Black Metal.

[Alter]

Agreed. And just as Muslims do as well, simply that both try to convert using different means (Although Christianity's history is filled with violence as a means to convert), but, both are just as bad as each other.

If you ask me, the only things good to come out of those religions are a handful of charities, art, and music. The rest is a fucking load of bullshit. Sure, a Christian will tell you those good factors are a by-product of Christianity but in truth this is also total bullshit. It is a by-product of faith, of devotion and nothing more. Fuck the Church and fuck the Mosque too.

NO

 

[thisisaformicatable]

No i dont try to convert people. There for you are not 100% right.

You believe people are going to hell and you don't try to help them? How do you sleep at night?

Is that meant to be a complament?

More on observation on the entertainment created by individuals such as yourself.

 

[~Derek~]

Its probably my upbringing. My family and their church (which one of those so-called "progressive yet fundamentalist new wave rock n roll churches) thinks I'm going to hell because I'm pagan, I swear a lot, and I don't believe in abstinence. plus I occasionally smoke the weed. She wanted me to play in the church band. I declined.

the fact that you think what Gorgoroth does is equal to what fundamentalist Christians do is ridiculous. Christians really lay it on thick. most Satanists believe in individualism. Christians draw a line in the sand, either you conform or you don't, and if you don't, you will be condemned for all eternity in a pit of fire.

My family's Southern Baptist beliefs are very consrvative and very narrow-minded, I doubt the church people who really go by the ideology think wathcing The Simpsons and South Park isn't a bad sin, much less listneing to Deicide and Dark Funeral like I do. They think I'm going to Hell because I'm an atheist but they believe if you're not a Christian you to Hell, no matter what, I'm glad I got out of that mentality.
Gorgoroth's giving their opinion on things, not preaching.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Well it does, actually. Notice that virtually all black metal artists express views that are consistent, in a broad sense, with a particular worldview. As far as metal goes, "black" is the subgenre signifier most closely identified with the theme of the art. To pretend it isn't for a handful of bands diminishes the usefulness of black metal as a concept.

Yes. But you can't tell me that not one single band has ideologies that differ from the rest of the bands in the genre.

A coincidence? How? They had ideas - they came up with music that was suitable for expressing it. How is that in any way a coincidence?

It's a coincidence that the sounds of black metal correspond with the given ideologies so well. My point is that if you take away the lyrical themes without changing the music, the genre tag remains the same.

How do you think music is written? People just randomly select sounds to match up with the ideas they want to express? Ever notice that the sound of a band's music will often change as their ideas do? More coincidences?

I'm not denying this. There is no doubt that ideology was a major influence (especially on the second wave of black metal). What I'm trying to say is that bands are now playing black metal today that carry their own ideologies that differ from the second wave. These bands were most likely influenced by the second wave bands in terms of musical ideas alone and then applied their own ideas to reflect with the music. I'll admit that Christianity in black metal is awkward and out of place but the music is the most important and should have the most impact when placing a band in a genre.

Why? Why does the perception of the uninformed listener trump reality?

You make classifying genres more complicated than they need to be. Do you see bands with Christian themes as black metal in disguise? One doesn't need to understand the non-musically related ideas behind a genre to be able to listen to it and understand what it is musically. The ideologies were definitely important in inventing the style of music we know as black metal but are not essential for newer bands that play the same music style but have different ideas. Newer bands with different ideals than the second wave take their influences from the second wave of black metal from a musical standpoint. In other words, the influence of newer black metal doesn't come from the ideologies that influenced the second wave of black metal but rather the music itself that the second wave created.

 

[Hubster]

Well it's about time this thread woke up , it's been dormant for a while

 

[skeptik]

It's a coincidence that the sounds of black metal correspond with the given ideologies so well.

How so? You've said this multiple times, but unfortunately repetition does not create truth. The sounds chosen by the artists to correspond to the lyrical and ideological content is not a coincidence, but a demonstration of explicit intent. Those sounds were chosen because of the relation they share aurally with the lyrics verbally. It is not random, and it is certainly not a coincidence. A coincidence of musical sounds would be found in some experimental work of somebody like John Cage, where processes are used to randomly select pieces.

My point is that if you take away the lyrical themes without changing the music, the genre tag remains the same.

The only thing that is not subject to change in light of lyrical content is the aural delivery that the listener experiences. Of course the genre tag is subject to change in light of the lyrics, because, contrary to widely held belief, myself formerly among them, lyrical content is crucial to to overarching conceptual classification, especially within Black Metal. While it may sound the same, that does not mean that it falls within the same category. Your aural experience of a piece of music relative only to the sounds that are produced is not the full picture of the piece, and any judgment built from only this perception is one of assumptive reasoning. One cannot possibly 100% accurately classify a piece of music merely by listening to it when the message being conveyed through the piece is not clear, and this is almost always the case in Black Metal. This is why Christian "Black" Metal bands are so easily mistaken a Black Metal, because it "sounds" like Black Metal, and the argument is presented that if one did not know that the band was Christian, one would say that it is Black Metal. This is a fallacious proposal, unfortunately, due to the fact that it is assuming that one should be able to classify a piece of music without the full context of the piece, so this argument has no genuine merit.

I'm not denying this. There is no doubt that ideology was a major influence (especially on the second wave of black metal). What I'm trying to say is that bands are now playing black metal today that carry their own ideologies that differ from the second wave. These bands were most likely influenced by the second wave bands in terms of musical ideas alone and then applied their own ideas to reflect with the music. I'll admit that Christianity in black metal is awkward and out of place but the music is the most important and should have the most impact when placing a band in a genre.

Can you cite a non-Christian band as an example of ideology that strays so far from the origins of the ideological basis of Black Metal that it could not be considered Black Metal under the ideological classification any more than a Christian band would? I would be very impressed if you could.

You make classifying genres more complicated than they need to be. Do you see bands with Christian themes as black metal in disguise? One doesn't need to understand the non-musically related ideas behind a genre to be able to listen to it and understand what it is musically. The ideologies were definitely important in inventing the style of music we know as black metal but are not essential for newer bands that play the same music style but have different ideas. Newer bands with different ideals than the second wave take their influences from the second wave of black metal from a musical standpoint. In other words, the influence of newer black metal doesn't come from the ideologies that influenced the second wave of black metal but rather the music itself that the second wave created.

Yes one does. The ideology and lyrics are a part of the music, and can easily dramatically alter the listener's perception of the piece.

Newer 'Black' Metal that does not take influence from the ideological framework of Black Metal is not really Black Metal then, is it? Only aesthetically on the aural front does it at all resemble what we understand as Black Metal in that case, and that is not a sufficient basis upon which to classify a band as in line with the Black Metal concept.

 

[Hell Awaits Us All]

rotting christ cd "passage to arcturo + non serviam" is awessome

ya, I'm a black metal n00b

 

[George]

Of course the genre tag is subject to change in light of the lyrics, because, contrary to widely held belief, myself formerly among them, lyrical content is crucial to to overarching conceptual classification, especially within Black Metal.

This sums it up perfectly. Took the words right out of my mouth. If people are so quick to dismiss lyrics and focus on solely the music, why the interest in genre labels?

 

[unknown]

wheee this is fun. let's go into hypothetical mode...


so let's say there's this band...they dress up in corpsepaint, take pictures late at night in forests and in cemetaries...wield medieval weapons...they follow all of the ideologies and stereotypes associated with black metal except they play...I don't know jazz or prog or something? It seems as though they have every box checked on the black metal requirements list except for the music part. What do we call them? Satanic Jazzcore? Um. Black prog?

Or what if we have an instrumental black metal band that never conducts interviews, is on its own independent label, and never prints a single word aside from promoting its album (and the promotion is sparse, minimalism, no graphics or anything...just "BUY THIS ALBUM FROM <INSTRUMENTAL BLACK METAL BAND>. IT'S REALLY GOOD. YOU'LL LIKE IT.") What do we call them?

 

[Manic Ferocity]

How so? You've said this multiple times, but unfortunately repetition does not create truth. The sounds chosen by the artists to correspond to the lyrical and ideological content is not a coincidence, but a demonstration of explicit intent. Those sounds were chosen because of the relation they share aurally with the lyrics verbally. It is not random, and it is certainly not a coincidence. A coincidence of musical sounds would be found in some experimental work of somebody like John Cage, where processes are used to randomly select pieces.

It isn't a coincidence based on the bands motives as musicians. I'm not denying the fact that the bands were trying to create an "evil" sound that parallels their beliefs. I was trying to say that bands can be classified as black metal based on an "evil" sound with any lyrical theme. Their are also many other dark subject matters that don't fall under the "black metal ideology" category that can easily work with the music. It's coincidence in the fact that the subject of anti-christian/pagan/viking beliefs was the first of the "dark" subject matters to be applied to black metal. I'm assuming that no Christian black metal bands that are taken seriously have "happy" lyrical themes anyway based on the music so the subject of "dark" subject matter can be applied to Christian themes as well as black metal.

The only thing that is not subject to change in light of lyrical content is the aural delivery that the listener experiences. Of course the genre tag is subject to change in light of the lyrics, because, contrary to widely held belief, myself formerly among them, lyrical content is crucial to to overarching conceptual classification, especially within Black Metal. While it may sound the same, that does not mean that it falls within the same category. Your aural experience of a piece of music relative only to the sounds that are produced is not the full picture of the piece, and any judgment built from only this perception is one of assumptive reasoning. One cannot possibly 100% accurately classify a piece of music merely by listening to it when the message being conveyed through the piece is not clear, and this is almost always the case in Black Metal. This is why Christian "Black" Metal bands are so easily mistaken a Black Metal, because it "sounds" like Black Metal, and the argument is presented that if one did not know that the band was Christian, one would say that it is Black Metal. This is a fallacious proposal, unfortunately, due to the fact that it is assuming that one should be able to classify a piece of music without the full context of the piece, so this argument has no genuine merit.

Lyrical themes are important in describing the music being played but does not dictate what it's classified as. People don't seem to understand that black metal IS, first and foremost, a music genre, not an extremist movement. The church burnings, national socialism, and pagan beliefs are a separate ordeal that the music artists just happen to have the desire to express through music (for whatever reason). Black metal could have easily existed without the "inner circle" in my opinion. Of course, this was the primary influence, but to say that a band can't be black metal despite having the same musical characteristics as the originators is illogical.

Can you cite a non-Christian band as an example of ideology that strays so far from the origins of the ideological basis of Black Metal that it could not be considered Black Metal under the ideological classification any more than a Christian band would? I would be very impressed if you could.

No, but once again, if you were to hear a Christian black metal band that has all the characteristics of black metal except for the lyrics, the band doesn't miraculously change genres based on that. I may not be looking at it from a "deeper concept of black metal" but I think most people would classify the given band as black metal assuming it has the expected characteristics based on the music.

Yes one does. The ideology and lyrics are a part of the music, and can easily dramatically alter the listener's perception of the piece.

Newer 'Black' Metal that does not take influence from the ideological framework of Black Metal is not really Black Metal then, is it? Only aesthetically on the aural front does it at all resemble what we understand as Black Metal in that case, and that is not a sufficient basis upon which to classify a band as in line with the Black Metal concept.

Most people don't know the lyrics upon initial listen of a given band. Your forgetting the fact that, despite having certain concepts, music is just music and some people see it from a "trance-like" perspective. In other words, if a person is to listen to a band and hear the "dark" and "cold" feeling that the musical merits of black metal give off, the first thing that comes to their mind (assuming they know their shit) is "this is black metal". The lyrics do not change this because they don't have an effect as much as the musical merits of black metal do.

 

[skeptik]

The first one is obviously not Black Metal, the second one is possibly aesthetically Black Metal, but the conceptual basis can't be determined.

 

[unknown]

In my opinion, it all (of course) ultimately falls on the listener. I approach music from a musician's standpoint. I listen to music to hear interesting melodies and harmonies weave in and out of each other. I like to hear guitar riffs and drum patterns you don't find everyday. If I can hear the bass clearly in the mix, and the bassist isn't just playing what the guitar is playing, I'm likely to cream my pants.

I listen to a lot of music with lyrics in different languages, and often times, there are no translations provided. Does this decrease my appreciation of the band or its music? Not at all. The message doesn't matter to me, and even if I could understand their message, it won't affect (effect? whatever) my view on things. The voice is an instrument (loosely speaking). This is a lot of times showcased easily in jazz or blues. Ella Fitzgerald is my favorite example, but any female jazz singer will more than likely suffice. She would go off on, what I guess you'd say, are vocal solos that really have no meaning other than to enhance the quality of the music. Similarly, in metal, vocalists are likely to growl, scream, or just say "Hey" or something else at random points in a song. It has no message, and it has no meaning.

I'm not entirely sure where I was going with that, but I think what I was getting at was something like genre labels are just these things that we construct to pigeonhole music productions in order to make it easier for ourselves to handle things (which it clearly hasn't), so I guess the concept of "genres" or labelling a style of music is a ridiculous gray area; and that a "label" ultimately means nothing. whatever makes the listener happy.

yeah, that's what it's about. happiness.

 

[skeptik]

bands can be classified as black metal based on an "evil" sound with any lyrical theme. Their are also many other dark subject matters that don't fall under the "black metal ideology" category that can easily work with the music. It's coincidence in the fact that the subject of anti-christian/pagan/viking beliefs was the first of the "dark" subject matters to be applied to black metal. I'm assuming that no Christian black metal bands that are taken seriously have "happy" lyrical themes anyway based on the music so the subject of "dark" subject matter can be applied to Christian themes as well as black metal.

I'm afraid you're still wrong about it being a coincidence. The artists chose that style of music because they felt that it properly evoked the same emotions given off by their lyrics and the atmosphere that they meant to convey. The fact that the music can possibly correspond to other things doesn't make it a coincidence. What it does do, however, is heighten the importance of lyrics in order to classify a piece of music, since the music itself can reflect so many different things.

Lyrical themes are important in describing the music being played but does not dictate what it's classified as. People don't seem to understand that black metal IS, first and foremost, a music genre, not an extremist movement. The church burnings, national socialism, and pagan beliefs are a separate ordeal that the music artists just happen to have the desire to express through music (for whatever reason). Black metal could have easily existed without the "inner circle" in my opinion. Of course, this was the primary influence, but to say that a band can't be black metal despite having the same musical characteristics as the originators is illogical.

From a surface, aesthetics standpoint, Black Metal is "first and foremost" a music genre, but in reality, it is absolutely impossible to unentangle it from the ideology. The ideology is at least as important as the music itself in determining what is Black Metal from a conceptual standpoint. To take such a surface understanding of the genre is insulting to the intellectual integrity found in certain regions of the genre, though there will always be the tryhards and also ran cult kiddies worshiping Satan. Finally, it is illogical to say that a band can't not be Black Metal despite having the same musical characteristics. Black Metal is NOT merely a style of playing certain instruments.

No, but once again, if you were to hear a Christian black metal band that has all the characteristics of black metal except for the lyrics, the band doesn't miraculously change genres based on that. I may not be looking at it from a "deeper concept of black metal" but I think most people would classify the given band as black metal assuming it has the expected characteristics based on the music.

I already addressed this. Did you not read my prior post? Just because you think a Christian band is Black Metal before you have the full picture of what the band is doing does not mean that it is Black Metal. That's like looking at a painting like the one used by Acid Bath on their second album and saying it's a pair of rabbits playing with a puppet, while completely disregarding the meaning and symbolism behind the actual work. Once again, you're reaching only toward the lowest common denominator, and art works on the highest. It's fantastic that you think most people would classify the given band as Black Metal, but, just as before you posted, it STILL doesn't make the band Black Metal.

Most people don't know the lyrics upon initial listen of a given band. Your forgetting the fact that, despite having certain concepts, music is just music and some people see it from a "trance-like" perspective. In other words, if a person is to listen to a band and hear the "dark" and "cold" feeling that the musical merits of black metal give off, the first thing that comes to their mind (assuming they know their shit) is "this is black metal". The lyrics do not change this because they don't have an effect as much as the musical merits of black metal do.

Why do you think that Black Metal is defined by "the first thing that comes to mind?" Just because something SEEMS a certain way to you does not mean that it is a certain way, and I'm not sure why you seem to be denying this. Music is not just music when evaluated on an academic or artistic level. Music is so much more than "just music." You're not getting the full experience if that is how you approach your listening habits. Black Metal is not merely the feeling given off by the music. Black Metal is not the only form of music that conveys the feelings of loss, bitterness, anger, desperation, longing, desolation, hatred, sorrow, etc.

 

[skeptik]

In my opinion, it all (of course) ultimately falls on the listener. I approach music from a musician's standpoint. I listen to music to hear interesting melodies and harmonies weave in and out of each other. I like to hear guitar riffs and drum patterns you don't find everyday. If I can hear the bass clearly in the mix, and the bassist isn't just playing what the guitar is playing, I'm likely to cream my pants.

I listen to a lot of music with lyrics in different languages, and often times, there are no translations provided. Does this decrease my appreciation of the band or its music? Not at all. The message doesn't matter to me, and even if I could understand their message, it won't affect (effect? whatever) my view on things. The voice is an instrument (loosely speaking). This is a lot of times showcased easily in jazz or blues. Ella Fitzgerald is my favorite example, but any female jazz singer will more than likely suffice. She would go off on, what I guess you'd say, are vocal solos that really have no meaning other than to enhance the quality of the music. Similarly, in metal, vocalists are likely to growl, scream, or just say "Hey" or something else at random points in a song. It has no message, and it has no meaning.

I'm not entirely sure where I was going with that, but I think what I was getting at was something like genre labels are just these things that we construct to pigeonhole music productions in order to make it easier for ourselves to handle things (which it clearly hasn't), so I guess the concept of "genres" or labelling a style of music is a ridiculous gray area; and that a "label" ultimately means nothing. whatever makes the listener happy.

yeah, that's what it's about. happiness.

I think we can all agree with this sentiment on some level (on most points anyway), but genres, especially one like Black Metal, do serve their purpose, and this approach that you described doesn't really work from an academic perspective.

 

[unknown]

something about "black metal" and "academic perspective" seems...I don't know...I don't think the members of Venom were sitting around in the 80s anticipating this.

 

[skeptik]

Black Metal has come a very long way since Venom though, even I can admit that and I'll worship and defend Venom to the grave. I think all you have to do is look as Falco's review for Hvis Lyset Tar Oss for where the academic perspective can come into play in Black Metal. Whether you like the guy or not.

 

[unknown]

You're right, it has come a long way because it has been very flexible with how the genre has been defined. Look at thrash. Pretty much every great/amazing/"classic" thrash record was recorded in the 80s and early 90s. Since then, there hasn't been a whole lot of thrash output (that I know of, I hope I'm wrong) that has done anything new with the genre. The lyric matter has been relatively consistent over the past 20-30 years (again, barring some bands which step out of the box lyrically but are still regarded as thrash bands). Look at Sabbat (UK) on metal-archives. Their lyrical themes are: "mythology, history, independence, pagan themes". Now, let's look at Dark Angel's lyrical themes: "Death, Insanity, Horror, Depression". I think more thrash/speed metal bands went with the Dark Angel route, in terms of lyrics, than the Sabbat route (even though there were a good number of bands that did take the Sabbat route). The lifestyle associated most often with thrash was, well you know what it was. It was cheap beer, smashing said beer cans against the forehead, wearing blue jeans, a t shirt, your kutte, and banging your goddamn head against the goddamn stage. Eventually, the bands found out you can only sing about nuclear holocaust so many times, write the riffs so many times, and live the lifestyle for so long before it dies.

It dies because of inflexibility

We have bands like Negura Bunget who aren't burning churches, who aren't singing "Hail Satan!", and who certainly aren't following the "norms" of black metal, and they're hailed as innovators and torch bearers of black metal. If black metal is not open to change, to new ideas, to new concepts, don't be surprised if it goes the same route as thrash.

(and if it does, at least we have a lot of awesome records to listen to fifty years from now, and we can bitch about whatever new sub genres come out by then).

 

[Matt]

I think I have fallen in love with Ildjarn. I can't enough of it. It's basically the only thing I've listened to today

 

[Hubster]

Without bothering to post more (because I can't be), I think there's plenty of room for change with black metal. However, due to its principles, I think the rules need to be adhered to, and Negura Bunget imo, do adhere to the rules. They're proof of how much creativity can be achieved when you do it smartly.

 

[VonCreep]

Immortal, Burzum, Einhejar, 1349, Khold, Hate Forest, Forest of Impaled, Temnozor, Nebiros, Enbilulugugal, Saxon, Negura Bunget, Taakeferd, Doddfodd, Ohtar, the list goes on.

Old rules - New applications. Old Rules - new ideas.