Album Rating: 4.5 | Sound Off

Heading to this only now (please don't report me)

"That main riff is just awful I'm sorry.



DING DANG DONG

DING DANG DONG"

get the hell out of here

Nothing wrong with some ding dongs here and there.

Album Rating: 3.5 | Sound Off

ding dang dong my god

Album Rating: 2.5

It sounds like Satan's doorbell but in really a bad way

Album Rating: 5.0

this album would've been better with less standard-esque bm drums imo

i have this weird collegue whos not into metal at all and whenever he hears some shreds hes making that weird ass noises in a poor attempt to mimic what it sounds like. u remind me of this dude

et voilà

5

Album Rating: 2.5

Loved everything else. Inversion just ruffles my feathers in the worst way.

Album Rating: 3.5 | Sound Off

its not bad like u describing but its the worst or 2nd worst song prob

Album Rating: 4.5

@Solrage – In reaction to your first comment:

I find no disagreement with your first few admission, so I’ll promptly proceed to the points you’ve formulated in your second paragraph. I fail to see what might justify your less that sceptical attitude towards the concept of culturally transcendental archetypes. I feel you commit a rather flagrant logical fallacy here: “While I might agree there is no science currently that can confirm that such "collective unconscious" elements exist, I think it's difficult to deny their prevalence when one looks around at the art of various cultures.” You argue there is no valid scientific evidence which would make an appeal to the existence of archetypes empirically tenable, yet you simultaneously claim, purely anecdotally, citing no evidence, that these phenomena are prevalent; it seems as if you’re contradicting yourself here. If there is no evidence to substantiate your claim of prevalence, your point seems exceedingly spurious. Yet my fundamental problem with archetypes is that they can never be adequately proven to exist for a very clear reason: when comparing to seemingly discrete elements, if they are not fundamentally identical, to claim they are the same is inescapably subjectivity and relative: what might appear similar to one individual might be entirely dissimilar to another, depending upon their specific interpretative frameworks, which themselves are relative to socio-cultural and historical forces.

Take Zizek’s critique of Peterson’s archetypal dichotomy between order and chaos. Whether something ought to be considered a symbolic representation of the archetype of order or a symbolic representation of the archetype of chaos, will always be relative to the observers perspective; i.e. While a border might represent order to some, since it embodies the demarcation of the known, for others it might constitute a chaos, for it signifies to transition of the known into the unknown. There is really no non-relative, scientific way to determine which perspective is more valid than any other. The relativism inherent in Jung’s perspective is totally inescapable. Moreover, the criteria by which one might define what constitutes an archetype, what its level of prevalence ought to be, are equally as historically contingent and culturally conditioned as the perspective which employs them. Archetypal distinctions such as the ”monomyth” are therefore as non-trascendental, as the language which is used to express them. Therefore, the concept itself will ever transcend the cultural milieu within which it was conceived. (1)

Album Rating: 4.5

@Solrage – In reaction to your second comment:

While I agree with your argument that our genetically predisposed liking towards pattern-seeking behaviour itself has played a role in shaping musical history. This in no way accounts, certainly not directly, or meaningfully indirectly, for which specific tonal patterns exist within which socio-cultural contexts and why precisely they do so. In order to find out, you’d have to historicize these phenomena, and I think reducing them down to evolutionary tendencies which occurred in totally different environments and are temporally divided from the expression itself, is simply untenable. To illustrate my point: if we were to imagine tonality first emerged as a biological adaptation which was only contingent upon environment insofar that environment helped shape the pre-historical or neolithic brain which conceived of it, to probably explain why this adaptation exists in the form it does now, even if fundamentally unchanged, in a non-reductive manner requires a historical and cultural framework. For it is through that framework we can situate within a certain historical progression, explain how and why it was integrated into society, reproduced, altered, expressed, formulated, regimented, propagated. Evolutionary psychology offers us as much explanatory capacity towards this issue as does the big-bang theory in explaining why I was born.

Sure, it is ultimately related, but it offers us no meaningful inspiration, for to return to a state in which it did, is to ignore thousands of years of historical metamorphosis, occurring across cultural contexts, in a diverse array of forms. One can imagine humans could understand recognize patterns in atonality, as your source doesn’t rule out, if it had been as actively integrated into the cultural framework as tonal music. Due to certain historical conditions however, mainly I do think, the preceding pre-eminence of tonal music and an initial refusal to accept set changes prevented it’s seemingly incomprehensible patterns from becoming banalized into a widely accepted cultural framework. You have to remember, the ways in which a society deals with the genetic dispositions of its members is equally socio-cultural and historically contingent, as is the language through which these dispositions are formulated and frameworks through which they are interpreted. Evolutionary psychology, is and of itself, culturally and historically contingent. So, yes, tonality is indeed a universal, as is music itself, but it’s universality can only be meaningfully explained through social constructivist framework. Which has always been my main argument. Not the absence of its universality, but historical contingency of it. (2)

Album Rating: 4.5

@Solrage – In reaction to your third comment:

I think the cultural environments of 19th century Germany within which Wagner and Mahler largely operated are significantly different from the cultural environments of modern Europe, especially post-first-world-war period Europe within which Schoenberg and Webern operated. You’re dealing with a different form of capitalist organization, a different cultural environment in total economic disarray, which offered a far better context for the subversion of musical frameworks than pre-world war imperial Germany with its highly traditionalistic societal structures. Thus, I think the term ‘dissimilar’ is a rather severe understatement, especially considering the fact we’re talking about one of the most impactful historical periods of human history, rife with monumental changes, whose reverberations we’re still experiencing today in all manner of forms. I think only a socio-cultural explanations would suffice here, although more so for the reason listed in my second comment. Moreover, tonal experimentations on the level of Wagner or Debussy I think shouldn’t be conflated with the radical departure atonality constituted. Even so, a slight socio-cultural change, is still a socio-cultural change, so I don’t how this is of any pertinence to our discussion.

“Why atonality has taken on this cultural “meaning”, meaning is probably the most socio-cultural, non-evolutionary concept I can think of. Appreciation and dominance of one cultural mode over another is something which, like all things occurring within a cultural-history, must be situated within its own appropriate socio-economic and socio-cultural timeframe. Your last batch of associations between atonality and chaos are too personal for me to comment one. “You may be equally sceptical…anything more than “evolutionary psychology in disguise.” Again, I think socio-cultural and historical factors are the only thing which can directly account for anything which is in character, fundamentally cultural and historicized as I elucidated in my second remark. The end of this quote, I think is therefore highly reductive. “Why cultures with very…when it was introduced there”. Cultural integration is a fundamentally cultural and historical process for which evolution cannot account, for it is not an adaptation, but a deeply social and historically contingent phenomena, as is tonality itself. (3)

Do you guys not have WhatsApp?

Album Rating: 4.5

I'm not just going hand over my phone number to a stranger. Besides, if these comments annoy you, just ignore them. It's not as if they're depriving you of your ability to comment...

i think the walls of text every few hours are very funny so carry on

post it in his shoutbox. Your comments are going to be removed by willie

that would be even funnier in a way

Album Rating: 2.5

Jesus christ I thought these paragraph posts were over

nothing is ever over for the past is the future and all is one