Controversial opinions on metal

To get all boring and semantic, opinions are not necessarily based on facts or empirical knowledge, but they aren't necessarily limited to things that can't be proven.

As to "opinions" as applied to music, it isn't coincidental that everyone immediately got pissed off with @The Ozzman about the "all Bathory albums sound the same" comment - it wasn't just down to subjective perception, there are actually objective distinctions inherent in the albums themselves. The difference in opinion arises from most people being able to detect them and some (i.e. you) not being able to - whether or not you do or don't perceive them doesn't actually alter the music as it exists in its physical form.

This is very true as well.
 
Point them out please

See this post:

I wonder what you have to be smoking if you think these two things sound the same.





Even this doesn't sound the same as the first song and they're both songs from Bathory's black metal era.



Not that I expect you to actually review what was posted here, since you decided not to at the time that you initially posted that statement about Bathory.
 
Bathory's first two albums are early black metal with a clear proto-thrash influence and raw production. Songs are short and tend to be quick.

By the third album, Quorthon expanded his repertoire and began to make longer songs that weren't always aggressive and displayed a clear trend towards more epic compositions influenced by Manowar. This was compounded on the fourth album.

The next three albums after that are clearly not black metal and use different vocalizations and very different compositional structures from his earlier work.

Octagon also marks a further change and abandonment of the musical style of the last several albums.
 
You can't objectively prove that one album is better than another. Art is subjective. Lets move on.

I mean, it is and it isn't. I can't objectively prove which of these two works is superior, but one of them objectively is.

wanderer_above_the_sea_of_fog.jpg


image
 
Is it objectively worse if you find out someone with brain damage drew it or maybe a toddler?

Anyway, that's like having a kid clang instruments into a mic and then comparing the recording to Bach. You don't really have an argument.
 
A picture of a giant kid attacking a school playground is much more interesting than a guy standing with his back to me in front of a scenic view.
 
Is it objectively worse if you find out someone with brain damage drew it or maybe a toddler?

Anyway, that's like having a kid clang instruments into a mic and then comparing the recording to Bach. You don't really have an argument.

It was drawn by a child presumably, so I don't take your meaning. Kids are crap at stuff.

As to the second part, obviously I'm dealing in extremes. The point I'm trying to make is that if there are objective degrees of badness (which can be seen from the fact that we all agree that the second drawing sucks), there must also, conversely, be objective degrees of goodness.

Edit: Or we don't all agree the second one sucks -_-
 
Do you know what contrarian means? Because I'm not being one. I agree that Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog is brilliant, but objectively better art means everybody agrees it's better, let me know when you accomplish that objectivity.

Until then I'm happy to stand by the notion that art is subjective.