Controversial opinions on metal

[Internally Deformed]

I'm suggesting one potential method of assessing how improvable a song is (it's difficult to deny that some songs are more improvable than others - take Unleashed's first two albums; some really cool riffs throughout, but easily improved by more lead work). Bear in mind that though popularity of an artist among the general public is a pretty poor measure of quality, a song/cover's popularity among an artist's fanbase - who we already know understand the music, and "get" what's good about it - despite being composed of multiple "subjective" opinions, probably brings us much closer to an objective measure. This doesn't hold true in cases where a band radically alters their style, but you could say that the original fanbase sample no longer applies in that situation.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

You're trying to pass subjective opinions off as something that can be transposed into objective data. It's totally illogical.

 

[Internally Deformed]

You're trying to pass subjective opinions off as something that can be transposed into objective data. It's totally illogical.

What I'm saying is that many things that are often passed off as subjective are not actually subjective; things are just harder or easier to prove. That's why I posted the extreme examples of the child's painting and Wanderer Over the Sea of Fog earlier - if art were truly completely subjective, it would be impossible to say with any certainty which was the superior piece, but as things stand one could quite easily prove to anyone's satisfaction which is superior. The waters muddy when the quality levels are closer to being equal, but that isn't to say that there aren't distinctions in quality which inhere within the art. The problem is only that they are more subtle - not that they don't exist.

Get it?

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

I get what you're trying to say, but you are improperly attempting to apply it to music and providing absolutely no documented basis for your claims of how music can be objectively judged, as the methods that you claim should be utilized rest totally in the realm of subjectivity.

You also may not have heard, but musical quality is not solely dependent on technical ability displayed in the creation of the music. That's completely contradictory to the principles that you're applying based on the examples of art that you've provided.

Furthermore, I challenge you to show objective proof (not opinion of any form) that one of those pictures is a better piece of art than the other and show documented evidence demonstrating how you've arrived at that conclusion. If it's as simple and obvious as you say, that should be relatively easy to do.

I agree with you that Wanderer Over the Sea of Fog is better than the child's drawing, by the way.

 

[Internally Deformed]

I get what you're trying to say, but you are improperly attempting to apply it to music and providing absolutely no documented basis for your claims of how music can be objectively judged, as the methods that you claim should be utilized rest totally in the realm of subjectivity.

Bear in mind that all evidence is ultimately subjective. If the two of us were walking and I was to point out a bird I believed to be sitting on a branch, and you were to tell me that the branch was unoccupied, we would both be relying on the evidence of our senses, which is about as pure as evidence can be. Whatever opinions either of us held would not influence the objective reality of the bird's existence or non-existence, however, unless you're of the opinion that reality exists solely as a metal construct (in which case musical quality would be entirely subjective, but for me to agree with this the burden of proof rests with you to convince me that there is no underlying physical reality, which is as impossible as proving the obverse).

You also may not have heard, but musical quality is not solely dependent on technical ability displayed in the creation of the music. That's completely contradictory to the principles that you're applying based on the examples of art that you've provided.

I don't recall suggesting anything like this.

Furthermore, I challenge you to show objective proof (not opinion of any form) that one of those pictures is a better piece of art than the other and show documented evidence demonstrating how you've arrived at that conclusion. If it's as simple and obvious as you say, that should be relatively easy to do.

My objective proof is the same as that I gave for the bird - simply look. The reason I chose extreme examples is because what is and isn't objectively better becomes abundantly and intuitively clear, and an extended and boring attempt to put into words something we both already know is therefore unnecessary. 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.

I agree with you that Wanderer Over the Sea of Fog is better than the child's drawing, by the way.

I'm glad we both see it.

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.

These are all opinions and entirely subjective.

 

[EchoForever]

your opinions on subjectivity is entirely subjective

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

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.

I have zero interest in replying to the rest of your post since it's clear that you can't separate subjectivity and objectivity from one another. I do appreciate your attempt to explain why one picture is better than the other despite you offering no real information on why your selection is better.

 

[Internally Deformed]

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 far from subjective that Quorthon change his vocal style after Blood Fire Death and it would be false to claim that it was.

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?

I have zero interest in replying to the rest of your post since it's clear that you can't separate subjectivity and objectivity from one another. I do appreciate your attempt to explain why one picture is better than the other despite you offering no real information on why your selection is better.

Because it would make just about as boring reading as your attempt to convince Ozz of something we both know is obviously true. That's why I rely on this tactic:

b.) Opinion is wrong - re-listen to artist/album until a.) opinion is not controversial.

 

[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.