Does a metal masterpiece actually exist?

[Pate]

To me, there are several "masterpieces",:

BWP
Operation: Mindcrime
Black Sabbath - Master of Reality
Iron Maiden - Iron Maiden
Sodom - Agent Orange
Immortal - At the Heart of Winter
Testament - The Legacy

Just to name a few. I feel that a masterpiece is an album that is flawless from beginning to end, every single track is excellent, and each track fits together in the context of the album, as well as stays good over time. At the moment, I would dare to call Ihsahn's "The Adversary" a masterpiece, but I will wait five years before doing so.

 

[Celestial-Voyage]

Iron Maiden - Powerslave
Death - Spiritual Healing
Death - Individual Thought Patterns
Opeth - Morningrise

 

[entanglement]

wwalinga.. Completely agree with you.

It all comes down to the person concerned's own personal opinion. Then again, if we were to be practical, a 'masterpiece' is something that would win over 95% votes from a panel of people who know that kind of music a bit too well.

 

[NFU]

black sabbath - paranoid
judas priest - sad wings of destiny
mercyful fate - dont break the oath
death - individual thought patterns

are a couple examples of "metal" albums id consider masterpieces if i had to use the word in conjunction with a metal album.

 

[Powers]

A masterpiece is without flaw and thus by it's very nature, perfect.

As the state of perfection is unatainable, there is no such thing as a masterpiece.

 

[MixGrafix]

Me personally, As a whole, Tool 'Lateralus'.

I hope, and agree that 10,000 days stands up to Lateralus.

I know this is going a little off topic, but have you seen that the new Intel Macs can run XP natively on there system with a program called boot camp.

I think this will be a major breakthrough for musicians because they now can buy one computer, and run all three operating systems (Windows, Mac, and Linux) legally. This will now give musicians a choice for running programs that they need to run, and how they want to run them.

 

[soundave]

A masterpiece is without flaw and thus by it's very nature, perfect.

As the state of perfection is unatainable, there is no such thing as a masterpiece.

Boo!! Stop being overly literal. That's no fun.

 

[Powers]

Just stating the facts.

Nothing can really ever be perfect because that would require everyone to feel the same way about it. If not then it might well be perfect to some but not to others, and if it's not perfect to some it may as well not be perfect to any.

 

[soundave]

Just stating the facts.

Nothing can really ever be perfect because that would require everyone to feel the same way about it. If not then it might well be perfect to some but not to others, and if it's not perfect to some it may as well not be perfect to any.

Do you feel this way about, say, right and wrong/good and bad? Does everyone have to agree that something is good for it to be truly good? Or are some things intrinsically good?

 

[the phish]

people feel that Dreaming Neon Black is a pretty perfect metal album, but i think This Godless Endeavor is the real winner for perfection.

 

[Powers]

Good and bad, right and wrong. I thought about this at length and read up on philosophical and theological works which could be said to emulate the very fundaments of this arguement, Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil", Hitler's "Mein Kampf", The Bible, De Sade's "120 Days of Sodom" and the like.

The conclusion I came to? Good and evil...right and wrong do not exist, all they are are the morally justifiable and the morally unjustifiable. And whether or not something is justifiable is subjective.

Philsophical yes?

 

[soundave]

Good and bad, right and wrong. I thought about this at length and read up on philosophical and theological works which could be said to emulate the very fundaments of this arguement, Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil", Hitler's "Mein Kampf", The Bible, De Sade's "120 Days of Sodom" and the like.

The conclusion I came to? Good and evil...right and wrong do not exist, all they are are the morally justifiable and the morally unjustifiable. And whether or not something is justifiable is subjective.

Philsophical yes?

That's what I figured. You believe in cultural relativity, too, I suppose?

 

[prowlergrig]

my masterpieces:

still life
ssoass - maiden
master - tallica
rust in peace - deth
nothingface - voivod

 

[Powers]

Completely. The idea of good and evil is useful especially when teaching children morals and ethics, but the fact is that they're only useful because they're easy ways of dealing with such an abstarct concept as justification.

It's why religions deal with things as easily as that, because it's a brilliant way of contolling people rather than letting them make up their own minds.

I'm not a follower of De Sade, the basic jist of his theory being "All morals, ethics and rules are fundamentally against nature because they are design to protect the weak."

Although I don't totally agree with realativism either, I categorize myself differently as what I have christened a justificationalist.

It's about doing what's right at the time, for the greater good.

 

[derbeder]

Good and bad, right and wrong. I thought about this at length and read up on philosophical and theological works which could be said to emulate the very fundaments of this arguement, Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil", Hitler's "Mein Kampf", The Bible, De Sade's "120 Days of Sodom" and the like.

The conclusion I came to? Good and evil...right and wrong do not exist, all they are are the morally justifiable and the morally unjustifiable. And whether or not something is justifiable is subjective.

Philsophical yes?

I assume you did not read these for an ethics course in college. If you are interested, I have some recommendations for a broader range of readings.

 

[headbanger1547]

Ayreon's The Human Equation comes to mind.

 

[Powers]

I assume you did not read these for an ethics course in college. If you are interested, I have some recommendations for a broader range of readings.

No, I just find the human condition interesting. It really kicked off when I started learning about Marxism, I looked in to Engles and who they were inspired by and names like Nietzsche and Smith started to appear.

From there I wanted to see who they inspired and they were inspired by in Nietzsche's case obviously you find Hitler and thus Darwin (owing no doubt to his belief in social Darwinism).

It's fascinating stuff really, next I'm proabaly going to move on the the anchient philosiphers.

Recommend please.

 

[soundave]

Completely. The idea of good and evil is useful especially when teaching children morals and ethics, but the fact is that they're only useful because they're easy ways of dealing with such an abstarct concept as justification.

It's why religions deal with things as easily as that, because it's a brilliant way of contolling people rather than letting them make up their own minds.

I'm not a follower of De Sade, the basic jist of his theory being "All morals, ethics and rules are fundamentally against nature because they are design to protect the weak."

Although I don't totally agree with realativism either, I categorize myself differently as what I have christened a justificationalist.

It's about doing what's right at the time, for the greater good.

So nothing is what it is? I imagine you have some Kant mixed in there somewhere, too, huh? Maybe this is a better conversation for the philosophy board, but that sort of philosophy scares me a bit. That, and utilitarianism.

I'd consider myself an objectivist, incidentally.

 

[Powers]

So nothing is what it is?

Elaborate?

 

[soundave]

So nothing is what it is?

Elaborate?

Okay. Here's what I mean: If everyone has to agree that something is good, bad, evil, etc., and such an agreement is impossible, it means that nothing is intrinsically what it is. This is a very Kantian way of seeing the world, that our goggles of perception create a different reality for you, me, and everyone else. I do not agree. I think that this philosophy is very dangerous and responsible for some of the world's worst atrocities (anyone who says philosophy is a waste of time has no idea how they are being manipulated). If you'd like to challenge your own beliefs (as opposed to reading more and more to further entrench your beliefs), check out Ayn Rand. If you'd like, I can recommend some of her better philosophical writings.

If you don't mind my asking, how old are you? I've had a number of students who shared your philosophy, and I wonder if it has to do with age at all.