Controversial opinions on metal

[cookiecutter]

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

 

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

Yeah I don't think this needs to go to Cythraul Zone.

 

[Cythraul]

I don't see how it matters. I thought the ruby example that TR brought up was supposed to show that it doesn't. And then you replied with the claim that on the one hand we can prove that a ruby is distinct from a spinel, whereas we can't do such things with musical genres. My point was that we can. I should've added that we can do it as well in cases where we're comparing two things, where those two things used to be called the same thing. I don't see the problem here.

 

[Cythraul]

Yeah I don't think this needs to go to Cythraul Zone.

Or you can shut the hell up.

 

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

That's not nice bro.

 

[no country for old wainds]

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.

i'm happy with this

i still think celtic frost can be called just about anything (multiple things - why not?) because if you look at the bands which are unanimously called black metal, death metal, doom metal, thrash metal, a huge amount of them contain elements which celtic frost themselves contain. and i don't just mean purely stylistic elements which can be described technically, i'm talking spirit, mood etc also.

 

[The Ozzman]

 

[cookiecutter]

I don't see how it matters. I thought the ruby example that TR brought up was supposed to show that it doesn't. And then you replied with the claim that on the one hand we can prove that a ruby is distinct from a spinel, whereas we can't do such things with musical genres. My point was that we can. I should've added that we can do it as well in cases where we're comparing two things, where those two things used to be called the same thing. I don't see the problem here.

But Black Metal is not two things, it is one thing that has changed after the past two decades. Country music diverged from a common ancestor if you will. I see the relation between Mercyful Fate and say Burzum as more of a grandfather to grandson type relationship. To continue with my political analogy, we call two different beliefs liberal because one evolved into the other, but we can easily distinguish liberalism from monarchism or socialism.

 

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

i'm happy with this

I always knew my art major status would come through for me.

On topic, monarchism is so first-wave. Socialism is Blut Aus Nord!

 

[no country for old wainds]

i edited my post to bring the discussion back to celtic frost btw

 

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

I too believe that Celtic Frost could just pretty much be referred to as "extreme metal" as cheesy as that sounds.

 

[cookiecutter]

i'm happy with this

i still think celtic frost can be called just about anything (multiple things - why not?) because if you look at the bands which are unanimously called black metal, death metal, doom metal, thrash metal, a huge amount of them contain elements which celtic frost themselves contain. and i don't just mean purely stylistic elements which can be described technically, i'm talking spirit, mood etc also.

I'm happy with this

 

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

I am glad we are all happy. Except Cythraul.

 

[skeptik]

I'm happy what with others expressed happiness toward.

 

[Cythraul]

But Black Metal is not two things, it is one thing that has changed after the past two decades.

I never said it was two things. I believe it is one thing, or rather one class of things.

Country music diverged from a common ancestor if you will. I see the relation between Mercyful Fate and say Burzum as more of a grandfather to grandson type relationship. To continue with my political analogy, we call two different beliefs liberal because one evolved into the other, but we can easily distinguish liberalism from monarchism or socialism.

Fair enough. But I believe the essence of the opposing point was that a concept of x could evolve to the point where it no longer makes much sense to refer to some things we used to call x as x. For instance, certain primitive forms of punishment might have been considered justice at some point in time, but now we would be inclined to deny that such practices are examples of justice. New facts emerge that alter our linguistic practices, and it doesn't seem very effective to bring up some points about something's evolving from something else or past linguistic practice in order to justify holding onto the old way of talking. I'm not saying you're wrong though.

 

[cookiecutter]

I never said it was two things. I believe it is one thing, or rather one class of things.

Okay. That's what I was getting out of the ruby analogy which you referenced.

Fair enough. But I believe the essence of the opposing point was that a concept of x could evolve to the point where it no longer makes much sense to refer to some things we used to call x as x. For instance, certain primitive forms of punishment might have been considered justice at some point in time, but now we would be inclined to deny that such practices are examples of justice. New facts emerge that alter our linguistic practices, and it doesn't seem very effective to bring up some points about something's evolving from something else or past linguistic practice in order to justify holding onto the old way of talking. I'm not saying you're wrong though.

Your justice argument has got me thinking, and I don't know if I have my best response right now. My initial impression though is that justice as we think of it is a moral concept and therefore prone to change definition as our morals change. Then again you could also argue that you can't judge past justice by our current standards. I'm not good at arguing philosophy so I won't go any further, but it has me thinking.

 

[Cythraul]

Because we live in the universe that exists, not the universe we can postulate existing if our universe weren't as it is?

By 'Why does that matter?' I didn't mean to ask 'Why does it matter whether we talk about things that are actual rather than merely possible?' I was asking 'Why does that particular point matter to your argument?'

 

[S<issors]

Your justice argument

I don't think we need to get into something as potentially complicated as this; Cyth's point makes sense with plenty of simpler examples.

 

[Priest of Evil]

Fair enough. But I believe the essence of the opposing point was that a concept of x could evolve to the point where it no longer makes much sense to refer to some things we used to call x as x. For instance, certain primitive forms of punishment might have been considered justice at some point in time, but now we would be inclined to deny that such practices are examples of justice. New facts emerge that alter our linguistic practices, and it doesn't seem very effective to bring up some points about something's evolving from something else or past linguistic practice in order to justify holding onto the old way of talking. I'm not saying you're wrong though.

Music isn't punishment though, unless we are talking Boy George.

Venom will always be called black metal - as long as there are people around who remember them from the time when there was nothing else black/sinister/extreme about the place. While the 90's relaunched black metal with an updated blueprint it doesn't mean what came before was any less relevant or extreme for its time.

I'm not sure where exactly this discussion began, so I'm not having a go at anyone. I just felt compelled to say something.

 

[Einherjar86]

This has been pretty interesting to follow.