Controversial opinions on metal

[Internally Deformed]

Do you know what contrarian means? Because I'm not being one. I agree that Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog is brilliant, but objectively better art means everybody agrees it's better, let me know when you accomplish that objectivity.

Until then I'm happy to stand by the notion that art is subjective.

Objective truth isn't determined by consensus, although it happens to be the case that things that are objectively true and easy to perceive as being so tend to be consensually agreed upon. The fact that people disagree about music isn't proof that musical quality is wholly subjective any more than the fact that people disagree about religion is proof that metaphysical truths are wholly subjective.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

Objective truth isn't determined by consensus, although it happens to be the case that things that are objectively true and easy to perceive as being so tend to be consensually agreed upon. The fact that people disagree about music isn't proof that musical quality is wholly subjective any more than the fact that people disagree about religion is proof that metaphysical truths are wholly subjective.

Okay, so are you arguing that the quality of music is subjective or what?

 

[CiG]

Uh, I hate this debate, it's already happened like 3 times since I joined and it's just so pointless.

You can't objectively prove that x Metallica album is better than x ABBA album...

 

[EchoForever]

Controversial opinion. I prefer listening to my favorite bands over listening to your favorite bands unless your favorite bands happen to be the same as my favorite bands.

thats it, now im mad

 

[EchoForever]

also to settle this debate i think the best thing to say is
art is subjective when it comes to taste, but you can objectively prove a piece of art took a larger amount of skill and talent to make compared to another piece of art regardless of taste

IE: i prefer sissy spacek - wreck compared to some megadeath album, but in the end wreck is just noise

 

[Internally Deformed]

Uh, I hate this debate, it's already happened like 3 times since I joined and it's just so pointless.

You can't objectively prove that x Metallica album is better than x ABBA album...

I think it's possible there might be some objective method of proving a given song or artist is better than another if you define the criteria by which quality is decided (more original compared to similar efforts, more cohesive, more well developed, more difficult to be improved), but I agree that it would be really hard and basically impossible to achieve on a forum, which is why I didn't bother trying when Ozzman challenged me to.

The reason I'm arguing this is because the idea that there's nothing in a piece of music itself which can be considered worthy of recognition - that quality is all in the ear of the beholder - is wrong and annoys me. It also annoys me when people say "yeah but that's just an opinion" as if pointing out that an opinion is an opinion somehow proves that all opinions are equal and some aren't, in fact, objectively retarded. Besides, all we do on here is state opinions, so it goes without saying.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

It would be incredibly subjective whether or not a song is cohesive or difficult to improve upon. Originality is perhaps a bit more objective, but not necessarily indicative of the quality of a piece of music.

Your purported criteria for objective measurement is very subjective in nature.

 

[rusty water]

Pete Ways had a heart attack

 

[EchoForever]

Pete Ways had a heart attack

http://teamrock.com/news/2016-08-13/pete-way-suffers-heart-attack

oh shit
dont know why you posted that here though

 

[rusty water]

I posted it here cos I feel weird posting in the news section. Theres too many sections and I am a simple man. Its a bit like when the CB radio was popular and everyone talked on the breaking channel, rather than taking it to another channel.

 

[Internally Deformed]

It would be incredibly subjective whether or not a song is cohesive or difficult to improve upon. Originality is perhaps a bit more objective, but not necessarily indicative of the quality of a piece of music.

Your purported criteria for objective measurement is very subjective in nature.

I'm not really into musical theory in a big way, but anyone with a good understanding of it could probably distinguish between tracks which develop and resolve motifs intelligently, and tracks that tend more towards riff salad (which is how I'd define the difference between a well developed and a less well developed track).

Improvability would probably be harder to establish, but one simple method would be assessing people's perceptions of cover versions of an artist's songs. Artists whose covered tracks seldom met with a rate of approval greater than the original are less subject to improvement.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

I'm not really into musical theory in a big way, but anyone with a good understanding of it could probably distinguish between tracks which develop and resolve motifs intelligently, and tracks that tend more towards riff salad (which is how I'd define the difference between a well developed and a less well developed track).

Improvability would probably be harder to establish, but one simple method would be assessing people's perceptions of cover versions of an artist's songs. Artists whose covered tracks seldom met with a rate of approval greater than the original are less subject to improvement.

Did you just say that some aspects of a song's quality can be objectively measured by whether or not a cover version of the song is popular?

 

[Internally Deformed]

I'm suggesting one potential method of assessing how improvable a song is (it's difficult to deny that some songs are more improvable than others - take Unleashed's first two albums; some really cool riffs throughout, but easily improved by more lead work). Bear in mind that though popularity of an artist among the general public is a pretty poor measure of quality, a song/cover's popularity among an artist's fanbase - who we already know understand the music, and "get" what's good about it - despite being composed of multiple "subjective" opinions, probably brings us much closer to an objective measure. This doesn't hold true in cases where a band radically alters their style, but you could say that the original fanbase sample no longer applies in that situation.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

You're trying to pass subjective opinions off as something that can be transposed into objective data. It's totally illogical.

 

[Internally Deformed]

You're trying to pass subjective opinions off as something that can be transposed into objective data. It's totally illogical.

What I'm saying is that many things that are often passed off as subjective are not actually subjective; things are just harder or easier to prove. That's why I posted the extreme examples of the child's painting and Wanderer Over the Sea of Fog earlier - if art were truly completely subjective, it would be impossible to say with any certainty which was the superior piece, but as things stand one could quite easily prove to anyone's satisfaction which is superior. The waters muddy when the quality levels are closer to being equal, but that isn't to say that there aren't distinctions in quality which inhere within the art. The problem is only that they are more subtle - not that they don't exist.

Get it?

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

I get what you're trying to say, but you are improperly attempting to apply it to music and providing absolutely no documented basis for your claims of how music can be objectively judged, as the methods that you claim should be utilized rest totally in the realm of subjectivity.

You also may not have heard, but musical quality is not solely dependent on technical ability displayed in the creation of the music. That's completely contradictory to the principles that you're applying based on the examples of art that you've provided.

Furthermore, I challenge you to show objective proof (not opinion of any form) that one of those pictures is a better piece of art than the other and show documented evidence demonstrating how you've arrived at that conclusion. If it's as simple and obvious as you say, that should be relatively easy to do.

I agree with you that Wanderer Over the Sea of Fog is better than the child's drawing, by the way.

 

[Internally Deformed]

I get what you're trying to say, but you are improperly attempting to apply it to music and providing absolutely no documented basis for your claims of how music can be objectively judged, as the methods that you claim should be utilized rest totally in the realm of subjectivity.

Bear in mind that all evidence is ultimately subjective. If the two of us were walking and I was to point out a bird I believed to be sitting on a branch, and you were to tell me that the branch was unoccupied, we would both be relying on the evidence of our senses, which is about as pure as evidence can be. Whatever opinions either of us held would not influence the objective reality of the bird's existence or non-existence, however, unless you're of the opinion that reality exists solely as a metal construct (in which case musical quality would be entirely subjective, but for me to agree with this the burden of proof rests with you to convince me that there is no underlying physical reality, which is as impossible as proving the obverse).

You also may not have heard, but musical quality is not solely dependent on technical ability displayed in the creation of the music. That's completely contradictory to the principles that you're applying based on the examples of art that you've provided.

I don't recall suggesting anything like this.

Furthermore, I challenge you to show objective proof (not opinion of any form) that one of those pictures is a better piece of art than the other and show documented evidence demonstrating how you've arrived at that conclusion. If it's as simple and obvious as you say, that should be relatively easy to do.

My objective proof is the same as that I gave for the bird - simply look. The reason I chose extreme examples is because what is and isn't objectively better becomes abundantly and intuitively clear, and an extended and boring attempt to put into words something we both already know is therefore unnecessary. 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.

I agree with you that Wanderer Over the Sea of Fog is better than the child's drawing, by the way.

I'm glad we both see it.

Bathory's first two albums are early black metal with a clear proto-thrash influence and raw production. Songs are short and tend to be quick.

By the third album, Quorthon expanded his repertoire and began to make longer songs that weren't always aggressive and displayed a clear trend towards more epic compositions influenced by Manowar. This was compounded on the fourth album.

The next three albums after that are clearly not black metal and use different vocalizations and very different compositional structures from his earlier work.

Octagon also marks a further change and abandonment of the musical style of the last several albums.

These are all opinions and entirely subjective.

 

[EchoForever]

your opinions on subjectivity is entirely subjective

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

Actually, the musical differences that I posted can be documented in the structure and content of the music on those Bathory albums. For example, it is objectively correct that Quorthon changed his vocal style after Blood Fire Death and it would be false to claim that it was subjective.

I have zero interest in replying to the rest of your post since it's clear that you can't separate subjectivity and objectivity from one another. I do appreciate your attempt to explain why one picture is better than the other despite you offering no real information on why your selection is better.

 

[Internally Deformed]

Actually, the musical differences that I posted can be documented in the structure and content of the music on those Bathory albums. For example, it is far from subjective that Quorthon change his vocal style after Blood Fire Death and it would be false to claim that it was.

But if, like Ozz, I were unable to hear any change, would not my holding of a subjective opinion in distinction to your own invalidate any claim to objectivity on your part?

I have zero interest in replying to the rest of your post since it's clear that you can't separate subjectivity and objectivity from one another. I do appreciate your attempt to explain why one picture is better than the other despite you offering no real information on why your selection is better.

Because it would make just about as boring reading as your attempt to convince Ozz of something we both know is obviously true. That's why I rely on this tactic:

b.) Opinion is wrong - re-listen to artist/album until a.) opinion is not controversial.