Controversial opinions on metal

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Pretty much.

Imagine being an expert on quality. That would have to be either the greatest or worst job ever, depending on what you were assigned to apply the quality-value to at any particular moment.

 

[CF87]

Musicians need skill to a certain extent to convey what they want with their music,etc..

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

The extent to which musicians need skill is never defined by the listener but by the artist, who decides how much (technical, measurable) skill is necessary to get across their artistic vision. In this sense, the most virtuosic band is on the same playing field as Hellhammer; both are equally qualified to release music and to put forth whatever they want in their music.

However, there are times when bands can be incongruous, which often leads to most people thinking they're bad. For instance, old-school swe-dm with lyrical themes about non-sarcastic love and friendship, with happy flower pop sounds would probably not make for very good art (nor would it be old-school swe-dm by that point but w/e) because the message is lost in delivery by being muddled by random things.

 

[Belligerent]

Seasons in the Abyss, you queer

Slayers best album.

Actually, I would agree that most people here (the ones who express their views on it, anyway) have utterly shitty taste in non-metal music.

I'd consider my tastes in non-metal pretty good compared to some of the douchebags on here.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

how?

Let me try that again: some aspects of it can. Most musical ideas are too subtle for anyone but a total geek to have a grasp on, but you can look at things like the discovery of various drumbeats or new chord progressions as instances of creativity, which is one type of talent.

There are other aspects, such as how "powerful" a melody is or how "immersive" the atmosphere is, which are more subjective, and for which you kind of have to appeal to a majority view to determine, and that's where such evaluation gets questionable.

Of course, there are numerous "classic" bands which virtually no one who's really into music will put down - or won't at least concede to respect the band even if they don't personally like them - so there seems to be some grounds for an objective standard because of this.

The problem with YOUR CLAIM is that you imply that talent is necessary to create good art. That's wrong. Passion and dedication to art are always the deciding factor of how relevant and "interesting" the art is. The opposite can be said re: talent as what you just said: shredding is showing off talent with no artistic relevance. I suppose a brainless Sabbath worship band is pretty worthless, but that doesn't matter, as they are clearly creating art that at least conveys something probably.

Shredding is just one type of talent. A band has to have a broader set of talents than just that in order to be good.

Although I don't think your counterexample is helping, I might be able to concede that passion is an important factor in art, but it certainly isn't sufficient alone, as per my 800,000th metalcore band example.

 

[no country for old wainds]

@V5:
further questions raised are:
- what about the sub-conscious element?
- is congruity objectively quantifiable?
- is congruous music necessarily better than incongruous music?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

No. Music does not need "skill" at instruments to be enjoyable art.

The thing about skill is that it expands the range of ideas that the musician can convey. If you suck at playing guitar, you might be able to convey your musical vision inasmuch as it includes simple power chord riffs, but you will be hard pressed to convey areas of your vision which include intricate melodies.

Skill certainly isn't a requirement for satisfactory or enjoyable music, but lacking skill will often reduce the depth of the music.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

1. What sub-conscious element?

2. If it is glaringly obvious like in my example (which never really happens but...whatever), yes

3. No.

vihris: There are about 5000000 definitions of skill as the term pertains to art. I can be skilled in being a horrible artist, for instance, and then I am skilled. In this sense, every band is skilled at something. I just don't think MUSICAL COMPETENCY is really necessary because, well...it can't be objectively discussed. The competency of a piece of music is only a judgment of its competency as art itself.

 

[no country for old wainds]

but you can look at things like the discovery of various drumbeats or new chord progressions as instances of creativity, which is one type of talent.

so inventing a new drumbeat (to use your example) corresponds to your notion of quality? lots of bands do things like this, creative or original or experimental bands, and so many of them suck. explain to me why i'm wrong, why these things are somehow objectively good.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I probably can't.

I think the best I can do is just to point at bands like Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, etc. and argue that no one in their right mind would call bands like these terrible, and therefore there must be some common qualities to them which define what a good band is.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Led Zeppelin is horrible. I consider myself to be in my right mind, I just don't like Led Zeppelin. I'm serious, I really don't. Beatles either. Do not want. Influential? Yes, you can't deny that when bands go "I WAS INFLUENCED BY THEM" and/or you can clearly hear the influence somehow (similar aesthetic, playing style, brand of production, thematics, etc.), but there is no way to say those bands are GOOD with everyone going "yes I agree." It just doesn't happen.

 

[Belligerent]

Led Zeppelin is horrible. I consider myself to be in my right mind, I just don't like Led Zeppelin. I'm serious, I really don't. Beatles either.

Oh oh oh! Stop the fucking boat!

 

[no country for old wainds]

1. What sub-conscious element?

forget that, it's not really relevant

vihris - the problem with that is that it's essentially just majority rules, until you start measuring the quality of the people judging, and then we go back to square one. black sabbath may have universal classic status among the people you respect, but then there'll be another set of people (a larger one, probably) that looks upon them with laughter and revels in the pet shop boys.

agreed on the beatles and led zep btw, i like a handful of songs by each but meh. and i really don't like floyd anymore for that matter.

 

[CF87]

Depending on what style of music you are playing determines what types of chords or techniques you would use conveying music.

I can't stand when people start throwing chords,etc.. in like it determines things.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Led Zeppelin is horrible. I consider myself to be in my right mind, I just don't like Led Zeppelin. I'm serious, I really don't. Beatles either. Do not want. Influential? Yes, you can't deny that when bands go "I WAS INFLUENCED BY THEM" and/or you can clearly hear the influence somehow (similar aesthetic, playing style, brand of production, thematics, etc.), but there is no way to say those bands are GOOD with everyone going "yes I agree." It just doesn't happen.

Then give at least one reason why Led Zeppelin or the Beatles are horrible, besides "I don't like them". That should indicate how "in your right mind" you are about that claim.

 

[no country for old wainds]

how about if someone (let's say me) said 'the beatles are excellent at what they do, but what they do sucks. for this reason i would probably like them more if they were bad at what they do, because they'd be more likely to tap into something that didn't suck, albeit by accident.'

(im done replying for tonight btw)

 

[zabu of nΩd]

how about if someone (let's say me) said 'the beatles are excellent at what they do, but what they do sucks. for this reason i would probably like them more if they were bad at what they do, because they'd be more likely to tap into something that didn't suck, albeit by accident.'

(im done replying for tonight btw)

I would say that if your belief that "what they do sucks" determines whether you consider them a good band, then you have no business commenting on them, because "what they do" is pretty clearly a style of music you don't appreciate.

 

[The Ozzman]

How about more talk about metal?

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Oh oh oh! Stop the fucking boat!

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I would say that if your belief that "what they do sucks" determines whether you consider them a good band, then you have no business commenting on them, because "what they do" is pretty clearly a style of music you don't appreciate.

Sounds like extreme metal for you, no?