Controversial opinions on metal

[Elric of Melniboné]

But if, like Ozz, I were unable to hear any change, would not my holding of a subjective opinion in distinction to your own invalidate any claim to objectivity on your part?

Part of how reality works is that someone's perception doesn't invalidate something that's true from being true, so no. That literally makes no sense at all.

You may be the worst debater of all time if this is something that you actually believed when you posted it.

 

[Phylactery]

Actually, the musical differences that I posted can be documented in the structure and content of the music on those Bathory albums. For example, it is objectively correct that Quorthon changed his vocal style after Blood Fire Death and it would be false to claim that it was subjective.

Okay, so we can objectively talk about the composition of music as well then? For example, Opeth's first 2 records are full of random, jarring and nonsensical transitions and the songs are nothing more than a collage of different ideas pasted together seemingly at random. What would be your opinion if someone said that this was objectively poor songwriting/composition?

I actually like these first 2 records, but I won't deny the way the songs are composed is poor. I just like the individual sections more than what Opeth would do later.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

I don’t know enough about the music of Opeth to comment on what you're saying without resorting to speculation.

 

[Internally Deformed]

Part of how reality works is that someone's perception doesn't invalidate something that's true from being true, so no. That literally makes no sense at all.

You may be the worst debater of all time if this is something that you actually believed when you posted it.

That remark was an intentional parody of your argument, and what you've just said there confirms what I've been saying all along. Being autistically literal was what got you confused with Omni, so my advice is to think a little harder before you post.

 

[Phylactery]

You don't need to, I described exactly how the songs are composed and no one but the biggest, most blinded fanboy would disagree with it.

 

[EchoForever]

i think theres a definite line between what can be considered objective and subjective in music

objectively a well coordinated piece of music takes more talent and skill to make then making fart noises and recording it

 

[Internally Deformed]

Okay, so we can objectively talk about the composition of music as well then? For example, Opeth's first 2 records are full of random, jarring and nonsensical transitions and the songs are nothing more than a collage of different ideas pasted together seemingly at random. What would be your opinion if someone said that this was objectively poor songwriting/composition?

I actually like these first 2 records, but I won't deny the way the songs are composed is poor. I just like the individual sections more than what Opeth would do later.

Yeah I agree with that completely. The first few records are good on a riff by riff basis, but structurally they suck.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

That remark was an intentional parody of your argument, and what you've just said there confirms what I've been saying all along. Being autistically literal was what got you confused with Omni, so my advice is to think a little harder before you post.

There's nothing in my argument that says that perception defines the truth, so I fail to see how that could possibly be a parody of my argument.

It actually sounds fairly compatible with your argument up to this point, based on claims such as that the popularity of a cover song indicates the quality of the original composition, which is an argument totally based on perception defining reality.

 

[rusty water]

Can we be objective about subjectivity?

 

[Internally Deformed]

There's nothing in my argument that says that perception defines the truth, so I fail to see how that could possibly be a parody of my argument. It actually sounds fairly compatible with your argument up to this point, based on claims such as that the popularity of a cover song indicates the quality of the original composition.

Your argument is that because people's opinions differ on music, music is therefore subjective, no?

Mine is that people's opinions differ because some people are wrong.

 

[EchoForever]

Mine is that people's opinions differ because some people are wrong.

people do have some pretty fucking retarded opinions

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

Your argument is that because people's opinions differ on music, music is therefore subjective, no?

Mine is that people's opinions differ because some people are wrong.

Offer evidence that you're correct and I'll agree with you. The absence of evidence to support the absolute quality that you claim exists can be seen as evidence that music is subjective.

You don't need to, I described exactly how the songs are composed and no one but the biggest, most blinded fanboy would disagree with it.

If what you say is correct, then it would certainly be valid to comment on the transitions in their music if you don't like it but I still don't see how that would objectively undermine the quality of their music.

 

[Internally Deformed]

Offer evidence that you're correct and I'll agree with you. The absence of evidence to support the absolute quality that you claim exists can be seen as evidence that music is subjective.

The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. I already posted this to help you out with that concept, but perhaps you'd better read it again:

A case less clear might be if you and I had differing eyewitness descriptions of the criminal in a robbery we both witnessed. You might say that as the criminal is not on hand to settle the debate, our opinions are entirely subjective. But somewhere the criminal does exist, and he has a definite appearance which either confirms more closely to my account or to yours.

If what you say is correct, then it would certainly be valid to comment on the transitions in their music if you don't like it but I still don't see how that would objectively undermine the quality of their music.

It's one objective measure by which you could assess the music. The albums are still cool because they do well on so many other measures, but they're less good than the later albums which (as well as being good on a riff by riff level) are also more cohesively written.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

Your counterargument is poor since it relies on a robber looking a certain way (read: music having absolute quality that is objectively defined). We can see what the robber looks like if he is in front of us, yet you fail to show me the qualities that determine objective qualities within music despite your use of bad analogies about robbers.

I have asked you repeatedly to prove that music can be objectively measured in terms of quality.

 

[Internally Deformed]

Your counterargument is poor since it relies on a robber looking a certain way (read: music having absolute quality that is objectivelt defined). We can see what the robber looks like if he is in front of us, yet you fail to show me the qualities that determine objective qualities within music despite your use of bad analogies about robbers.

The point is that the robber looks a certain way. The purpose of the analogy is to show that though the truth is difficult to objectively prove in both cases, the difficulty involved is not evidence for the lack of an underlying objective truth.

I.e. The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

I'm done replying to you on this subject because your argument's credibility relies on evidence that you haven't provided at all.

 

[Internally Deformed]

I'm done replying to you on this subject because your argument's credibility relies on evidence that you haven't provided at all.

The problem with your thinking is that you think things are only true if they can be proven to be true. Gravity was true long before anyone noticed that it existed. Likewise Kasper David Friedrich is a better artist than a random five year old child with a crayon whether or not I exert myself to attempt to prove it.

 

[EchoForever]

what evidence can you provide to this arbitrary ass argument

 

[rusty water]

Someone has shit on the coats

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Part of how reality works is that someone's perception doesn't invalidate something that's true from being true, so no. That literally makes no sense at all.

But you're providing no objective evidence that Quorthon's vocal style (for example; this could apply to anything) did change from the S/T to BFD. You're providing your own perception and passing that off as objective reality. At the very least you would have to quantify and measure certain characteristics about his vocal style, but even that is dependent on the subjectivity of the instrument used to measure said characteristics, as well as the person making judgment over the degree of change in vocal style considered to be significant.