Controversial opinions on metal

[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.

 

[MrTagoMago]

While I agree that quality of art is subjective I do understand where Internally Deformed is coming from and is the main reason I think it is important to debate about art and dissect it. I mean imagine if this band came up with this unique piece of that required incredible skill to make and you just absolutely loved it, but no one paid attention to it while you had this other artists who records himself shitting on the toilet and becomes super popular and everyone loves him thinking he's a musical genius of some sort and he's getting all kinds of fame and money. That was a crude way of putting it but it would piss you off no?

 

[Internally Deformed]

 

[Phylactery]

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.

He said that Quorthon's vocal style changed after Blood Fire Death. Do we need to prove that harsh vocals are different to an attempt at clean singing? I'd think there's a pretty obvious difference that everyone can hear.

Anyway, obviously personal preference and taste is purely subjective, but I'm not completely sold on the idea that absolutely everything about music/art in general is purely subjective.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

There are definitely certain things about music that you can objectively measure, such as a singer's vocal range, the technical skills of an instrumentalist or the overall complexity of a composition. Of course, having some of those things at a technically high level doesn't necessarily make the end product into something that will be pleasing for all ears.

 

[MrTagoMago]

Just curious is there anyone here who would defend Lulu?

 

[Baroque]

Just curious is there anyone here who would defend Lulu?

I would only say they're free to experiment however they like, but not defend the music.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

Just curious is there anyone here who would defend Lulu?

I thought that album was a weird happening since I recalled Lou Reed being very critical of metal musicians in the past.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I kinda liked Lulu. It had some good songs mixed in with all the dumb and overlong shit. Better album than Death Magnetic, at least.

 

[MrTagoMago]

I kinda liked Lulu. It had some good songs mixed in with all the dumb and overlong shit. Better album than Death Magnetic, at least.

What do you think we're the good songs?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I don't really remember tbh, I actually haven't listened to it since a few months after it came out. I seem to remember the second half was better than the first, and that Dragon in particular had some cool bits, but I dunno. I should listen to it again.

 

[Phylactery]

I've only heard 1 or 2 tracks off it which were completely abhorrent. I wouldn't be surprised if it is better than Death Magnetic, though. I remember when that came out and people were raving about it being a return to form and Metallica's best album since The Black Album. Load of shit.

 

[rusty water]

Lulu is alright but I think she relied heavily on covers and her own stuff was weak.