piece is, either. The artist could intend to write a sad song, and in actuality, most people find it creepy rather than sad, yet it's still a good song.

It's like trying to argue one melody is better than another based on how many notes it has in it, or how fast they're played. Which is completely missing the point of what music is about. (I like more technical music, myself, though thats not all I look for in music by a longshot.)

Basically, I agree with Moses.

You can objectively quantify certain aspects of music, but this tells you nothing about the music as a whole and it's emotional impact on the listener, which is the INTENT of all music.

[Reywas]

I listen to music a lot.So this works for me.The four elements.

1)Great vocalist
2)Technical ability and creativity
3)Originality
4)Catchiness

Now a song can have any one of those and lack the other three and still be good.See In The Club by 50 Cent.An amazingly catchy song.Therefore by my standards it is a good song.Not great but good.

Now lets look at Opeth.They are creative, original, have a great vocalist.Some of their songs are catchy and that makes them even better, see The Drapery Falls, Bleak.

Now lets look at Behold The Arctopus.They are technical and that makes them original.They have two points going for them that makes them good but not as good as Opeth.

Now lets look at Tool.They are creative, technical (Danny) original (I haven't heard a simillar band yet), have a great vocalist, catchy.That's why they are one of my favourite bands.

Again that works for me.

[Matas]

I think the best thing to do, concerning the snobby elistist metalheads, is to ignore them. Like someone mentionned earlier, there are way more ''normal'' metal listeners than there are elitists. The snobby metalheads are the ones who are alone and probably have less friends.

[Moses]

If it´s exactly where it´s meant to be it´s a complete success.While you and I both have grasped the basics,you thought I´d´ve missed the implications.Now,if the fücking catchy äss song also manages to display superb technical ability while still remaining just as catchy,that´s even better.But again,technical ability isn´t a neccessity,which is why I posted (lack of) in front of it.If a musician achieves the same goals as another,even though he is technically less proficient,then they´re both equally good in terms of composition,hence,the actual songs can be both judged as equally well-made. Technical proficiency is really just a bonus.Hmmm,you´re right,I sorta fücked up the scale.I was kinda in a hurry to get that post done...
@shadius: You missed my point.Completely.I´m not talking about taste.There are more meanings to "good" and "bad" than you can count off your fingers,I´m just stating that those words CAN be used in an objective manner when referring to music(and craftsmanship f.ex. carpenting<-think on this one a bit).This has NOTHING to do with taste.I won´t even argue about taste and I don´t give a flying fück about what the majority or minority or whatever thinks is good."Taste" is meaningless and arguing that good=what I like is likewise correct and incorrect at the same time.It´s a possibility,but it´s not the only possibility.Get my drift?

But then I ask, how is technical ability even a plus? I'd say if the composition requires that amount of technical ability to acheive a type of affect on the listener, it adds to the compositional value. But if you can acheive the same type of affect in a different manner requireing less technical skill, is it more valueable to do it the harder way?

A good example is in Waking Every God by Pain of Salvation. There is awesome slap bass and any bassist can hear it and have respect for the bassist playing it. Of course to affect the listener with the slap aspect of the music, they would have to have some kind of knowledge of slap bass.

Also what if you took a long, epic song like The Odyssey by Symphony X and put it up against a classic song like Free Bird by Lynard Skynard. Obviously more work and analyzation went into The Odyssey, but Free Bird has this instantly recognizable and timeless essence. Which song is more valueable? Most people only listen to The Odyssey once and then forget about it, but many many people have listened to Free Bird and keep coming back.

The truth is The Odyssey is the paragon of all compositional and technical skill but Free Bird has more soul and feel in it and is a million times more memorable. The judgement on which song is more valueable depends on the listener alone. There is no way about it.

[Amit]

elitists are cool when they actually know what they're talking about

which thankfully excludes nearly all the metal snobs :D

[Vortigon]

No wrong. The Odyssey has way more feel and is more valuable.

TTTTTTRRRRRRRRRIIIIIUUMMMMMMPPPPPPPHHAAAAAANNNTTTT TTT CHAMPION OF ITHACA \m/ Everyone I've ever played that song to has fallen in love with it and pestered me to give them a copy. Freebird is great, but it's just another "classic" that everyone knows and likes, but which isn't really all that amazing (sorry skynyrd fans).

[Amit]

No wrong. The Odyssey has way more feel and is more valuable.

TTTTTTRRRRRRRRRIIIIIUUMMMMMMPPPPPPPHHAAAAAANNNTTTT TTT CHAMPION OF ITHACA \m/ Everyone I've ever played that song to has fallen in love with it and pestered me to give them a copy. Freebird is great, but it's just another "classic" that everyone knows and likes, but which isn't really all that amazing (sorry skynyrd fans).

subjective much?

[iliketoplaydrums10111]

I've met some pretty cool metalheads, like what you said this guy asks me if I like extreme metal, I said yes and he whips up 20 bands I've never heard of, he didn't rub it in my face, he wrote them down and told me to check them out. That's how it is around here, I haven't ran into many jackasses

By the way, one of the bands (not necessarily extreme metal)

www.myspace.com/implosivedisgorgence

[Vortigon]

subjective much?
My opinion, yeah, 'tis a little.

[Huber]

I don't Elitism is much of a problem here, though other communities it runs rampant. I've never seena problem with it here since Dargon left.

[Arucard]

No wrong. The Odyssey has way more feel and is more valuable.

TTTTTTRRRRRRRRRIIIIIUUMMMMMMPPPPPPPHHAAAAAANNNTTTT TTT CHAMPION OF ITHACA \m/ Everyone I've ever played that song to has fallen in love with it and pestered me to give them a copy. Freebird is great, but it's just another "classic" that everyone knows and likes, but which isn't really all that amazing (sorry skynyrd fans).

'This is the end of my ODDDYESEYYYY YEH!!!!!111'

[Kage]

But then I ask, how is technical ability even a plus? I'd say if the composition requires that amount of technical ability to acheive a type of affect on the listener, it adds to the compositional value. But if you can acheive the same type of affect in a different manner requireing less technical skill, is it more valueable to do it the harder way?

A good example is in Waking Every God by Pain of Salvation. There is awesome slap bass and any bassist can hear it and have respect for the bassist playing it. Of course to affect the listener with the slap aspect of the music, they would have to have some kind of knowledge of slap bass.

Also what if you took a long, epic song like The Odyssey by Symphony X and put it up against a classic song like Free Bird by Lynard Skynard. Obviously more work and analyzation went into The Odyssey, but Free Bird has this instantly recognizable and timeless essence. Which song is more valueable? Most people only listen to The Odyssey once and then forget about it, but many many people have listened to Free Bird and keep coming back.

The truth is The Odyssey is the paragon of all compositional and technical skill but Free Bird has more soul and feel in it and is a million times more memorable. The judgement on which song is more valueable depends on the listener alone. There is no way about it.
Excellent post. Perfect articulation of an ambiguous concept. (Even though I think you could have picked a better example than Freebird. :p)

[Moses]

See, I was listening to it at the moment though. I still love the song either way.

Glass Arm Shattering by Porcupine Tree would have been good too since the composition consists of the same progression over and over again, yet is extremely good. Of course the exact explanation that I was going for is found in Freebird. I could have used Knockin' on Heavens Door too.

[thunderzstruck]

Glass Arm Shattering is very good music.

[Jude]

Eye I....

Metalheads do prefer the most talented and best genre of music, however.....


Ehh...I think they would be easier to stomach if it really were the best genre of music. That's why classical elitists annoy me so much less, because they're at least being elitist over arguably the best genre. Metal...nah.

Edit: Glass Arm Shattering, Freebird, Knockin' on Heaven's Door...all great examples.

Freebird > whatever wanky metal song anyway.

[Moses]

Yeah, metal is definately not the most talented genre. Jazz and Classical are definately in front.

[Shadius]

Yeah, metal is definately not the most talented genre. Jazz and Classical are definately in front.

I rekon they all have their moments of extreme talent. I wouldn't like to say which one requires more talent, though I imagine a lot more metal bands have less talent than classical/jazz players, due to the large amount of lesser skilled metal artists around.

[Jude]

I rekon they all have their moments of extreme talent. I wouldn't like to say which one requires more talent, though I imagine a lot more metal bands have less talent than classical/jazz players, due to the large amount of lesser skilled metal artists around.
Metal also tends toward wankery, over-extremity for its own sake, pretension, and of course the fact that it's a whole genre that relies on a specific range of distortion sounds from one instrument.

Plus every metal fan that goes on and on about how intricate and well-planned and complicated their favorite band's songs are is owned by classical.

[Moses]

Metal also tends toward wankery, over-extremity for its own sake, pretension, and of course the fact that it's a whole genre that relies on a specific range of distortion sounds from one instrument.
Okay, that's not true but I will say this. If you're going to be an active classical or jazz musician, you have to major in performance for atleast 4 years. Virtuosity is just more common in classical and jazz and you can't really be known unless you're damn good. Not the case in metal.

[Hells Bells]

Also what if you took a long, epic song like The Odyssey by Symphony X and put it up against a classic song like Free Bird by Lynard Skynard. Obviously more work and analyzation went into The Odyssey, but Free Bird has this instantly recognizable and timeless essence. Which song is more valueable? Most people only listen to The Odyssey once and then forget about it, but many many people have listened to Free Bird and keep coming back.


That's true, but then again most people are going to find it difficult to sit through and then remember a 20 minute song...that it's easier for people to connect with the way an artist is conveying their message with something that's more accessible to them, like Free Bird.

Anyway, about the elitism thing...that's never something I've run into, because I don't know anyone who's really into metal. I'm usually pretty patient with the people I know, because I know I really don't know a lot about it, and if I start bitching at them about how their taste in music sucks, instead of getting into better music, it'll push them away ...but it kinda ticks me off when people who think they're into metal say that Joey Jordinson's the best and fastest drummer they've ever heard, or when I try introducing someone to other stuff, they end up putting Death and Evanescence on the same list of their favourite heavy bands...

[Moses]

when I try introducing someone to other stuff, they end up putting Death and Evanescence on the same list of their favourite heavy bands...
:confused: wtf

[Cockfight Champion]

I find often when talking to metalheads that the general opinion holds in most that metal knowlege is valued highest. This I find is ultimately something that metalheads will hide behind to assert some sort of authority over other metalheads, which is stupid and counterproductive when discussing metal.

A few months ago I was at one of those pointless social occasions where people swallow large amounts of alcohol in order to "enhance" their social skills, where there were a couple of absent brained metalheads. As I myself enjoy metal I conversed with these. The vacuumhead proclaimed very early in our meeting that he could probably name twice as many metal bands as I could. I didn't accept the challange, if it was a challange, I really couldn't care less about asserting authority over him, or anyone. I feel securer in myself than that. Like most discussions with metalheads I encounter at gigs or whatever the discussion is

"Do you like whatever band"
"Yes"
"Do you like whatever band"
"No"

This turned into another one of these meaningless and shallow conversations, and as soon as I mention honestly that I'd never heard of Finntroll, the guy said to his fellow vacuum head "oi, this guy says he likes extreme metal, but he can't be because he's never heard of finntroll". Because of this mentality I laughed at him and walked off. The guy had no ability to discuss anything deep about metal. He, like many other metalheads I've met have this irrational thought that knowlege (or rather experience or time within the scene) means that you are "above" the other.

I do however understand partly this mentality. For example, I do believe that you probably know jackshit about black metal if you've never heard of Burzum...

Does anybody else feel this way, or has anybody any worthwhile opinions on this matter? Thank you.

You make good points dude. No matter what passtime, hobby or passion you follow you'll always meet retards who take their geekness to competitive levels. They don't have any creative talent of their own so they define their worth by their knowledge of the subject.

That way if they run into someone in the same field as them they can prove how manly and superior they are by naming bands. The best way to deal with these metal uber-geeks is to **** with them. Make up bands and labels from diverse countries and act surprised that they've never heard of them either but don't do it in that lame superior way, act real helpful saying ... dude, I'll burn you a copy of (insert imaginary album name here), you gotta hear it. Be the opposite of their insecure arrogance and they'll look even lamer.

[Riva]

Metal also tends toward wankery, over-extremity for its own sake, pretension, and of course the fact that it's a whole genre that relies on a specific range of distortion sounds from one instrument.

Plus every metal fan that goes on and on about how intricate and well-planned and complicated their favorite band's songs are is owned by classical.

One day Jude, you will like a metal song more than a rock song, and the world will end.

[Amit]

Metal also tends toward wankery, over-extremity for its own sake, pretension, and of course the fact that it's a whole genre that relies on a specific range of distortion sounds from one instrument.

Plus every metal fan that goes on and on about how intricate and well-planned and complicated their favorite band's songs are is owned by classical.

don't forget jazz >_<

[Paranoidd]

Translation: He started smoking pot.

what the ****

[Paranoidd]

Metal also tends toward wankery, over-extremity for its own sake, pretension, and of course the fact that it's a whole genre that relies on a specific range of distortion sounds from one instrument.

Plus every metal fan that goes on and on about how intricate and well-planned and complicated their favorite band's songs are is owned by classical.

those are all pretty weak and i'd go so far as to say completely ****ing retarded.

you might as well just say "i dont like metal and think it's all ****" instead of using reasons that don't make any sense to try and justify it.

Now lets look at Behold The Arctopus.They are technical and that makes them original.
what

[Cockfight Champion]

... I´m not talking about taste.There are more meanings to "good" and "bad" than you can count off your fingers,I´m just stating that those words CAN be used in an objective manner when referring to music(and craftsmanship f.ex. carpenting<-think on this one a bit).This has NOTHING to do with taste. ...

Music is art and/or entertainment and the quality or value of any work of art or entertainment is always subjective. Same for any part or element of that work.

(The craftsmanship example is a red herring. I am a carpenter and the value of my craftsmanship is assigned relative to the goal I have at the beginning of my work, just as it is in my music. In carpentry the goal is accuracy, in music (and all art) it is to create a piece I (and/or others) like to listen to.)


I know you "hate relativism" but honestly dude, thats on a par with hating reality. Just because you, or even a group of followers of any given genre of music, give music value based on structural complexity, that still means the value is subjective.

If you are seriously trying to argue, against every credible definition of music, art and/or entertainment that exists, that art has some intrinsic value, then good luck bro.

[Reywas]

Paranoidd they are technical to the point where nothing else sounds like them.

[Amit]

what

[Jude]

those are all pretty weak and i'd go so far as to say completely ****ing retarded.

you might as well just say "i dont like metal and think it's all ****" instead of using reasons that don't make any sense to try and justify it.


I don't think all metal is ****. I was just pointing out why classical (and jazz Eggo) are superior, in relation to what I was saying about metal vs. classical elitists.

One day Jude, you will like a metal song more than a rock song, and the world will end.

Yeah I know.

Well I already like In Flames and Opeth more than some rock. But rock still owns metal. In fact right now I'm digging IF's album Colony.
Paranoidd they are technical to the point where nothing else sounds like them.

They're also unlistenable, but I guess that's a side note.

[Bass_ment]

Listen to music you like, and leave the rest of it alone.

[Nostalgia]

What? how long have I been gone! Stevie's back.

[Ve Das]

Music is art and/or entertainment and the quality or value of any work of art or entertainment is always subjective. Same for any part or element of that work.

(The craftsmanship example is a red herring. I am a carpenter and the value of my craftsmanship is assigned relative to the goal I have at the beginning of my work, just as it is in my music. In carpentry the goal is accuracy, in music (and all art) it is to create a piece I (and/or others) like to listen to.)


I know you "hate relativism" but honestly dude, thats on a par with hating reality. Just because you, or even a group of followers of any given genre of music, give music value based on structural complexity, that still means the value is subjective.



The musician´s goal is exactly the same as the carpenter´s.You´ve already contradicted yourself in your explination of why you think it´s a red herring.

Get this: You WANT to compose a piece that´s enjoyable for a certain group of people, but it isn´t for some reason.Obviously,you´ve been inaccurate in the application of your methods.Or you just suck. Same law in all crafts,be they arts or no.

And relativism is not reality(except that it is part of reality).Facts are not relative(well,generally speaking.If we were talking about certain scientific laws...).

If you are seriously trying to argue, against every credible definition of music, art and/or entertainment that exists, that art has some intrinsic value, then good luck bro.

I am not "trying" to argue,I have presented an argument you have failed to comprehend and thus failed to refute.

About subjectivity in discerning quality: I´m not denying it,far from it,I´m just saying that it is POSSIBLE to apply certain objective standards,I´m not saying they have to be applied.Hell,you can think the most well-crafted piece of art in the world sounds like a load of garbage(me on Mozart,f.ex.) but that doesn´t change a thing about its objective value.

[DBoons Ghost]

Knowledge of a musical genre is useless.

It's more useless than knowing how many pubes grow on your sac.

I think musical genre elitists are more ignorant than any member of the KKK.

I was one, so I know more than anyone. However, I've never dismissed someone from a conversation because they didn't know about band A, or band B, because I'd take the time to tell them.

It's kind sad when some kid has such a meaningless existence than they grab onto genre knowledge and treat others like cretins for not knowing. You just shake your head and laugh. At least I do. I mean, it's useless. Put as much effort into learning how to craft music rather than thinking knowing about it is just as good if not better.

Freud would have a field day.

[Hammerheart]

I'm the most metal out of all of you.

[Vortigon]

Knowledge of a musical genre is useless.

It's more useless than knowing how many pubes grow on your sac.

I think musical genre elitists are more ignorant than any member of the KKK.

I was one, so I know more than anyone. However, I've never dismissed someone from a conversation because they didn't know about band A, or band B, because I'd take the time to tell them.

It's kind sad when some kid has such a meaningless existence than they grab onto genre knowledge and treat others like cretins for not knowing. You just shake your head and laugh. At least I do. I mean, it's useless. Put as much effort into learning how to craft music rather than thinking knowing about it is just as good if not better.

Freud would have a field day.
Hehe, I agree with you. I know a fair bit (not a ridiculous amount like some people know) about most of the music I listen to, but that comes from my insatiable appetite for music. I never think I am superior to people (despite obvious evidence), just based on how much I know. I mean I know a lot more bands than most of my friends, because I spend more time listening to different stuff, looking for new stuff etc, plus I spend way too much on cds. But if I know a band that any one of my friends might like, I'll tell them about it, so they might enjoy them with me, rather than feel content that I know more than them. However I am a bit of an elitist in some ways, because I consider what I like to be the best (obviously), but am not very diplomatic when sharing my opinion on bands that I don't like. But then I don't really care if I offend people with a different taste to me, cause they're obviously wrong.

I'm the most metal out of all of you.

Wrong, I am pure steel hatred.

[Benzum]

Listen to music you like, and leave the rest of it alone.

Where is the fun in that?

[Nostalgia]

Listen to music you like, and leave the rest of it alone.
If we did that then we would have no opinions or discussion because no one would be able to debate about anything. Nothing is wrong with arguing, we wouldn't have this site if we just left all the bands we don't like alone.

[Paranoidd]

Wrong, I am pure steel hatred.

I piss battery acid.

[Paranoidd]

I don't think all metal is ****. I was just pointing out why classical (and jazz Eggo) are superior, in relation to what I was saying about metal vs. classical elitists.

so you're saying that metal is technical and wanky and pretentious (and I'll take that as "bad"), yet classical music and jazz (which is more technical), is "superior?"


Wrong, I am pure steel hatred.

I piss battery acid.

Paranoidd they are technical to the point where nothing else sounds like them.

Then their sound is just distinct. They're not original because they're technical. Being technical is hardly original these days to begin with.

Seems like these days, alot more bands focus on technicality then writing a song that doesn't sound like ****, and that is sad.

[Benzum]

Seems like these days, alot more bands focus on technicality then writing a song that doesn't sound like ****, and that is sad.

It depends how they actually view the music, and go with what they want to do with it. There will always be bands who like to write structured songs, with jolly chord progressions etc. But there will always be bands who like to write something as technical as possible and blow peoples heads off. I think thats the opposite of sad :thumb:

[DBoons Ghost]

Technical music doesn't blow my head off.

It makes me kinda sick, and wish it wasn't celebrated among fans.

Technical show off stuff impresses clueless people most of the time, who are seeking the admiration of others for all the wrong reasons. DT is a perfect example of why skill alone should always be something we don't celebrate, and look upon with the same distaste we do hooky pop songs.

Talented musicians get frowned upon over some moron who can do math, and who had the training and time to practice bad skills over and over and over..

I'm sure this will earn me many flames.

[Benzum]

DT isn't that technical. I'm thinking of technical in a different way. Any band that is classed as "Prog Metal" can't be called technical, as thats defeating the point of what they are setting out to do.

I'm not the biggest Prog fan, though.

[Hammerheart]

Technical music doesn't blow my head off.

It makes me kinda sick, and wish it wasn't celebrated among fans.

Technical show off stuff impresses clueless people most of the time, who are seeking the admiration of others for all the wrong reasons. DT is a perfect example of why skill alone should always be something we don't celebrate, and look upon with the same distaste we do hooky pop songs.

Talented musicians get frowned upon over some moron who can do math, and who had the training and time to practice bad skills over and over and over..

I'm sure this will earn me many flames.

I think Dream Theater is amazing, in every aspect.:smoke:

[Hells Bells]

:confused: wtf

Yeeeah my reaction exactly...you feel like the message has been completely lost on those people.

[ATC]

Technical music doesn't blow my head off.

It makes me kinda sick, and wish it wasn't celebrated among fans.

Technical show off stuff impresses clueless people most of the time, who are seeking the admiration of others for all the wrong reasons. DT is a perfect example of why skill alone should always be something we don't celebrate, and look upon with the same distaste we do hooky pop songs.

Talented musicians get frowned upon over some moron who can do math, and who had the training and time to practice bad skills over and over and over..

I'm sure this will earn me many flames.

I'd rep you if I could. That post sums up my fears over the direction a lot of music is beginning to take, with all this emphasis on 'talent' when talent isn't really in incorporating polyrythms into your music or soloing or anything else. Technical skill is only a tool,not the be-all and end-all.

[DBoons Ghost]

DT isn't that technical. I'm thinking of technical in a different way. Any band that is classed as "Prog Metal" can't be called technical, as thats defeating the point of what they are setting out to do.

I'm not the biggest Prog fan, though.


I am a prog fan, back when prog was good. Yes, ELP, Marilliion, King Crimson...

Thats prog.

And it was tasteful musically and it was good. It had soul. It was emotional and deep and it wasn't always all about stuffing a million notes in a measure.

DT is that jaw dropping oh my goodness wow type stuff, but in a matter of a minute, you're bored and longing for something with depth and substance. Most prog of today is like that. You can tell they aren't trying to make soulful music, but trying to impress people. To each his own, but it creates elitist fandom. Like argueing over that stuff is likened to discussing which 3 year old will win the Labor Day sack races at the local town picnic.

The only metal type prog stuff I kinda dig is anything with Sean Malone because he's talented. Queensryche had their moments long ago too.

[IAJP]

Not all metalheads are shallow,

hey look at me, I'm sexy and ...not-shallow.


But seriously, they're not, they're very cool people.

[Paranoidd]

It depends how they actually view the music, and go with what they want to do with it. There will always be bands who like to write structured songs, with jolly chord progressions etc. But there will always be bands who like to write something as technical as possible and blow peoples heads off. I think thats the opposite of sad :thumb:

writing something to "blow peoples heads off" with technicality is nothing but a display of ability. im not trying to say technical music is bad but there are bands who sacrifice songwriting for boring wank sessions and they don't realize it's why they struggle to get gigs and get signed. frankly nobody gives a **** how fast, complicated, or precise people can play when what they're playing is shallow and transparent wankery.

[DBoons Ghost]

writing something to "blow peoples heads off" with technicality is nothing but a display of ability. im not trying to say technical music is bad but there are bands who sacrifice songwriting for boring wank sessions and they don't realize it's why they struggle to get gigs and get signed. frankly nobody gives a **** how fast, complicated, or precise people can play when what they're playing is shallow and transparent wankery.


:thumb:

If I had a uterus, I'd totally have your baby.

[Amit]

I am a prog fan, back when prog was good. Yes, ELP, Marilliion, King Crimson...

Thats prog.

And it was tasteful musically and it was good. It had soul. It was emotional and deep and it wasn't always all about stuffing a million notes in a measure.

DT is that jaw dropping oh my goodness wow type stuff, but in a matter of a minute, you're bored and longing for something with depth and substance. Most prog of today is like that. You can tell they aren't trying to make soulful music, but trying to impress people. To each his own, but it creates elitist fandom. Like argueing over that stuff is likened to discussing which 3 year old will win the Labor Day sack races at the local town picnic.

The only metal type prog stuff I kinda dig is anything with Sean Malone because he's talented. Queensryche had their moments long ago too.

i have a uterus can i have your baby

[Hells Bells]

I'd rep you if I could. That post sums up my fears over the direction a lot of music is beginning to take, with all this emphasis on 'talent' when talent isn't really in incorporating polyrythms into your music or soloing or anything else. Technical skill is only a tool,not the be-all and end-all.

Exactly! Proficiency is only the means to an end - if you're not creative and don't express anything, technicality is useless.

[Benzum]

All good points, but still, some bands don't care how far they get, they do it for the music, and to challenge themselves as players, not really to impress others, that is something that just happens.

I'm all for good songwriting and insane, technical racket, so there.

Besides, speaking this loosely without naming any bands is tricky, it can get confusing quickly etc.

Please stop mentioning Dream Theater.

[DBoons Ghost]

i have a uterus can i have your baby


You're a little too young for that.

I don't want Bubba spreading maple syrup down my taint anytime soon.

Although.. do you have pigtails? Maybe a visit from the Ether Bunny can solve this one!

[Amit]

dboon you scare me too often -*-

[Vortigon]

writing something to "blow peoples heads off" with technicality is nothing but a display of ability. im not trying to say technical music is bad but there are bands who sacrifice songwriting for boring wank sessions and they don't realize it's why they struggle to get gigs and get signed. frankly nobody gives a **** how fast, complicated, or precise people can play when what they're playing is shallow and transparent wankery.
Well, some people must, otherwise they wouldn't sell any records. Though your point is valid, displays of immense technical ability get old very quick. Though should the composing ability match up with the technical ability and make good songs (LTE comes to mind), everything is fine.

Go see a doctor about your peeing problem, too.

[Benzum]

Well, some people must, otherwise they wouldn't sell any records.



Yeah, exactly.

[Amit]

Well, some people must, otherwise they wouldn't sell any records. Though your point is valid, displays of immense technical ability get old very quick. Though should the composing ability match up with the technical ability and make good songs (LTE comes to mind), everything is fine.

Go see a doctor about your peeing problem, too.

nah lte's just watered down booooring post fusion instrumental rock blahhhhhhhh

[Moses]

But then I ask, how is technical ability even a plus? I'd say if the composition requires that amount of technical ability to acheive a type of affect on the listener, it adds to the compositional value. But if you can acheive the same type of affect in a different manner requireing less technical skill, is it more valueable to do it the harder way?

A good example is in Waking Every God by Pain of Salvation. There is awesome slap bass and any bassist can hear it and have respect for the bassist playing it. Of course to affect the listener with the slap aspect of the music, they would have to have some kind of knowledge of slap bass.

Also what if you took a long, epic song like The Odyssey by Symphony X and put it up against a classic song like Free Bird by Lynard Skynard. Obviously more work and analyzation went into The Odyssey, but Free Bird has this instantly recognizable and timeless essence. Which song is more valueable? Most people only listen to The Odyssey once and then forget about it, but many many people have listened to Free Bird and keep coming back.

The truth is The Odyssey is the paragon of all compositional and technical skill but Free Bird has more soul and feel in it and is a million times more memorable. The judgement on which song is more valueable depends on the listener alone. There is no way about it.
I'd like Ve Das to see this but I'm not sure if he has already.

[Kage]

Then their sound is just distinct. They're not original because they're technical. Being technical is hardly original these days to begin with.

Seems like these days, alot more bands focus on technicality then writing a song that doesn't sound like ****, and that is sad.
Of course, you could logically say that a band's technical ability allows them to have the distinct sound. I don't know how common that is, though.

I don't listen to much technical music at all, really. I really don't value technicality at all. The complexity in a lot of the music I listen to comes from the way the instruments work together and the compositional structures.

[Benzum]

It depends how the artist views themselves as a musician, and the circumstances of that band or group etc.

Who gives a **** if a few people on an internet forum don't find technical ability to be impressive or relevant.

I have the upmost respect for it, and always will.

[Jude]

so you're saying that metal is technical and wanky and pretentious (and I'll take that as "bad"), yet classical music and jazz (which is more technical), is "superior?"

Read my post. I said "tends toward." Not "every band is."


Seems like these days, alot more bands focus on technicality then writing a song that doesn't sound like ****, and that is sad.
...and that's one of the things I was referring to.

DBoon: I completely support that statement.

[halfdeadhippo]

My two cents on technicality is that technicality allows for a band to be more diverse than a band who plays the same stuff as everybody else. I mean that in the sense that, regardless of how emotionally charged a band is, when you make the music too simple, there's only so far you can go. At the same time, I value melody more than I value skill. Basically, a technical melody > a simple melody > a technical wankage, as far as I'm concerned.

DT is that jaw dropping oh my goodness wow type stuff, but in a matter of a minute, you're bored and longing for something with depth and substance. Most prog of today is like that. You can tell they aren't trying to make soulful music, but trying to impress people. To each his own, but it creates elitist fandom. Like argueing over that stuff is likened to discussing which 3 year old will win the Labor Day sack races at the local town picnic.I'm sorry, but exactly how much DT have you listened to? I'm not asking about how much you've heard, I mean how much have you actually listened to? I've found that most people hear a DT song and almost immediately write it off because parts of it are sickeningly technical. I'll admit that some parts are so technical they're sickening (like the one song on Train of Thought that had the rhythm section in half time while the guitar just noodled away without any direction). The problem is that the technical parts get all the attention, while the more melodic parts get pushed to the side because they aren't as "in your face", to put it one way, and the melodic parts are, well, very melodic.

Dream Theater are, in my opinion, one of those bands that is both overrated and underrated at the same time. They're overrated by fanboys and underrated by people who judge them by their technicality.

[The Living Dead]

It depends how the artist views themselves as a musician, and the circumstances of that band or group etc.

Who gives a **** if a few people on an internet forum don't find technical ability to be impressive or relevant.

I have the upmost respect for it, and always will.


I have a different view.

Good music is meant to make you go "wow that song sounds really awsome"

Not "wow dude he pulled of like 3 different time changes and was really fast"

[halfdeadhippo]

I have a different view.

Good music is meant to make you go "wow that song sounds really awsome"

Not "wow dude he pulled of like 3 different time changes and was really fast"
Or perhaps, to some people, the music with 3 different time changes makes people say "wow that song sounds really awesome." If all you can focus on is the technical aspect to music, it's a user error, not the fault of the band who's writing music that challenges their abilities.

[The Living Dead]

Yeah I agree

I have a friend who listens to Dream Theatre and Meshugga.
He won't listen to anything else that dosen't have similar technical-ness than those two bands.

Its really kinda sad.

[Moses]

That's retarded.

I say technicality is only useful when it's used to acheive a certain sound. A good example is drum rolls mixed with bass drum and toms, it sounds really cool and it's an advanced technique. Also a really cool and oddly syncopated hip-hop beat is also advanced and yet is used to acheive a certain sound.

[DBoons Ghost]

I'm sorry, but exactly how much DT have you listened to? I'm not asking about how much you've heard, I mean how much have you actually listened to? I've found that most people hear a DT song and almost immediately write it off because parts of it are sickeningly technical. I'll admit that some parts are so technical they're sickening (like the one song on Train of Thought that had the rhythm section in half time while the guitar just noodled away without any direction). The problem is that the technical parts get all the attention, while the more melodic parts get pushed to the side because they aren't as "in your face", to put it one way, and the melodic parts are, well, very melodic.

Dream Theater are, in my opinion, one of those bands that is both overrated and underrated at the same time. They're overrated by fanboys and underrated by people who judge them by their technicality.

I own 4 of their albums. Images and Words has moments, but it gets ruined by their lack of talent in songwriting.

No doubt they are probably the most skilled group of musicians ever assembled, but that dont mean they are worth listening to.

[Moses]

I own 4 of their albums. Images and Words has moments, but it gets ruined by their lack of talent in songwriting.

No doubt they are probably the most skilled group of musicians ever assembled, but that dont mean they are worth listening to.
@bolded part: Not really.

@the rest: I think they're worth listening to if I'm in the mood. They have a unique sound to me and if that's what I crave, then that's what I'll listen to.

[DBoons Ghost]

When I crave prog, I dig on the oldies.

I would never say anything like DT sucks, cuz they don't. It just aint my cup of tea.

[Moses]

DT isn't really what prog is about either. I'd rather listen to Pain of Salvation (aka the best music ever), which has a different sound for every song, is technical enough for the elitists, and has songwriting spewing from mastermind and musical genius Daniel Gildenlow.

[TemperamentalGoat]

DT isn't really what prog is about either. I'd rather listen to Pain of Salvation (aka the best music ever), which has a different sound for every song, is technical enough for the elitists, and has songwriting spewing from mastermind and musical genius Daniel Gildenlow.

oh so true. They still don't make enough money and have to work day jobs, but they love making the music. Music as a whole can never be judged on a set standard, but you can compare songs on how complicated the songwriting is, if there are any unconventional methods used, which band uses more harmony in their song, etc. You can't say one band is BETTER, but you can say one band is better at a certain element of music which leads to the usefulness of standard music reviews from a writer that is as objective as humanly possible. You can't say, "Ashlee Simpson creates worse music than Agalloch" because there will be a mountainload of people who will disagree, citing her tunes are easier to remember and you can sing along. However, you can say the songwriting in Agalloch is more complex, the musicians are more skilled, etc. Does not definitely make their record the overall superior piece for everyone. The only way to judge and compare music properly is if someone identifies what elements they're looking for (good guitarwork, unique songwriting, catchy and easy on the ears for starters) and you give them your best representations of their criteria.

That, I suppose, is when knowing a diverse amount of music comes in handy. You can be the handy reference/suggestion guide of all your music loving friends.

[Shattered_Future]

I think it all comes down to what people like to listen to. If they don't like it, they will write it off as crap, no matter how much effort goes into it.

Personally, I think a band like Symphony X is what prog is all about. There are no weak members in the band, they have the ability to compose some absolutely mindblowing songs, and still make it easy to listen to while displaying some of the most jawdropping technical ability ever.

It never really seems like the band is wanking, unlike others...their music is thoughtfully put together, and plays just as important a part as the 32nd note tapping runs.

[Amit]

My two cents on technicality is that technicality allows for a band to be more diverse than a band who plays the same stuff as everybody else. I mean that in the sense that, regardless of how emotionally charged a band is, when you make the music too simple, there's only so far you can go. At the same time, I value melody more than I value skill. Basically, a technical melody > a simple melody > a technical wankage, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm sorry, but exactly how much DT have you listened to? I'm not asking about how much you've heard, I mean how much have you actually listened to? I've found that most people hear a DT song and almost immediately write it off because parts of it are sickeningly technical. I'll admit that some parts are so technical they're sickening (like the one song on Train of Thought that had the rhythm section in half time while the guitar just noodled away without any direction). The problem is that the technical parts get all the attention, while the more melodic parts get pushed to the side because they aren't as "in your face", to put it one way, and the melodic parts are, well, very melodic.

Dream Theater are, in my opinion, one of those bands that is both overrated and underrated at the same time. They're overrated by fanboys and underrated by people who judge them by their technicality.

they're overrated because they aren't nowhere nearly as "sickeningly technical" as people make them out to be

[Cockfight Champion]

The musician´s goal is exactly the same as the carpenter´s.You´ve already contradicted yourself in your explination of why you think it´s a red herring.

Get this: You WANT to compose a piece that´s enjoyable for a certain group of people, but it isn´t for some reason.Obviously,you´ve been inaccurate in the application of your methods.Or you just suck. Same law in all crafts,be they arts or no.

Nope. I'm not talking about being accuarate in the application of your methods. I'm talking about the physical accuracy of the technique. In carpentry success always depends upon getting your tools to physically perform the task you have planned accurately. In music for many people success depends on improvisation and the "mistakes" that come from that. There is no plan for the player to execute accurately.

This is the difference and why it is no contradiction.

And relativism is not reality(except that it is part of reality).Facts are not relative(well,generally speaking.If we were talking about certain scientific laws...).

Dude, come on ... Einstein's special relativity holds that everything is relative. He demonstrated it by showing how our scientific laws are only relative to the frame of reference.

About subjectivity in discerning quality: I´m not denying it,far from it,I´m just saying that it is POSSIBLE to apply certain objective standards,I´m not saying they have to be applied.Hell,you can think the most well-crafted piece of art in the world sounds like a load of garbage(me on Mozart,f.ex.) but that doesn´t change a thing about its objective value.

Objective values can be applied but they fit only within a certain reference frame, not universally. That's the point. If you or some group of musicians or fans wants to assign a certain level of value to physical accuracy of playing and structural complexity in composition then thats fine. But it's only objective within the group of music fans who hold that those things have that value. Across the entire spectrum of fans the value of those aspects (and every other aspect of music) is purely subjective.

[Riva]

Just one thing I want to say:

Prog =/= Technical

Please don't confuse the two.

Keep up the good work, DBoon, Rob and Amit.

[Benzum]

This could do with a healthy BUMP I think....

[rhcp pman]

My two cents on technicality is that technicality allows for a band to be more diverse than a band who plays the same stuff as everybody else. I mean that in the sense that, regardless of how emotionally charged a band is, when you make the music too simple, there's only so far you can go. At the same time, I value melody more than I value skill. Basically, a technical melody > a simple melody > a technical wankage, as far as I'm concerned.

That is EXACTLY my philosophy. Technicality allows you to extend your music. Use it as a tool, not a black hole. Wow, that was a corny comparison.

Meanwhile, my bout with elitism was in a bassist thread. Some retard simply couldn't comprehend that I would rather listen to any Flea bassline than Classical Thump (Victor Wooten). And as far as I know, Wooten didn't even write that anyway. It was an adaptation of a Bach piece. Don't get me wrong though. I like Wooten; Live At Bass Day 1998 is AWESOME.

[halfdeadhippo]

I own 4 of their albums. Images and Words has moments, but it gets ruined by their lack of talent in songwriting.

No doubt they are probably the most skilled group of musicians ever assembled, but that dont mean they are worth listening to.
I can agree with that. I thought you were trying to say that their music was all wank and no melody, like a lot of people say. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

[Ve Das]

I'd like Ve Das to see this but I'm not sure if he has already.

Hah,nope,I missed it :-)

OKs...

"But then I ask, how is technical ability even a plus? I'd say if the composition requires that amount of technical ability to acheive a type of affect on the listener, it adds to the compositional value. But if you can acheive the same type of affect in a different manner requireing less technical skill, is it more valueable to do it the harder way? "

Naw,I misworded that.What I meant was that,no,it isn´t more valuable.They are of completely the same value objectively.Of course,I´ll like one better than the other,but that´s subjective. What I meant in terms of technicality as a bonus is this: It´s a bonus for the musician.The better you are,the more stuff you can do and the more variety the musician can add to his songwriting.I.e. the better you are at your instrument,the more likely it is you´ll be able to play exactly what you want to play.That´s the bonus.You were right,for the listener´s judgement,it´s completely irrelavant apart from "this guy plays good" or "this guy really must suck at his instrument".

"A good example is in Waking Every God by Pain of Salvation. There is awesome slap bass and any bassist can hear it and have respect for the bassist playing it. Of course to affect the listener with the slap aspect of the music, they would have to have some kind of knowledge of slap bass.

Also what if you took a long, epic song like The Odyssey by Symphony X and put it up against a classic song like Free Bird by Lynard Skynard. Obviously more work and analyzation went into The Odyssey, but Free Bird has this instantly recognizable and timeless essence. Which song is more valueable? Most people only listen to The Odyssey once and then forget about it, but many many people have listened to Free Bird and keep coming back.

The truth is The Odyssey is the paragon of all compositional and technical skill but Free Bird has more soul and feel in it and is a million times more memorable. The judgement on which song is more valueable depends on the listener alone. There is no way about it."

I don´t know either song :-(
What I will do is agree with you that the judgement depends on the listener alone.Obviously.Although that in no way means that there isn´t a certain aspect of the music that is objectifly classifiable.

[DBoons Ghost]

Great post Ve Das!

I think that sums up everything. It always falls back on the listener to decide if "all that" was really worth it.

We sometimes lose sight of what music does to people. Is it a matter of relating anymore in regards to the message of the song? Do people care for shakin their booty? Do people want to be tranced away in some harmony that speaks volumes in a simple manner? It's all out there regardless. However, I find that I like less and less music that needs to be technical to set it apart from other like genres.

Pat Metheny is a perfect example of what happens to a great musician who loses sight of what his music does to it's fans. In the same regard, he's doing his own thing, and if people still dig it, then how bad is it really?

[Amit]

pat metheny more pat mepoopy >:[

[DBoons Ghost]

pat metheny more pat mepoopy >:[

He was amazing when music poured through his veins moreso than math.

The self titled Pat Metheny Group album with Lyle Mays and Mark Egan is incredible. I forget who played drums.

He's off now. Way off. Playing more to his ego than his soul.

[Amit]

He was amazing when music poured through his veins moreso than math.

The self titled Pat Metheny Group album with Lyle Mays and Mark Egan is incredible. I forget who played drums.

He's off now. Way off. Playing more to his ego than his soul.

indeed

i personally enjoyed his contributions with the tony williams band

[Shadius]

Nope. I'm not talking about being accuarate in the application of your methods. I'm talking about the physical accuracy of the technique. In carpentry success always depends upon getting your tools to physically perform the task you have planned accurately. In music for many people success depends on improvisation and the "mistakes" that come from that. There is no plan for the player to execute accurately.

This is the difference and why it is no contradiction.



Dude, come on ... Einstein's special relativity holds that everything is relative. He demonstrated it by showing how our scientific laws are only relative to the frame of reference.



Objective values can be applied but they fit only within a certain reference frame, not universally. That's the point. If you or some group of musicians or fans wants to assign a certain level of value to physical accuracy of playing and structural complexity in composition then thats fine. But it's only objective within the group of music fans who hold that those things have that value. Across the entire spectrum of fans the value of those aspects (and every other aspect of music) is purely subjective.

<3 !

Eggo, could you do me a favour and list the albums in your avatar picture? I recognise In Absentia, what are the others?

[Vortigon]

nah lte's just watered down booooring post fusion instrumental rock blahhhhhhhh
Well I enjoy it, so I might continue listening to it, if that's alright.

[Amit]

<3 !

Eggo, could you do me a favour and list the albums in your avatar picture? I recognise In Absentia, what are the others?

they're album art from in absentia and deadwing

Well I enjoy it, so I might continue listening to it, if that's alright.

go ahead i just don't like it when people make dt and lte to be so incredibly technical you know

it ends up being a huge disappointment for a lot of people

[Vortigon]

They're more technical than your average band though, while still keeping enjoyable songs, which was why I used them as an example. I much prefer LTE to DT anyway cause I don't like LaBrie.

[Amit]

They're more technical than your average band though, while still keeping enjoyable songs, which was why I used them as an example. I much prefer LTE to DT anyway cause I don't like LaBrie.

enjoyable songs and average band are two very subjective and variable terms

does anyone else think that sheer speed isn't the sole indicator of technicality or is it just me

[Vortigon]

I'd agree with the speed thing, and with the subjective and variable bit.

[Bass_ment]

If we did that then we would have no opinions or discussion because no one would be able to debate about anything. Nothing is wrong with arguing, we wouldn't have this site if we just left all the bands we don't like alone.

When you are trying to debate something like music I stand by my post.
Music is ultimately non debatable in terms of genre superiority as any value attached to any genre is a subjective one. Prog-dance-metal-funk-core only has any value as a genre because you attach one to it by enjoying it. If I do not like it then it is of no value to me.

And I agree that debate is interesting and useful overall, but right now we are arguing about whether or not music is subjective or not and some people have taken the stance that there is actually some standard that great music must uphold and which also gives it rank above lesser music which is just plain ridiculous.

And also I think that considering that discussion in this forum are more often based around the bands we like rather than the ones we don't, we would indeed still have a forum if those who did not like certain bands did not discuss those bands. It's not bad to have a negative opinion on a band just incredibly fruitless to argue any other point against the band other than, "I don't like them".

[i am the robots]

I am a prog fan, back when prog was good. Yes, ELP, Marilliion, King Crimson...

Thats prog.

And it was tasteful musically and it was good. It had soul. It was emotional and deep and it wasn't always all about stuffing a million notes in a measure.

DT is that jaw dropping oh my goodness wow type stuff, but in a matter of a minute, you're bored and longing for something with depth and substance. Most prog of today is like that. You can tell they aren't trying to make soulful music, but trying to impress people. To each his own, but it creates elitist fandom. Like argueing over that stuff is likened to discussing which 3 year old will win the Labor Day sack races at the local town picnic.

The only metal type prog stuff I kinda dig is anything with Sean Malone because he's talented. Queensryche had their moments long ago too.

I like prog metal and the older prog you mentioneed, fact is Dream Theater is the worst example, Try some Arcturus, Opeth, Into Eternity, Underoath (old stuff), Winds, or Meshuggah, that stuff is all very different, but it all has it's originality to it, and it's not boring. I'm positive you'll disagree with me to an extent, but try giving this stuff a shot before you use Dream Theater to exemplify prog metal.

[Ve Das]

When you are trying to debate something like music I stand by my post.
Music is ultimately non debatable in terms of genre superiority as any value attached to any genre is a subjective one. Prog-dance-metal-funk-core only has any value as a genre because you attach one to it by enjoying it. If I do not like it then it is of no value to me.

And I agree that debate is interesting and useful overall, but right now we are arguing about whether or not music is subjective or not and some people have taken the stance that there is actually some standard that great music must uphold and which also gives it rank above lesser music which is just plain ridiculous.

And also I think that considering that discussion in this forum are more often based around the bands we like rather than the ones we don't, we would indeed still have a forum if those who did not like certain bands did not discuss those bands. It's not bad to have a negative opinion on a band just incredibly fruitless to argue any other point against the band other than, "I don't like them".

We´re not arguing about wether music is subjective or not.What we´re,well actually just me vs. the rest who don´t seem to get what I´m driving for, arguing about is that some parts of music can be referred to objectively.Saying ALL is subjective is just as short-sighted as claiming everything is objective.It´s the mix that makes the cut.

[i am the robots]

We´re not arguing about wether music is subjective or not.What we´re,well actually just me vs. the rest who don´t seem to get what I´m driving for, arguing about is that some parts of music can be referred to objectively.Saying ALL is subjective is just as short-sighted as claiming everything is objective.It´s the mix that makes the cut.

So freaking true. It would be like saying that Behemoth sucks because you don't like them, when in reality it's impossible for them to suck because they're so skilled, it's just that YOU DON'T LIKE THEM, and that's what a lot of people don't get, you can dislike something and admit that it's good.

[Ve Das]

Cockfight Champion:
"Nope. I'm not talking about being accuarate in the application of your methods. I'm talking about the physical accuracy of the technique. In carpentry success always depends upon getting your tools to physically perform the task you have planned accurately. In music for many people success depends on improvisation and the "mistakes" that come from that. There is no plan for the player to execute accurately."

The artist knows what he wants his piece to sound like(if he´s composing outright.Improvisation != composition.DUH!),thus has a blueprint in his mind that he tries to put to sound somehow. The degree of accuracy with which he manages to create the desired effect is the objective value.
Improvisation,on the other hand,has little to no blueprint per se.Much the same as "invention",it´s a series experiments.Some turn out successful,some don´t.

"This is the difference and why it is no contradiction."

Again,you (intentionally?) missed the point.

"Dude, come on ... Einstein's special relativity holds that everything is relative. He demonstrated it by showing how our scientific laws are only relative to the frame of reference."

I SAID I´m leaving physics out of this.Besides,let´s put it this way:
I´m sitting on a chair. That´s a fact.There´s NOTHING relative about that. Same goes for most things in life.

"Objective values can be applied but they fit only within a certain reference frame, not universally."

Incorrect.Apples grow on apple trees.Music is sound.ETC.

"That's the point. If you or some group of musicians or fans wants to assign a certain level of value to physical accuracy of playing and structural complexity in composition then thats fine."

It´s also true.

"But it's only objective within the group of music fans who hold that those things have that value."

No,it´s not. Wether or not a musician manages to accurately display his musical vision in a piece is not subjective.It doesn´t matter if you think differently, those charachteristics I´ve desribed and clarified do not depend on wether or not the listener assigns value to them,they exist anyway and thus are empirically provable ergo objective.

"Across the entire spectrum of fans the value of those aspects (and every other aspect of music) is purely subjective."

Nope.

[Amit]

So freaking true. It would be like saying that Behemoth sucks because you don't like them, when in reality it's impossible for them to suck because they're so skilled, it's just that YOU DON'T LIKE THEM, and that's what a lot of people don't get, you can dislike something and admit that it's good.

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Ve Das]

^He[I Am Vikingcore,I mean]summed it up nicely.I´m just trying to provide the argumentative basis :-)

Hell,it should be obvious to users of a forum that´s now primarily linked with a music reviews site.It´s what every reviewer should ideally be doing: checking the objective characteristics,describing them and THEN adding his own subjective input.

[Bass_ment]

We´re not arguing about wether music is subjective or not.What we´re,well actually just me vs. the rest who don´t seem to get what I´m driving for, arguing about is that some parts of music can be referred to objectively.Saying ALL is subjective is just as short-sighted as claiming everything is objective.It´s the mix that makes the cut.

I'm trying to think about what adjectives could be used to describe music objectively?

Good? No we allready have established that this is way to broad a descriptor
Complex? Nope because complexity is also relative to your own abilities within music, therefore there is no standard for what is complex or not and so this cannot be objective.
Technical? Although sometimes this is confused with playing very fast at varying tempos, its base meaning is that multiple techniques are used. This could be an objective way refer to music then.

These are just examples I could be bothered to think of.

But what else? I see your point better now but I still fail to see that there are many objective AND USEFUL ways to refer to music. And ultimately what if anything do these objective references say about the personal enjoyment of music or anything beyond the base meaning of the adjective itself?

[Stevie]

Technicality for the sake of technicality I feel can distract either the composer or the listener from the meaning and true feeling of the music. I don't think artists should ever strive to be technical - music is about expression of emotion, not showing off your skills. Technicality or ability of the musicians can impress me, but I never listen to music because of this.

[Shadius]

We´re not arguing about wether music is subjective or not.What we´re,well actually just me vs. the rest who don´t seem to get what I´m driving for, arguing about is that some parts of music can be referred to objectively.Saying ALL is subjective is just as short-sighted as claiming everything is objective.It´s the mix that makes the cut.

Actually, you changed your tune since your first post. And I was always saying there are objective elements to music (I think everyone who disagreed with you was too), just nothing to do with it being good or bad music as you were saying. Which is 100% wrong due to subjectivity.

[Apocalyptic Raids]

So freaking true. It would be like saying that Behemoth sucks because you don't like them, when in reality it's impossible for them to suck because they're so skilled, it's just that YOU DON'T LIKE THEM, and that's what a lot of people don't get, you can dislike something and admit that it's good.
It's not impossible for Behemoth to suck just because they are talented.

Like Opeth for example, now there's a band who are talented but massively suck balls.

[Shadius]

So freaking true. It would be like saying that Behemoth sucks because you don't like them, when in reality it's impossible for them to suck because they're so skilled, it's just that YOU DON'T LIKE THEM, and that's what a lot of people don't get, you can dislike something and admit that it's good.

No... thats just it. If you don't like it, it's not good music. You might respect them for their talent, or whatever, but you don't have to admit it's good music at all, that's ridiculous, because you might not think it is.

People on these forums place a lot of emphasis on technical skill because they're musicans. This isn't universal.

[Moses]

Great post Ve Das!

That's my post that he quoted.
It's not impossible for Behemoth to suck just because they are talented.

Like Opeth for example, now there's a band who are talented but massively suck balls.
Bad example. Spiral Architect suck.

[i am the robots]

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

What are you gonna do? Call me a metal snob? You're whole freaking arguement is based off the fact that you don't like metal. Stop posting in here, nobody cares that you like jazz, go post about it in the Jazz and Funk forum.

[Jude]

It's not impossible for Behemoth to suck just because they are talented.

Like Opeth for example, now there's a band who are talented but massively suck balls.
Uh urrong

Opeth > whatever you listen to. They aren't remarkably technical, they just write kickass songs.

[Illmatic]

What are you gonna do? Call me a metal snob? You're whole freaking arguement is based off the fact that you don't like metal. Stop posting in here, nobody cares that you like jazz, go post about it in the Jazz and Funk forum.

No, I think he's pointing out how amazingly stupid what you said was.

"Sucks" is a subjective term that has nothing to do with technical skill, and I hate how people say, "You can't say it sucks, they're so talented!"

If someone says that a band "sucks", it's because they think that the band makes sucky songs.

[i am the robots]

No, I think he's pointing out how amazingly stupid what you said was.

"Sucks" is a subjective term that has nothing to do with technical skill, and I hate how people say, "You can't say it sucks, they're so talented!"

If someone says that a band "sucks", it's because they think that the band makes sucky songs.

It's remarkably stupid? Not really.

When somebody sucks at basketball, it means they can't play? Correct?
When somebody sucks at drawing, it means they can't draw? Correct?
When somebody sucks at making music, it's completely different though, that makes a whole lot of sense...

[Illmatic]

Using the basketball analogy, let's say that a technically proficient guitarist is like, say, a great jump shooter.

Now let's assume you put them in a situation where they have to apply their skills (like a game, or writing for and recording an album). And let's assume that even though they definitely show off their skills, their overall product is junk (yeah the jump shooter hit a few open jump shots, but he couldn't play D, set up teammates, rebound, etc.; and the guitarist had great chops, but couldn't write anything remotely interesting).

Wouldn't that mean that they suck, so to speak?

[ATC]

In common parlance, 'sucks' just implies you don't like them. It does not necessarily have to do with ability or technical skill.
I find it funny that a Korn fanboy can defend technical skill over other criteria.

EDIT: To I am Vikingcore

[i am the robots]

Using the basketball analogy, let's say that a technically proficient guitarist is like, say, a great jump shooter.

Now let's assume you put them in a situation where they have to apply their skills (like a game, or writing for and recording an album). And let's assume that even though they definitely show off their skills, their overall product is junk (yeah the jump shooter hit a few open jump shots, but he couldn't play D, set up teammates, rebound, etc.; and the guitarist had great chops, but couldn't write anything remotely interesting).

Wouldn't that mean that they suck, so to speak?

That would mean they suck as a team player though. Somebody who could hit a good open shot should wait at a longer range and try to stay open. That would be like saying a guitarist who just wanks their way through an entire song sucks at playing in a band (Matt Heafy for example), however many technically proficient guitarists put equal output in the songwriting to other members of bands, such as Jesper Stromblad.

In common parlance, 'sucks' just implies you don't like them. It does not necessarily have to do with ability or technical skill.
I find it funny that a Korn fanboy can defend technical skill over other criteria.

EDIT: To I am Vikingcore

It's funny that I hardly every listen to Korn anymore :angry:.

[Illmatic]

What the hell are you blathering about?

[i am the robots]

No, I meant that in a situation that is something other than exhibition of their skills (ie, a three point shootout or a pregame shootaround), they are totally expendable.

I wouldn't say a man with a good jump shot is expendable, I used to play center, and it was normal that the team would want to get it to me underneath the hoop, right? But say I'd be risking getting blocked and hacked to ****, wouldn't it be best for me to get the ball to somebody who's outside and open who can make that shot? In case they miss, so what I'd be down there for the rebound, you know? Every member of a band is like a member of a team.

[Moses]

I wouldn't say a man with a good jump shot is expendable, I used to play center, and it was normal that the team would want to get it to me underneath the hoop, right? But say I'd be risking getting blocked and hacked to ****, wouldn't it be best for me to get the ball to somebody who's outside and open who can make that shot? In case they miss, so what I'd be down there for the rebound, you know? Every member of a band is like a member of a team.
So you're saying that if you have a technically skilled guitarist you should use it? I'm sorry but that's kind of irrelevant. The point is that the player isn't good for the team if they're only good for one thing.

[The Gates Of Heaven]

I find often when talking to metalheads that the general opinion holds in most that metal knowlege is valued highest. This I find is ultimately something that metalheads will hide behind to assert some sort of authority over other metalheads, which is stupid and counterproductive when discussing metal.

Somebody that listens to obscurer metal is most probably more dedicated to the music. If somebody has been listening to metal a long time, has a good knowledge, then they should be thought of as a good source of information and refined taste, whereas somebody who started listening to metal 6 months ago would obviously not be held in the same respect.

A few months ago I was at one of those pointless social occasions where people swallow large amounts of alcohol in order to "enhance" their social skills, where there were a couple of absent brained metalheads. As I myself enjoy metal I conversed with these. The vacuumhead proclaimed very early in our meeting that he could probably name twice as many metal bands as I could. I didn't accept the challange, if it was a challange, I really couldn't care less about asserting authority over him, or anyone. I feel securer in myself than that. Like most discussions with metalheads I encounter at gigs or whatever the discussion is

I agree with this part, that challenge is pretty gay, like a ****ing ****-measuring contest.

If somebody doesn't know Finntroll they probably don't know jack **** about Viking Metal, but Viking Metal is pretty gay anyway (as are Finntroll) and this would say nothing about one's knowledge on extreme metal.

[Illmatic]

I wouldn't say a man with a good jump shot is expendable, I used to play center, and it was normal that the team would want to get it to me underneath the hoop, right? But say I'd be risking getting blocked and hacked to ****, wouldn't it be best for me to get the ball to somebody who's outside and open who can make that shot? In case they miss, so what I'd be down there for the rebound, you know? Every member of a band is like a member of a team.

A guy who can hit a jumper is not expendable. A guy who can only hit jumpers certainly is. You might appreciate it when he's open and hits a few in a game, but you'll be cursing the fool out when you're playing 4-on-5 most of the time on both ends of the court because he is useless on offense unless the defense doesn't make it's rotations on the outside, and on defense due to the fact that he couldn't stop a statue. Eventually he'll be buried on the bench while someone who can help the team in many more ways.

In a band, it is like that, or at least it should. Sometimes a guy with a spectacular skill but no way to use it in a song or album should just be cut.

[The Gates Of Heaven]

It's remarkably stupid? Not really.

When somebody sucks at basketball, it means they can't play? Correct?
When somebody sucks at drawing, it means they can't draw? Correct?
When somebody sucks at making music, it's completely different though, that makes a whole lot of sense...

You are an idiot. The drawing: it all relies on individuals' opinions as to whether or not that person sucks at drawing because as with music everybody has different taste. You did not answer anything at all you mindless semi-evolved simian.

[Amit]

What are you gonna do? Call me a metal snob? You're whole freaking arguement is based off the fact that you don't like metal. Stop posting in here, nobody cares that you like jazz, go post about it in the Jazz and Funk forum.

ahahahahahahaha

good job owning this noob, eelmatik :D

...and everyone else too...i guess vikingcore isn't well liked around here?

hmm after reading a bit more...vikingcore:

you kind of sort of really lost any relevance to this discussion when you compared art to sports ahaha omg

[Dave de Sylvia]

It's remarkably stupid? Not really.

When somebody sucks at basketball, it means they can't play? Correct?
When somebody sucks at drawing, it means they can't draw? Correct?
When somebody sucks at making music, it's completely different though, that makes a whole lot of sense...
So we can measure how good a band is by how many basketball games they win, or am I just way off?

[Apocalyptic Raids]

Uh urrong

Opeth > whatever you listen to. They aren't remarkably technical, they just write kickass songs.
Opeth write boring songs.

[I'm Charming]

Uh urrong

Opeth > whatever you listen to. They aren't remarkably technical, they just write kickass songs.

Kinda funny to have a post like that in the anti elitist thread.


Opeth write boring songs.

Opinion....

Most people would not agree with that...

Opeth writes great songs.

[The Gates Of Heaven]

Most people would agree with Jon but I would certainly expect a COB fan to make something out of such mediocre garbage as Opeth.

[Cockfight Champion]

It's possible this is all just a hilarious product of miscommunication. So try this.

We agree that elements of a piece of music (such as structural complexity and physical accuracy of the playing) can be measured empirically.

The bit that gets me is this ...

Hell,you can think the most well-crafted piece of art in the world sounds like a load of garbage(me on Mozart,f.ex.) but that doesn´t change a thing about its objective value.

We agree that my opinion doesn't change the mathematically measurable (aka objective) values. We may also agree that some formula could theoretically be devised such that an overall mathematical objective value can be applied to a piece of music.

But do we agree that the degree of goodness or badness that may be attributed to that empirical value is entirely subjective? In other words, that for the given empirical value of the piece, the overall value remains subjective?

If so, sweet, we're somewhere on the same page.

If not ... what the hell, I'll address your other post just for kicks.





The artist knows what he wants his piece to sound like(if he´s composing outright.Improvisation != composition.DUH!),thus has a blueprint in his mind that he tries to put to sound somehow. The degree of accuracy with which he manages to create the desired effect is the objective value.
Improvisation,on the other hand,has little to no blueprint per se.Much the same as "invention",it´s a series experiments.Some turn out successful,some don´t.

Again,you (intentionally?) missed the point.

No dude, I got your point. You can find objective measures for elements of the whole.

What I did was explain that your statement that "The musician´s goal is exactly the same as the carpenter´s" is subjective because it isn't true for all musicians.

I SAID I´m leaving physics out of this.Besides,let´s put it this way:
I´m sitting on a chair. That´s a fact.There´s NOTHING relative about that. Same goes for most things in life.

I get what you mean but you brought up scientific laws, not me. Besides, sitting on a chair is an irrelevant example. It's a statement that relies not on a value judgement but on an agreed definition of "sitting".

"Objective values can be applied but they fit only within a certain reference frame, not universally."

Incorrect.Apples grow on apple trees.Music is sound.ETC.

Again, your statements are definitive in character, not value judgements at all.

"But it's only objective within the group of music fans who hold that those things have that value."

No,it´s not. Wether or not a musician manages to accurately display his musical vision in a piece is not subjective.It doesn´t matter if you think differently, those charachteristics I´ve desribed and clarified do not depend on wether or not the listener assigns value to them,they exist anyway and thus are empirically provable ergo objective.

Sure, the empirically measurable values are objective, we agree there. But my statement isn't about judging the value of the accuracy objectively, it's about judging the extent to which that value contributes to the overall quality of the art (which is subjective by definition).

(To put it another way, the accuracy and complexity of the music are only two elements of many which combine to give a piece its overall value. That group of fans decides that 98% playing accuracy makes for good music. Another group prefers a looser feel and find that anything over 95% sounds sterile. Both groups could measure and agree on an objective measure of the accuracy of the playing in a piece. But they disagree on whether the accuracy makes the music good, hence the overall value of the piece is subjective.)

My earlier statement that, "Across the entire spectrum of fans the value of those aspects (and every other aspect of music) is purely subjective", refers not to the empirical measure of the aspect but to the value each person puts on that aspect's contribution to the whole.

[rhcp pman]

Most people would agree with Jon but I would certainly expect a COB fan to make something out of such mediocre garbage as Opeth.
So how is Opeth mediocre garbage?

[I'm Charming]

So why do you think Opeth is mediocre garbage?

Or bash CoB fans...


CoB > you

[Slapping Penguin]

Originally Posted By Jude
Metal also tends toward wankery, over-extremity for its own sake, pretension, and of course the fact that it's a whole genre that relies on a specific range of distortion sounds from one instrument.

Plus every metal fan that goes on and on about how intricate and well-planned and complicated their favorite band's songs are is owned by classical.


Yes, as much as we MXers would like to think many of metal fans out there are not like us. The metal heads on this forum are all pretty cool guys but in reality alot are total pigheaded ignorate fools and not well thought and intelligent indivduals like most here.

To your statement Jude, to me those sounds of distortion that metal is ranged on you say, have become the almost natural sounds I am accoustomed when listening to that metal. To myself metal using distrotion is not trying really to be heavy so much but that its just using as what could be viewed as its natural metal sound. Other forums of music I find to be heavier without distortion and loud drums etc. Certain Jazz I find to be heavy like Thelnoius Monk when with his band. Sometimes its just so eractic and crazy plonking Piano with the drums and Trumpet etc that I perseve it to be as heavy as metal at moments. The note patternes can be crazy and even more disjointed then metal. Metal has talent in the idea that containing complex music in heavy sounds. If you distorted some Jazz it would sound alwful but metal uses it effectely to acheive its goals. Classical music sometimes even has note patterns and structures heavy and more eractic then metal but effectively carries these melodies through with its brillant composing. Is Classical is entire genre based on cleans? Does it make any worse, does it matter what sounds people us? To myself Classical is one of the highest peaks in music in compostion, arrangment, exuction, consirderation, skill and techniquality.This is why I see it as one of my top three most respected and liked genres. Jazz is another of those three along with its vision, techniquality, improvistion, exuction etc. And for MY final place in the top three Metal. For me its is the only one of these genres that can so easily accomadate elements of other genres into it. Including classical and jazz, although mabye not as entirely always as skilled as Jazz and Classical all the time, its vision, its ablity to be modified and changed and dedication it has a place with the other greats to myself.


So how is Opeth mediocre garbage?

Its not worth agruing with this guy. Just leave it, he will just fob you off as ignorate.

Why don't you like them Gates? Is a reason you view them as such garbage.

Opeth write boring songs.

Jon:eek: How could you say that,

yeah I already knew :upset:

[rhcp pman]

Its not worth agruing with this guy. Just leave it, he will just fob you off as ignorate.

Why don't you like them Gates? Is a reason you view them as such garbage.

I guess I won't argue with him. I can accept if he says he doesn't like their songwriting (or just doesn't like them), but calling them garbage is just being biased. Most people who are this biased against Opeth, are biased because:

a.) They don't like progressive music. Or if they do, they don't like that kind of prog (yes, there are many types).

b.) They don't have good attention spans

c.) They just simply haven't given them enough of a chance

d.) They think it's pussy to use an acoustic guitar or have soft parts in death metal.

e.) They hate that many people like Opeth and they would rather be of kult status and be loyal to underground bands.

f.) They feel that the guitarwork isn't as technical as John Petrucci or Yngwie Malmsteen etc.

g.) They listen to Mikael Akerfeldt and dismiss him as crap because he doesn't use vibrato that conforms to a sine graph. Or they can't accept that Akerfeldt came 3rd in a vocalists poll.

h.) They feel that regardless of how skilled a drummer is, he must have constant double bass blasting going in the background.

There's a difference between disliking a band and being completely biased against them.

[Riva]

So how is Opeth mediocre garbage?

They are mediocore to me, maybe not garbage, but definitely mediocore.

Especially since their songs go nowhere in all that time they have.

Oh, I'll listen to Morningrise, and maybe Blackwater Park on occasion, but I really can't listen to them for long periods of time.

[Slapping Penguin]

They are mediocore to me, maybe not garbage, but definitely mediocore.

Especially since their songs go nowhere in all that time they have.

Oh, I'll listen to Morningrise, and maybe Blackwater Park on occasion, but I really can't listen to them for long periods of time.

Thats cool, because thats an accepted opinion with a reason. Each to his own, for me yeah its drawn out but with them I enjoy that. If you accept someone has talent who obviously does but don't like them I will hear you out but just to dismiss as rubbish without reason is immature. (not really applying to you Jason)

[Dave de Sylvia]

RIP Opinions. We'll miss you :upset:

[rhcp pman]

They are mediocore to me, maybe not garbage, but definitely mediocore.

Especially since their songs go nowhere in all that time they have.

Oh, I'll listen to Morningrise, and maybe Blackwater Park on occasion, but I really can't listen to them for long periods of time.
That's fair enough. It's a justified opinion. Meanwhile, Morningrise can drag on a bit, even if the riffs are pretty good. But like the guy above me, I don't mind much if they play a riff 3 times instead of 2 times in a row.

[Jude]

They are mediocore to me, maybe not garbage, but definitely mediocore.

Especially since their songs go nowhere in all that time they have.

Oh, I'll listen to Morningrise, and maybe Blackwater Park on occasion, but I really can't listen to them for long periods of time.
Your opinion > Apocalyptic Raids' retarded blathering.

On that note Opeth are unquestionably one of the most creative, talented, innovative and above all soulful bands in metal. Soul is something most metal lacks, that's probably the biggest reason I can't get into it.

[i am the robots]

Most people would agree with Jon but I would certainly expect a COB fan to make something out of such mediocre garbage as Opeth.

Dude, your opinion is a minority, and oftentimes retarded. You try too hard, you say generic nsbm slogans when you have no arguement, and you claim to be a neo-nazi when the only basis for that is because some bands you like have anti-jew lyrics. Children of Bodom isn't the greatest thing ever, but who gives a damn? Because he likes them his opinion is automatically invalid? Get your head out of your *** man.

[Dave de Sylvia]

you claim to be a neo-nazi
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I need to see this

[Amit]

RIP Opinions. We'll miss you :upset:

AMEN

[Dragon_Prince]

Mhm ...

My view, if there wasn't a thing such as shallow eltism in metal, then this thread would have died, 'cause no one would have felt offended...

And it doesn't matter how much you know about music. It's about what someone thinks about the music he listens. And people should respect everyone there opinions.

[Kingofdudes]

Soul is something most metal lacks, that's probably the biggest reason I can't get into it.
lol

[Dave de Sylvia]

lol
I almost plotzed when I read that. The mercury in my bullshit meter boiled.

[Kingofdudes]

I almost plotzed when I read that. The mercury in my bullshit meter boiled.
I know dude, everyone knows that slipknot has the most soles. I mean they got like 9 people in that band, thats a lot of feet.

[Dried Muffin Remnants]

New genre? mediocore?

[Dave de Sylvia]

I know dude, everyone knows that slipknot has the most soles. I mean they got like 9 people in that band, thats a lot of feet.
Yeah man that's like... 9 feet!

[Hammerheart]

New genre? mediocore?

This genre sounds like rock fused hardcore punk latin.:confused:

[Dave de Sylvia]

This genre sounds like rock fused hardcore punk latin.:confused:
No, it's '90s Metallica.

[Hammerheart]

No, it's '90s Metallica.

Actually, that would be classified as ****core.

[Ve Das]

That's my post that he quoted.


I think we´ve achieved a synthesis here :)

Anyways,due to exams,my thinking capacity´s pretty much maxed out,I´ll adress any issues that require comprehension and rational thought tomorrow,I´ll just fück things up today.

[RustedPieces]

The guys I talked to at Gigantour were pretty cool about it. Whenever someone didn't know about a band we were talking about someone would fill them in. They were totally understanding and cool.

[Ve Das]

It's possible this is all just a hilarious product of miscommunication. So try this.


Maybe.English ain´t my first language...
I´ll check out the rest of your post tomorrow,when I´m fully functional :-)

[Cockfight Champion]

It's worth remembering that metal isn't alone in being held as a comfort blanket by some insecure elitists. Indie, punk, classical and jazz have exactly the same problem.

[Ve Das]

There´s nothin wrong with being an elitist as long as you don´t try to infringe on people´s rights by doing so :-)

[Amit]

There's nothing wrong with being an elitist as long as you know what you're talking about and understand the boundaries of objectivity and subjectivity XD

[Dave de Sylvia]

There's nothing wrong with being an elitist as long as you shut up.

[Moses]

There's nothing wrong with being an elitist as long as you know what you're talking about and understand the boundaries of objectivity and subjectivity XD
Then you're not really an elitist.

[Jude]

It's worth remembering that metal isn't alone in being held as a comfort blanket by some insecure elitists. Indie, punk, classical and jazz have exactly the same problem.
I wouldn't say to the same extent though. And what about just regular *** rock? You never see rock elitists. Or hell, rap or country elitists for that matter.

[Shadius]

Yeah, but I couldn't hang out with elitists all that much, because i'd start to think they were cocks if they didn't just relax a bit with their opinions.

There's being opinionated, and then there's some people i've seen on here and met IRL who overstep it by a long shot and it affects their personalities.