Death - The sound of perseverance

BeyondtheUnholyGrave said:
I love how these guys keep mentioning Atheist, Coroner and Cynic as if these are the only bands playing this style. Chuck was more influenced by Watchtower than any of those other bands. It's also important to note that Cynic weren't always playing Focus type material. It was Chuck Schuldiner that gave Paul Masvidal many of the ideas that were created on Focus. You can hear that through the lyrics in Focus that regard "Cosmic Sea" the instrumental on Human.
Which, of course is why none of Death's material sounds anything like Watchtower OR Focus, but Human sounds like an extension of the Cynic demo recordings of '89 and '90?

And, is it just my imagination, or did you claim that an INSTRUMENTAL was the inspiration for Cynic's LYRICS? Are you really that fucking stupid?
 
Planetary Eulogy said:
Which, of course is why none of Death's material sounds anything like Watchtower OR Focus, but Human sounds like an extension of the Cynic demo recordings of '89 and '90?
You lost me there. Was that sarcasm? Explain that quote please.
 
To wit:

None of Death's material sounds ANYTHING like WatchTower, nor does it share structural or ideological elements, so claiming that WatchTower was the primary influence on later Death is fundamentally idiotic. Further, Human is almost identical in approach to Cynic's demo work of '89 and '90, so denying their influence upon Death is equally idiotic. Finally, Focus has no elements that could even TANGENTIALLY be traced to Death, so claiming that Chuck is the source of the album's sound is fucking moronic.
 
U2 and Led Zeppelin are major influences in my band's music and ideals. You'll find nary an element of those two bands in our end product. A band can influence another band without the second band aping the first's sound. The converse is also true.

And there are a boatload of similarities between Focus and Human. I knew that even before I realized that the two albums have a lot of the same musicians on them.
 
The similarities are entirely superficial, basically, the only thing the two albums have in common is that both are "technical" (but in wildly different fashions) and that they share certain personnel. The style, approach, structures and underlying ideologies are totally different.
 
I'm drunk out of my skull and your stupidity is still annoying me. That's an accomplishment.

Modern art is fucking dumb, 99% of it requires no talent whatsoever. It's indiscernible from the fingerpainting of a youth.

Serialism stokes the composer's ego and little more. Even experienced listeners/musicians must pay strict attention to differentiate it from random sounds. The composer randomly lays out his 12 pitches, then he writes his music by having different instruments play the original arrangement in different ways; inverted or in original order. No pitch is repeated before the others are heard. So long as he follows his rules he's in the clear. None of this has anything to do with writing music that sounds good.
 
I'm glad you find being drunk out of your skull such an accomplishment.

Your statement on modern art just proves that you really don't understand it. It's indiscernible to you, but I see clear differences, as do most connoisseurs of the movement.

I think any massive musical accomplishment would stoke a composer's ego. I'm in the process of writing a new structure of symphony, with metal influences. It boosts my ego quite a bit.

The rules you described are not the iron-clad rules of serialism. Those rules are a groundwork that Schoenberg laid to ensure that he wouldn't fall into the trappings of diatonic, scale-oriented music. Serialism has existed without them. It's just a different exploration of musical ideas. It's not good or bad. That depends on the individual piece.
 
Nick,

Modern art is delieberately "indiscernible." One of its defining characteristics is the abstraction from inherent meaning or purpose. Ars gratia artis is the conceptual basis of the movement, but for the most part, it's just the self-indulgent posturing of a self-appointed cognoscenti.

To my mind, the great value of art is as a repository of dreams, but I see no dreams among the Moderns (or the Post-Moderns, as the case may be), only the tepid cynicism of jaded hipsters.
 
Who said it was an accomplishment? The accomplishment was annoying me in spite of my inebriation.

You've just played the modern art asshat card. The very argument I could use to contend that it's high art every time I take a shit.

Stockhausen, Schoenberg, late Stravinsky, etc. followed those rules. They are the rules of serialism.
 
Demiurge said:
The problem lies with individuals who appreciate a general aesthetic but fail to grasp its ideological merits(and its motivation).

How do you recognise a band's ideological merits/motivation merely by listening to their music?
 
Demiurge said:
Who said it was an accomplishment? The accomplishment was annoying me in spite of my inebriation.

You've just played the modern art asshat card. The very argument I could use to contend that it's high art every time I take a shit.

Stockhausen, Schoenberg, late Stravinsky, etc. followed those rules. They are the rules of serialism.
I played the humor card and took you seriously for a while. Almost every other poster to visit this thread passed you off as an underage elitist/Nazi and took every word you uttered with a grain of salt. In one ear and out the other, as they say.

You obviously missed my joke. And your posts continue to contain idiotic degenerations to childish insults and vulgar stupidity, every time you feel frustration--so it seems.

You really have two choices. Get off your high horse and learn something, or stop wasting everyone's goddamn time. To even consider I was having a discussion with a quasi-intelligent person was a grave mistake on my part. Maybe you'll get your second brain cell if you get impregnated somehow.

Int said:
How do you recognise a band's ideological merits/motivation merely by listening to their music?
Good question. I asked something of the sort before, and yet no one seems to have heard an answer.

Planetary Eulogy said:
Nick,

Modern art is delieberately "indiscernible." One of its defining characteristics is the abstraction from inherent meaning or purpose. Ars gratia artis is the conceptual basis of the movement, but for the most part, it's just the self-indulgent posturing of a self-appointed cognoscenti.

To my mind, the great value of art is as a repository of dreams, but I see no dreams among the Moderns (or the Post-Moderns, as the case may be), only the tepid cynicism of jaded hipsters.
I apologize for my previous rant. It was not directed at you whatsoever. I guess everyone can get ticked once in a while.

You have a point. I think it all depends on the individual artist and what he hopes to achieve. It reminds me of a Wayans Brothers episode and a Brotherly Love episode. From way back. The train of thought is similar. One of the guys meets a girl who is an art lover, so they feign being a great "modern artist." When the girl asks if she can see some of the artwork, the guy immediately rushes home to fingerpaint a dozen or so "paintings." The Wayans Brothers cracked me up, because the guy painted a yellow shape called The Dark Side Of The Moon. As he pointed to the painting and turned around, a large quantity of yellow paint could be seen on his buttocks.

"That's a painting of your ass, man." :lol:

But I see your point. I just happen to like some modern art(post-modern, whatever) and I find it unfair to generalize what the artists are thinking. Some of it requires a certain amout of discipline. A lot of modern art is actually painted by elephants, and people buy them for high prices. The wide, sweeping brushstrokes seem to evoke so much emotion, that people want them. But they look like something a child drew.

It's all relative. But I see your point. I hope you see mine.
 
Int said:
How do you recognise a band's ideological merits/motivation merely by listening to their music?
Eh, there's 1000 years worth of culturally understood signifiers that have accumulated in the Western musical tradition. When one adds lyrics and the ubiquity of interviews, it becomes quite easy to parse meaning.
 
Demiurge said:
I agree, circular songwriting does not alone damn a record. It limits its scope though. When done well, we get a fun album, not a transcendental one.

Heh. Carcass' "Heartwork" immediately springs to mind.

Perhaps that's the reason why I dislike melodic death metal. I remember I liked At The Gates and Ablaze My Sorrow when I first listened through some of their records. The next day, I couldn't stand them - were they perhaps too catchy/too melodic? I generally find that "melodic" (note the inverted commaes) death metal doesn't have a great deal of longevity. Carcass' "Heartwork" is alright now and then, and as you said, it can be a fun listen. However, I'd much rather listen to some Immolation and Incantation, as I just don't easily get tired of their albums.

Still, a lot of people enjoy music in the vein of Death. Even though I personally don't like such music, I have to respect that others like them - because - taste is something that is subjective.
 
Planetary Eulogy said:
Eh, there's 1000 years worth of culturally understood signifiers that have accumulated in the Western musical tradition. When one adds lyrics and the ubiquity of interviews, it becomes quite easy to parse meaning.

Lyrics and interviews have little to do with music itself; if you have to go beyond listening to music before passing judgement, it's not really the music you're judging.
 
henrikmain said:
Still, a lot of people enjoy music in the vein of Death. Even though I personally don't like such music, I have to respect that others like them - because - taste is something that is subjective.
Well said. I wish PE had read my post...
 
Planetary Eulogy said:
Which, of course is why none of Death's material sounds anything like Watchtower OR Focus, but Human sounds like an extension of the Cynic demo recordings of '89 and '90?
Yeah...that's because Human has both Sean Reinert and Paul Masvidal you stupid fuck. What's it supposed to sound like? Chuck + Steve DiGiorgio(Who cant be heard on the album) + 2 members of Cynic. Of course it's gonna sound like Cynic!

Planetary Eulogy said:
And, is it just my imagination, or did you claim that an INSTRUMENTAL was the inspiration for Cynic's LYRICS? Are you really that fucking stupid?
Wrong again shithead. I said that the reason why Paul uttered the term Cosmic Sea during Focus is because he wanted to show the influence that Chuck and Death had on Cynic as a band.

Now i'm sure in your opinon, Reflections of a Dying World and the other Cynic demos are far superior to anything Death has ever done. Fine. Then why the fuck bother coming here and spreading your misery? Pointing out flaws or simply stating you don't like something is one thing. Being a complete low life scumbag on UM is something completely different. The reason albums like Human and Individual Thought Patterns were made was to combat your kind.

"...to those that live their lives only to criticize" - ITP

Worry about your own life, then you'll know what it's like to live rather than merely exist.
 
Int said:
Lyrics and interviews have little to do with music itself; if you have to go beyond listening to music before passing judgement, it's not really the music you're judging.
Lyrics and music are inseparable. They're part and parcel of the artform. Lyrics inform music and music informs lyrical content. What you're arguing is akin to saying that a painter's use of colour and light is relevant to interpretation, but his choice of subject and personal beliefs are not. You're drawing distinctions that don't exist.
 
Yeah...that's because Human has both Sean Reinert and Paul Masvidal you stupid fuck.
First you argue that Cynic wasn't an influence on Death (and that the influence actually went the other way). Then you argue that I'm a 'stupid fuck' for pointing out what you now imply to be intuitively obvious (that Cynic DID influence Death). Make up your fucking mind kid.