Controversial opinions on metal

The only way to be musically superior is to approach every song with the intention of finding something you like. If you don't find it, then it doesn't matter, because then it's just not for you, however much it may or may not please others.
 
Of course it is. And there's no way to know if gravity is objectively real, or a product of our collective perception - but it's awfully hard to have a conversation about physics without talking about it.

But let's take this meta for a moment. We're probably not going to reach an unshakable consensus about standards and criteria, but positing them gets us meaningful conversation. "Everything is equally valid," on the other hand, is just as opinionated in its own way, and it's a conversation killer (at least if you want to talk about music itself). There's room for disagreement and debate and even good-natured snarkiness in a collegial environment - and actually engaging with ideas about how we should understand and judge art keeps things lively. Putting ideas off-limits just gets you a lot of now playing threads and pictures of album covers.

In other words: boring.

Ironically it's not awfully hard to talk about music without mentioning Beethoven. It's not awfully hard to talk about film without talking about David Lynch (or something, not really a film guy so work with me here). It's not awfully hard to talk about visual art without talking about Monet. Science and art are DISTINCTLY separate entities. I think it's kind of a cop-out in itself, which you seem averse to, to even mention the science vs. art "if objectivity doesn't exist in art obviously this carries over to science in principle" argument, which is trite at best, not even a logical place to go at worst.

I agree with you, don't get me wrong; discussion and judgment of art is all well and good...after all, it's why we're here, it helps everyone get a better understanding of everything they don't already understand, and maybe even a greater comprehension of things they thought they DID comprehend! BUT, this doesn't extend to making bad arguments or stating your opinions in ways that create problems for people because they are expressed in ways which quell discussion just as much as "well everything is equally valid, that takes care of that." Hope you get where I'm coming from.

Further edit-y reply-y goodness:

Look, I get what you want. You want music that is, well, what you want. Just because something is regarded as classic doesn't mean that other things that aren't classic are bad or worse for it. They're just not regarded as classic. Classic does not necessitate "good". People can come to a consensus of opinions that an album is classic. No one in their right mind is going to say Hvis Lyset Tar Oss isn't a goddamned classic black metal album. But...what does that even mean in the context of art? It's different for everyone, and I don't think that just shooting down people who think that even though it's classic, it's not for them (or, as they would phrase it "it sucks") is a good way to get discussion going.
 
I don't see it as at all comparable: Beethoven and Mozart (and even Wagner, despite his flaws) are all in the discussion among the true immortals. Now, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that there are recent black metal recordings that deserve to be mentioned with the Immortal (god, but I'm clever) - but I haven't personally encountered them yet.

Which is the whole point of my original question.

Plus - your analogy doesn't hold up in another key way. To compare across musical eras and genres is always going to be more difficult: the ends desired and the means used are so divergent as to limit the utility of any comparison. But we're not talking about Classical or Romantic music vs Baroque, we're talking about black metal vs. black metal composed 5 or 8 or 10 years later. The means and ends and techniques and styles are all pretty much the same. We're not comparing Bach to Beethoven, we're comparing Bach to, say, one of the fifth string Italian Baroque composers.

No, Baroque evolved into Classical the same way the 2nd wave of Black Metal carried over into the 3rd. The (objective) progress of musical evolution has sped up exponentially since the 19th century. This is partly due to its availability to both musicians and listeners. Ideas, innovations and influences spread much, much quicker in this age than in Bach's time.

Music develops more rapidly today, so comparing 10 years of evolution now is like 100 years a few centuries ago. And back then people didn't view Baroque and Classical as two separate genres of music, the same way people today don't call the 90's black metal Black Metal and the 2000's stuff something else.

Thus the question: "Do these albums hold up against Burzum et al.?"

Not rocket surgery.

Tell me honestly, have you even bothered to give a few dedicated listens to anything recorded after 2000? Si Monumentum Requires, Circumspice? The Work Which Transforms God? Autumn Aurora?
 
So have you heard Deathspell Omega, Blut Aus Nord, etc? I think certain albums by each band is DESTINED to become a future classic.
 
Listening to only 90's Black Metal is like listening to only Baroque-era music. It may be superior, and laid the groundwork for what followed, but why should that prevent me from enjoying Mozart and Beethoven and Wagner?

indeed... unless you just don't care about most modern BM bands.
 
I don't see a legitimate 3rd wave of black metal out there. The practical difference between Immortal and Blut Aus Nord is much less than the distance between Brahms and Wagner, who were exact contemporaries working in the same genre. Striborg is more like Ildjarn (two generations back) than supposed fellow 3rd wavers like Deathspell Omega. Fundamentally, none of it is all that far removed from To Mega Therion, which was recorded the better part of a quarter century ago.

Of course Brahms and Wagner are quite different, because musical evolution is like a tree branching out, not linear. By the Romantic era, the range of diversity within music became wide. But classical music going from Baroque to Classical is taking a more narrowly-defined aesthetic and expanding upon it, adding new elements to the template.

Likewise the more recent bands have taken the Burzum and Darkthrone templates and modified them, adding new influences.

So it is fair to make the analogy of Bach is to Burzum as Mozart is to Deathspell Omega. If you view it in those terms, perhaps you can shed your silly prejudices against "derivative" new forms of Black Metal.

That's a reflection of cultural values: the mania for classification came out of the industrial revolution and the 19th century. It doesn't change the fact that Bach and Mozart are radically different at a fundamental level.

The mania for classification was a by-product of musical diversification, which proves my point that going from Baroque to Classical, which happened before the Industrial Revolution, was a linear transition within a genre before it drastically began branching out starting in the 19th century.

I've actually spent real time with all three records. Blut Aus Nord and Deathspell Omega have some interesting ideas poorly executed - Averse Sefira explores similar ground with more coherence and less reliance on melodrama. Drudkh just strikes me as Burzum as interpreted by someone with the editing sensibilities of Micheal Akerfeldt. Love the album covers, though.

I'm glad you gave these records their due time, but you need to form a new attitude. You have this notion of chronological inferiority, that because something came out later that it must be only a rehash of previous ideas. Guess what, your precious 90's bands are just as derivative of 80's influences as today's bands are of 90's influences.

Imagine someone 10 years older than you, who refuses to listen to Burzum and Emperor because they are merely rehashing the ideas of Celtic Frost and Bathory. You would think him a fool, wouldn't you? Well that's how we all here view you yourself.