Coherence and Parts

care to elaborate on such a stupid statement? you clearly didnt read my post properly, so your statement is "completely fucking wrong".

First of all, I'd like to point out the that second half of this post makes no logical sense and is basically retarded. Secondly, the term coherence has pretty much failed to have been defined in this thread thus far, but one thing is for sure, coherence does not equal quality and quality does not equal coherence. Coherence is not a necessitating factor in quality in musical terms.
 
The 'art' in music is the ability to communicate meaning through sound. Incoherence = no meaning = not art = crap.

This isn't a terribly difficult concept here.
 
A bit of a jump to go from incoherence to no meaning isn't it? And you've yet to say exactly why Opeth is a "litany of parts" and as a result incoherent, yet Gorguts is "mastery of coherence".
 
The 'art' in music is the ability to communicate meaning through sound. Incoherence = no meaning = not art = crap.

This isn't a terribly difficult concept here.

And yet, based on that illogical equation, you seem to have failed to get it? Incoherence does not mean there is no meaning, and no meaning does not mean not art, and art does not mean crap, depending on your definitions of these terms. Would you care to elucidate specifically just what it is that you mean by coherence in terms of music?
 
A bit of a jump to go from incoherence to no meaning isn't it? And you've yet to say exactly why Opeth is a "litany of parts" and as a result incoherent, yet Gorguts is "mastery of coherence".

I've made no claims whatsoever about Gorguts. Take it up with conservationist.

In any event, coherence is a prerequisite for transmitting meaning. An incoherent work, by definition, has no meaning - it is not and cannot be art of any real value.
 
You have yet to define specifically what you mean by coherence. It can be interpreted in innumerable ways, each with varying effects on 'meaning.'
 
Coherence is kind of objective to begin with, so it's not so much "society puts coherence on the backburner" as it is "society puts YOUR idea of coherence on the backburner."

Lykathea Aflame is a bad example to use because they're an extreme case that seems, by design, not fluid, at least in the more traditional sense. The whole point is to come across as whacked out and juxtaposed. Sigh and Akercocke are probably other good examples of that, or Unexpect to an even greater degree. Really, death metal as a whole is kind of hard to pin down in terms of what flows and what parts work together because most of it through its history has been bent on eradicating more traditional song structures, melodies or transitions (more so than, say, power metal).

That said, I think there's often a relatively more universal consensus among many as to what music gels or flows well and what doesn't. As far as extreme music is concerned, melodic death metal is a good example. While it shares many of the basic traits of more straight-ahead DM, the approach is usually less free-form and certainly less atonal. I think it demands a more traditional and less meandering sense of songwriting to catch on, and the bands that accomplish this are the ones who stand out and get noticed first. That's why I think a band like Amon Amarth manages to stand out; even though it's an overdone style with relatively simple structures and little technical prowess, the writing and parts come off effectively and have an extremely fluid and unifying effect.
 
You have yet to define specifically what you mean by coherence. It can be interpreted in innumerable ways, each with varying effects on 'meaning.'

Like any abstract concept, it must be understood by example rather than 'definition'.

Coherent:

Burzum
Early At the Gates
Atheist

Incoherent:

Lykathea Aflame
Later Emperor
Necrophagist
 
But by decreeing that only example can explain, there becomes no solid/concrete way to display anything - this is a large problem when you count in subjectivity and preferential taste.
 
Like any abstract concept, it must be understood by example rather than 'definition'.

Coherent:

Burzum
Early At the Gates
Atheist

Incoherent:

Lykathea Aflame
Later Emperor
Necrophagist

I really fail to see how Lykathea Aflame is "incoherent."

Also just for helping cure my interest, would you call Stargazer coherent or incoherent.
 
Like any abstract concept, it must be understood by example rather than 'definition'.

Coherent:

Burzum
Early At the Gates
Atheist

Incoherent:

Lykathea Aflame
Later Emperor
Necrophagist
But surely you must be able to identify elements consistently found in coherent albums, and not found in incoherent albums. Just as when placing a band in a genre, there must be identifying factors in the music. Yes, I can say I know black metal when I hear it, without backing up the statement. I can also say that I'm listening to black metal because musical features x, y, and z are present. So maybe you are hearing things that you're not making clear to us. Isn't there some facet of the music you can tell us about, in musical terms, without reverting to abstracts above the music?
 
Like any abstract concept, it must be understood by example rather than 'definition'.

Coherent:

Burzum
Early At the Gates
Atheist

Incoherent:

Lykathea Aflame
Later Emperor
Necrophagist

Great. That helps a lot. "Hey guys! I've just invented a new classification of music! It's called bnojflkaisju. Bands that are bnojflkaisju really suck, hey? And by bnojflkaisju, I mean, of course:

Mutiilation
Dark Tranquillity
Britney Spears"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Demilich
I really fail to see how Lykathea Aflame is "incoherent."

I also am wondering why LA was used as an example for this. I've always seen them as a band more renowned for their creative and unique death metal songwriting than a "tech" band, cutting and pasting parts together.

When I listen to Elvenefris, it flows very well, with each song displaying both repetition and individuality.
 
I also am wondering why LA was used as an example for this. I've always seen them as a band more renowned for their creative and unique death metal songwriting than a "tech" band, cutting and pasting parts together.

When I listen to Elvenefris, it flows very well, with each song displaying both repetition and individuality.

Exactly, it is a very "unified" album.
 
i don't want to bring the intellectual nature of this discussion down, but I assumed that by coherence, the thread originator was discussing making a satisfying holistic song, rather than a collection of technically excellent yet unsatisfying components.

I might be wrong though. I often am.

I'm with you there, but it seems like everyone in this thread has got a differing take on what coherence means in regards to music, and everyone thinks their favorite bands write coherent music, as opposed to bands they don't like. And thus the thread is sucking quite a bit so far.
 
Great thread.

There are some songs where there is NO flow or where a part sticks out, and these aren't very enjoyable. Other songs flow from "part" to "part" but the parts still stick out. These are mediocre to good, but never great. The great songs are organic, very loose and flowing but still focused and they start and end at definitive point, in other words, they have an origin, build to a climax, and then end leaving a very satisfied listener.