Controversial opinions on metal

[skeptik]

EPIC FUCKING FAIL YOU ARE AN IDIOT

 

[Omni]

Secondly, are you aware that Darkthrone's first album is death metal? They're hardly the best example of pure black metal.

The albums ObscureInfinity cited as examples in his post are black metal. He didn't name Soulside Journey, so what are you talking about?

Since the Quorthon/Venom thing was mentioned: I believe Quorthon simply because it's such a ridiculous story. Who would do that? "yeah, so I'll blatantly rip off their sound, write some songs with the same names, some shit like that..." I also find that in fact Bathory drew more on what Quorthon cited - Oi punk - and Venom on whatever they were drawing on and while Black Metal and Bathory sound pretty similar if you listen to the riffs they're in fact not actually that similar.

Listen to Venom's "Don't Burn the Witch" back to back with Bathory's "Born for Burning" and try to tell me he never listened to Venom, you retard.

But to me it doesn't matter, because Bathory's best stuff was after Bathory.

What the hell does this even mean? You suck. Jesus Christ. If you're talking about his first album, the song I just named is on Bathory's second album, and is clearly Venom-influenced to the point of pretty much ripping them off completely.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Yeah, you are way off on just about everything.

What difference does it make if Soulside Journey is death metal? How the fuck does that change the black metalness of their following albums? A Blaze in the Northern Sky has (at times) a very similar songwriting structure to that of most of Celtic Frost's material so, no, it's not a matter of taking a completely different genre and adding those aesthetics. What you said regarding song structure and aesthetics didn't make a whole lot of sense anyway so I don't know why I'm even arguing with you.

@ WeAreInFlames

 

[S<issors]

I think the problem with this whole argument is a lot simpler than matters of "influence" or revisionist terminology. For the most part it's just a circular debate between people with enough historical perspective that they're indignant at the first-wave bands not being referred to as "black metal" and people who are using the modern understanding of the term to describe the music.

When people call something "black metal" nowadays they are referring to something that falls within the modern conventions of the genre, which (and this is a gross generalization, I know, but I think you can see what I mean) is stuff that "sounds like" the second wave bands and their immediate successors.

Basically, my point is that I think both parties would agree that a new band which emerged with a sound like Venom's or Celtic Frost's wouldn't be referred to as black metal. We're just bandying about what are essentially two different meanings of the same term without any genuine disagreement.

Except of course WAIF's weird assertions.

 

[skeptik]

Basically, my point is that I think both parties would agree that a new band which emerged with a sound like Venom's or Celtic Frost's wouldn't be referred to as black metal. We're just bandying about what are essentially two different meanings of the same term without any genuine disagreement.

Wrong. It depends on how they utilize it, but it's possible.

 

[challenge_everything]

It's pretty much the same as Zep being described in the 70s as "heavy metal". Because the meaning of the label "heavy metal" shifted with time, they no longer comfortably fit within the modern understanding of the term. But who cares, whether one refers to them as heavy metal or not, the direct influence is undoubtable and that's really all that matters.

 

[cookiecutter]

It was a couple pages back, but I want to give some kudos to no country for his posts about getting into new genres. I thought they were very good.

About this black metal argument which always comes up. I tend to think of it like I do classical versus modern liberalism. We still call 19th Century liberals liberals even though they were all free market capitalists who didn't want women to vote. To do otherwise would be whiggish.

 

[cookiecutter]

But if their contemporaries labeled them one way I don't think it's unfair to unlabel them, even as the meaning of the label has changed. Whether they had other labels, as in this case, I think is irrelevant.

 

[S<issors]

I disagree, CC. I think that's assigning too much importance to what, as you admit, are just labels. Who cares what their contemporaries called them if you're discussing the bands in a modern context? The purpose of assigning a band a genre title is to offer a descriptor for the sound. If someone told me they liked Emperor and Mayhem and were looking for more black metal, I wouldn't recommend Venom- even if they used to be called black metal, they don't sound much like what we think of as BM now. Once labels become confusing they can be safely altered or discarded.

Adding qualifiers ("first-wave") while retaining the initial label works, too. That might be the best middle ground.

 

[cookiecutter]

That is a different situation, because rubies are inherently a certain thing, whereas musical genres, as with political designations, are just a label always subject to change.

 

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

I agree with TR here. A ruby is not intrinsically a ruby. There is no property of a ruby which intrinsically gives it the name ruby which is indisputably known to everyone. Words ARE just labels.

 

[S<issors]

Exactly. You could still go around using "gay" as a synonym for "happy," if you wanted to, but you'd earn a lot of snickers (or confusion).

 

[cookiecutter]

What I meant was that what we call a ruby is a ruby and is clearly distinct from other things scientifically. The name of it is unimportant. One can prove that what we call a ruby is distinct from a spinel. Black Metal, or any genre, has no set essence or nature in that sense. Lacking that, I think using historical examples as a basis for labeling is as good a reason as any.

 

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

I don't believe science or what we have learned from it has ANYTHING to do with this. Just because science can prove the difference between a ruby and a spinel doesn't really have anything at all to do with the fact that words are descriptions humans have created and ascribed to things, both corporeal and incorporeal.

edit: however I do feel that bringing up the difference between things which are corporeal and scientifically-provable (to whatever extent) was a bad move by TR. I think a more apt thing to do would be to use another art form.

EDIT 2: I think I know what you're saying, possibly because I missed the sentence "The name of it is unimportant" OR because your way of thinking is incredibly linear (no offense of course). Anyway, I believe what you're saying is that UNLIKE the actual ruby (its intrinsic physical form, that is) black metal has actually changed over time (along with what it is called, though to a lesser degree than the sound itself has, for obvious reasons).

Rubies have not changed, just what we call them. Black metal actually HAS evolved and changed dramatically in a very short period of time. Makes more sense this way. I don't think you had to add the whole science is right thing into it because I think it bogged down your point, for me anyway.

 

[Cythraul]

What I meant was that what we call a ruby is a ruby and is clearly distinct from other things scientifically. The name of it is unimportant. One can prove that what we call a ruby is distinct from a spinel. Black Metal, or any genre, has no set essence or nature in that sense. Lacking that, I think using historical examples as a basis for labeling is as good a reason as any.

I can also prove that what we call 'black metal' is distinct from country music.

 

[cookiecutter]

But no one ever referred to country music as black metal

 

[cookiecutter]

EDIT 2: I think I know what you're saying, possibly because I missed the sentence "The name of it is unimportant" OR because your way of thinking is incredibly linear (no offense of course). Anyway, I believe what you're saying is that UNLIKE the actual ruby (its intrinsic physical form, that is) black metal has actually changed over time (along with what it is called, though to a lesser degree than the sound itself has, for obvious reasons).

Rubies have not changed, just what we call them. Black metal actually HAS evolved and changed dramatically in a very short period of time. Makes more sense this way. I don't think you had to add the whole science is right thing into it because I think it bogged down your point, for me anyway.

This is pretty much what I meant. I put science in there to make sure people understood I meant the differentiation between the actual things ruby and spinel and the words, but obviously that backfired.

Music, like politics as I mentioned in my first example, is not made up of concrete things which we give classifications to, but rather to changing ideas and trends. I think to retroactively reclassify past things because the ideas have evolved is not a good idea.

 

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

I believe it is OK only under the condition that the past classification is not discarded but put alongside the new to show the juxtaposition and/or explain the reasoning.

 

[Cythraul]

But no one ever referred to country music as black metal

Why does that matter?

 

[cookiecutter]

I think I explained myself to the best of my abilities in my previous posts