Gorefest

[Some Bastard]

But we're agreed on the prejudice and the slandering? :Smug:

 

[Jim LotFP]

So we're agreed on the prejudice and the slandering? :Smug:

Any prejudice was after the fact, knowing what they did before (even if it was songs, not albums) to seeing what they did in the video, myself, not just having an opinion based on what other people said.

"I kind of see where you're coming from" ,"[JC] just had no idea how to approach these songs, as he's obviously not a 'rock'singer." While the original question may be assholish, it's not slander.

 

[Some Bastard]

Assholish? Presenting a band as (in Frank's words) 'some kind of dim-witted, confused collective of idiots who hate Metal and have no idea what they're doing'? A band that was already playing Metal when you were still listening to Sly Fox and Weird Al? And not even having the balls to admit you were wrong? That's not only assholish. It's downright stupid!

It's certainly not Heavy Metal

 

[Jim LotFP]

Assholish? Presenting a band as (in Frank's words) 'some kind of dim-witted, confused collective of idiots who hate Metal and have no idea what they're doing'?

I still think the video presents them this way. It's an awful piece of "promotion."

 

[Some Bastard]

I still think the video presents them this way. It's an awful piece of "promotion."

It is (an awful piece of promotion), but the point is they're not. In fact, I think the only dim-witted, confused idiot who... well probably not exactly hates Metal but certainly disrespects it is you.

It's called musical development. Bands do that all the time. The Beatles did it, Hendrix did, Led Zeppelin....you name 'em. And hey whaddayaknow, Metal bands do it too! There's several reasons bands do this. Deliberately betraying the Heavy Metal genre need not have anything to do with it! It can be because musicians are people too. As you grow older chances are you start appreciating other kinds of music too, and these influences might appear in your band's work. Also as a musician you might want to keep things exciting for yourself. Believe it or not but there are musicians out there who do not want to play the same thing over and over again. And so a band might gradually or suddenly evolve into something else. Sometimes it works (The Gathering, Celtic Frost), sometimes it doesn't (Paradise Lost, Celtic Frost again) but the least a critic should do in the first place is judge the music for what it's worth, regardless of genre. The least you could have done is your homework, instead of assuming shit and judging a band by one stinkin' video. But of course no matter what they may say about it, Gorefest has still broken one of your sacred narrow-minded Heavy Metal rules and are therefore A WITCH!! ....er COMMIES!!....er CONFUSED METAL HATERS!! BURN 'EM!!

Like I said, you don't have a clue about playing or recording music, yet you're oh so good at telling bands what to do. How sad is that?

In fact, what's sadder: bands who take risks and are honest about it or closed-minded scenesters who feel the right to condemn them for doing do?

 

[Occam's Razor]

you are absolutely right, but I still don't see Jim's Gorefest-question as an affront to the band per se, it was rather a kind of criticising the circumstances. A band obviously indifferent towards the laws of promotion shooting a video that makes them appear questionable for the die hards, but making them potentially attractive to new circles of listeners. Not that the band cared, but the people behind who wanted to change an image for better product placement.

I can understand your complaint: critics often blurry the differences between a band's own self image and how they are marketed, or between the fans and the musicians. Bands that are serious about their music tend to not care much about childish fanboy behavior or the promotional masterplan of their labels. Sometimes though, they could consider that a little more, if you ask me - at least the second part. (e.g. when Mike Portnoy insists on having no say in ticket and merchandising prices).

 

[Jim LotFP]

Like I said, you don't have a clue about playing or recording music, yet you're oh so good at telling bands what to do. How sad is that?

Yes, you're right. I'm going to sign up for guitar lessons right now and fuck around in recording studios for several years before I dare have another opinion based on listening to music.

 

[Occam's Razor]

It's getting unfriendly here...

Could we actually clarify the differing standpoints?
- What's Jim's motivation to write and crack his head the whole day about metal, and what is bastard's motivation to discuss with him about metal journalism although he is only into the music?

 

[Some Bastard]

Yes, you're right. I'm going to sign up for guitar lessons right now and fuck around in recording studios for several years before I dare have another opinion based on listening to music.

You're missing the point. I've said it before; you don't have to be a musician to have an opinion on music. Problem is, lots of your opinions don't have anything to do with music at all. It's all very cool of you to think: "Ha! If I were in a band that's not how I would have done it. Shooting a crappy video, bunch of Traitors!" but the truth is you don't know that. You wouldn't have heard me if you had just stated you didn't like their new musical direction. Or even if you had said you hated their guts for it and hoped they would die. But you don't do that do you? Instead you judge bands by looking if they fit your narrow-minded idea of 'authenticity'. The music itself need not have anything to do with it.

It's getting unfriendly here...

Could we actually clarify the differing standpoints?
- What's Jim's motivation to write and crack his head the whole day about metal, and what is bastard's motivation to discuss with him about metal journalism although he is only into the music?

Don't know what his motivation is of course. And if he actually had a clue you wouldn't hear me. The fact is of course that his focus on Metal is rather narrow, yet he thinks he knows all there is to know about the wide and diverse genre that is Heavy Metal. Even though he never really liked it. The guy got into it by hearing Napalm Death, a band that hardly defines Heavy Metal, since they represent only a small segment (a very small segment) of what Heavy Metal is. Most people into Napalm Death didn't care for Heavy Metal and vice versa, very few people into Heavy Metal were into Napalm Death. Grindcore was a borderline case anyway, since the sound (not to mention a lot of people who made it) came from Punk. Think that Siege, Gism or Larm were Heavy Metal bands? Guess again!

And yet this guy thinks he can tell me what Heavy Metal is? And meanwhile manages to insult not only several of its key artists but also make some vile assumptions about a band that were playing Metal long before he actually got into it? In that case you're insulting me too. Unfriendly? You ain't seen nothing yet

 

[Jim LotFP]

The fact is of course that his focus on Metal is rather narrow

Is it?

yet he thinks he knows all there is to know about the wide and diverse genre that is Heavy Metal.

Not the case. I comment all the time about new discoveries, and if I thought I knew everything I couldn't discover anything, now could I?

Even though he never really liked it.

Oh no, never liked it, not for a moment, not ever.

The guy got into it by hearing Napalm Death, a band that hardly defines Heavy Metal, since they represent only a small segment (a very small segment) of what Heavy Metal is.

You could substitute any band name for Napalm Death there and apply this logic to anybody. "Oh, you got into metal by hearing Judas Priest? They hardly define heavy metal, since they represent only a small segment of what heavy metal is."

Please.

Most people into Napalm Death didn't care for Heavy Metal and vice versa, very few people into Heavy Metal were into Napalm Death.

Thus my problem early on... finding people who were both widely knowledgeable and willing to explain was difficult, so I had not much to learn from. However, the 1990s and that particular problem are far behind us.

Grindcore was a borderline case anyway, since the sound (not to mention a lot of people who made it) came from Punk. Think that Siege, Gism or Larm were Heavy Metal bands? Guess again!

The exact same argument can be made against many of the early leaders in heavy metal. You already did about Iron Maiden. (http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5136327&postcount=105) So what's your point?

And yet this guy thinks he can tell me what Heavy Metal is?

Considering you don't think heavy metal needs to be or can be defined, it wouldn't matter if I was born in 1950 and bought every record ever made since 1968, played in fifteen bands and produced fifty albums. You could still bitch in the exact manner for the exact same reason, so again, what is your point?

And meanwhile manages to insult not only several of its key artists but also make some vile assumptions about a band that were playing Metal long before he actually got into it?

If you're going to play this game, you shouldn't count the years that Gorefest was inactive, in which case the band hasn't been around as many years as I've been into metal. Which means nothing either way. "How many years" is completely meaningless.

In that case you're insulting me too. Unfriendly? You ain't seen nothing yet

If you're not here to discuss, and are simply here to be "unfriendly", then you simply won't be here very much longer at all.

 

[Some Bastard]

Is it?

Seeing your contempt for the genre's history and everything that doesn't fit your narrow view of 'authenticity' I think it is

Not the case. I comment all the time about new discoveries, and if I thought I knew everything I couldn't discover anything, now could I?

OK, fair enough

Oh no, never liked it, not for a moment, not ever.

Nope. "Glammy shit" is what you called it

You could substitute any band name for Napalm Death there and apply this logic to anybody. "Oh, you got into metal by hearing Judas Priest? They hardly define heavy metal, since they represent only a small segment of what heavy metal is."

But in Judas Priest's case that would be a ridiculous statement, since they don't represent a small segment of what Heavy Metal is at all. To many people they are still the very defintion of what Heavy Metal is. More so than Napalm Death.

Thus my problem early on... finding people who were both widely knowledgeable and willing to explain was difficult, so I had not much to learn from. However, the 1990s and that particular problem are far behind us.

Knowledgeable and willing to explain about bands on the very fringes of Heavy Metal, where it crossed over into Hardcore/Punk? Really?

The exact same argument can be made against many of the early leaders in heavy metal. You already did about Iron Maiden. (http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5136327&postcount=105) So what's your point?

That's not the 'exact same argument'. Yes, Iron Maiden were influenced by prog-rock but no one in their right mind would have called them prog-rock or anything but Heavy Metal. Napalm Death were a definite borderline case. They did not define Heavy Metal at all.

Considering you don't think heavy metal needs to be or can be defined, it wouldn't matter if I was born in 1950 and bought every record ever made since 1968, played in fifteen bands and produced fifty albums. You could still bitch in the exact manner for the exact same reason, so again, what is your point?

I've already stated my point in other topics several times. I think Heavy Metal can be defined (if and why it 'needs' to be is another matter), I just wonder why it should be you that should do the defining. After all, you only got into it when it got musically more extreme and crossed over into Punk/Hardcore-territory and you base your whole opinion of the genre on that. Why would you be qualified?

If you're going to play this game, you shouldn't count the years that Gorefest was inactive, in which case the band hasn't been around as many years as I've been into metal. Which means nothing either way. "How many years" is completely meaningless.

Oh yes, I forgot, the guys in Gorefest stopped being Metal as soon as they stopped being a band How many years is indeed meaningless, having a point of reference is not. My point is these guys were already into Metal when you still dismissed it as 'glammy shit'

If you're not here to discuss, and are simply here to be "unfriendly", then you simply won't be here very much longer at all.

Censorship is NOT Heavy Metal!

Personally I think you started the unfriendliness by insulting a band I have been following for years and who I know are the real thing. And you didn't even have the decency to ask them about it first. Instead you just assumed shit. Or wouldn't you say being 'assholish' (your word) would qualify as 'unfriendly'?

Action = reaction

Besides that, I think Soul Survivor is a great record. One of their best. That should be the only thing that matters, not its 'Metal'-quotient or some crummy video.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Personally I think you started the unfriendliness by insulting a band I have been following for years and who I know are the real thing. And you didn't even have the decency to ask them about it first. Instead you just assumed shit. Or wouldn't you say being 'assholish' (your word) would qualify as 'unfriendly'?

Besides that, I think Soul Survivor is a great record. One of their best. That should be the only thing that matters, not its 'Metal'-quotient or some crummy video.

You're overdoing it. To me, the question was no insult to Gorefest. I see that you can interpret it that way, the more so since anybody who writes something thought-provoking is an easy target for readers of music 'journalism'. After all, we do not want to think but be entertained...

 

[Jim LotFP]

Seeing your contempt for the genre's history and everything that doesn't fit your narrow view of 'authenticity' I think it is

Contempt for the genre's history? What? Do you realize I'm buying at least five or six old albums for every new one I get?

Nope. "Glammy shit" is what you called it

I also once thought Unseen Terror's Mitch Dickinson sang in Iron Maiden. Stupid, retarded shit, but hardly relevant to any discussion today.

But in Judas Priest's case that would be a ridiculous statement, since they don't represent a small segment of what Heavy Metal is at all. To many people they are still the very defintion of what Heavy Metal is. More so than Napalm Death.

No it would not be a ridiculous statement. Judas Priest, neither the band nor all the styles they have ever played, does not represent the full spectrum of heavy metal any more than Napalm Death does.

Knowledgeable and willing to explain about bands on the very fringes of Heavy Metal, where it crossed over into Hardcore/Punk? Really?

It wouldn't be the most comprehensive or extensive treatment that could be given to the subject, but I could write something without embarrassing myself, and far more effectively than I could even six months ago.

It would take some effort and I still have to track down a couple of key albums that do not seem to be available locally here before I'd really want to commit to such a thing for public examination.

That's not the 'exact same argument'. Yes, Iron Maiden were influenced by prog-rock but no one in their right mind would have called them prog-rock or anything but Heavy Metal. Napalm Death were a definite borderline case. They did not define Heavy Metal at all.

I got into them post-Harmony Corruption, and they were full-on death metal by then. Hardly borderline, no matter what Scum or From Enslavement... mind have been.

After all, you only got into it when it got musically more extreme and crossed over into Punk/Hardcore-territory and you base your whole opinion of the genre on that. Why would you be qualified?

If my definition is wrong, give me a better one. If I am unqualified, show me someone more qualified that is willing to do it. If I feel their definitions are better than mine, I'll adopt them. I'll think through how my philosophies towards heavy metal need to change as a result. It's a constant process. You are severely missing the mark trying to talk to me *now* based on things I knew or didn't know ten, fifteen, twenty years ago.

I also have the impression that you have the wrong idea of what I actually listen to.

My point is these guys were already into Metal when you still dismissed it as 'glammy shit'

My point is that what I knew and what I thought in 1989, 1992, or 1996 has no relevance on the conversation we are having today.

Censorship is NOT Heavy Metal!

Neither is allowing somebody to piss on the floor in my house.

 

[Some Bastard]

Contempt for the genre's history? What? Do you realize I'm buying at least five or six old albums for every new one I get?

Nope, had no idea. How 'old'?

No it would not be a ridiculous statement. Judas Priest, neither the band nor all the styles they have ever played, does not represent the full spectrum of heavy metal any more than Napalm Death does.

I did not say 'the full spectrum', I said that to many people (old and young alike) they are still the very defintion of what Heavy Metal is. They represent a larger segment of what Heavy Metal is than Napalm Death who only represent a small segment. That's not the same as 'the full spectrum'

I got into them post-Harmony Corruption, and they were full-on death metal by then. Hardly borderline, no matter what Scum or From Enslavement... mind have been.

OK, fair enough. Still, Death Metal too was still a pretty small segment from the larger thing that Heavy Metal was. Napalm Death did not define Heavy Metal.

If my definition is wrong, give me a better one. If I am unqualified, show me someone more qualified that is willing to do it. If I feel their definitions are better than mine, I'll adopt them. I'll think through how my philosophies towards heavy metal need to change as a result. It's a constant process. You are severely missing the mark trying to talk to me *now* based on things I knew or didn't know ten, fifteen, twenty years ago.

Your definition is not neccesarily 'wrong', but as far as I can tell it is rather small-ish and overly romanticized (I already stated my opinions on the genre and music in general elsewhere - too bad you chose to ignore most of 'em). That probably is because as far as I can tell you are a 'scenester'. Scenesters like to have this 'overview' of the 'scene' based on their own set of rules. I know several of them. They make statements like "short hair doesn't belong in the scene" or "no, all metal evolved out of classical music, not rock" and they have this whole mental list of do's and don'ts and people who don't live by their rules are 'posers' or 'not tr00'. Yep, they're the people with 'philosophies towards heavy metal'. Always makes me wonder if they actually enjoy the music they invest all that 'work' in.

It's probably me. I'm not a fan of scenesters. They can be fun but usually they're just missing the whole point of music. If there is a genuine problem I have with scenesters it's that they think the scene is about them. Well, it's not!

I also have the impression that you have the wrong idea of what I actually listen to.

Could be. What are you listening to?

Neither is allowing somebody to piss on the floor in my house.

You got a point there

I can assure you that if I were actually at your house and you started insulting my 'friends' (metaphorically speaking) I would not piss on your floor. I would ask you if we could take this outside (but I haven't figured out how to do that on the innerweb yet)

 

[Jim LotFP]

Nope, had no idea. How 'old'?

Not counting those classical music boxes I just bought, I've been concentrating my buying on the 1980-1985 period for most of this year. Some 70s and late 80s stuff recently. Latest purchases were a Blue Öyster Cult best-of (I'd finally given up on finding a whole handful of albums of theirs in one go) and Testament's The New Order, and Annihilator's Alice In Hell. I think my next targets are going to be Pagan Altar and Artillery.

I did not say 'the full spectrum', I said that to many people (old and young alike) they are still the very defintion of what Heavy Metal is. They represent a larger segment of what Heavy Metal is than Napalm Death who only represent a small segment. That's not the same as 'the full spectrum'

But the people who think Judas Priest are the very definition of heavy metal are completely wrong. That's not a matter of opinion. There's more to it, no matter how popular or not it is.

And when you talk about "segment"... are you talking record sales? Number of bands? I think I can guarantee you there were more bands selling more records in the 1990s sounding closer to Napalm Death than to Judas Priest. In the US at least.

Your definition is not neccesarily 'wrong', but as far as I can tell it is rather small-ish and overly romanticized

Well my definition does put limits on what heavy metal is, but definitions have to do that. Whether it turns out to be small or large isn't much of a concern to me as long as it makes sense to me. As far as overly romanticized, well, being accepting of reality is not something I'm often accused of. I realize my ideal is rather unrealistic but it makes no sense at all to aim low in these matters.

That probably is because as far as I can tell you are a 'scenester'.

We have different ideas of what a scenester is. I see scenesters as the type that cheerlead for the scene in general, always liking the bands of the moment, always doing what they can to "support the scene" in whatever capacity they can. They enjoy hanging out with bands, they enjoy gathering socially around their scene. The name of the band is incidental to their listening, attending, and socializing around them.

And that isn't me.

Scenesters like to have this 'overview' of the 'scene' based on their own set of rules. I know several of them. They make statements like "short hair doesn't belong in the scene" or "no, all metal evolved out of classical music, not rock" and they have this whole mental list of do's and don'ts and people who don't live by their rules are 'posers' or 'not tr00'.

Do you question or test their logic before dismissing them? The hair thing in particular seems completely ridiculous on the surface but putting it to the test gives frightening results. (and I apply this feeling outside of metal, too... feeling disappointed when anybody gets a haircut, hehe...)

But I don't know that being a passive observer of events is any better a policy.

Yep, they're the people with 'philosophies towards heavy metal'. Always makes me wonder if they actually enjoy the music they invest all that 'work' in.

My "work" in heavy metal is an extension of my enjoyment of the music, and my enjoyment entails approaching everything skeptically, questioning everything, going with the assumption that everything matters, and seeing what comes out the other side of that intact. If I claim it as entertainment (books, music, movies, whatever), I put it through this grinder of examination. If I'm not inspired or driven to be this critical, then I evidently don't care enough about it to bother.

Could be. What are you listening to?

Aside from review subjects and latest purchases... latest few on the stereo here... Running Wild's Black Hand Inn, Her Enchantment's Darkness, Voivod's Nothingface, Havayoth's His Creation Reversed, Demon's The Unexpected Guest, and Discharge's Hear Nothing See Nothing Say Nothing. Hmm, not as eclectic as to make the best example. Let me lie and say Fleurety's Min Tid Skal Komme, Arcturus' La Masquerade Infernale, Hammers of Misfortune's The August Engine, King Crimson's Red, and Tactile Gemma's self titled album.

I can assure you that if I were actually at your house and you started insulting my 'friends' (metaphorically speaking) I would not piss on your floor. I would ask you if we could take this outside (but I haven't figured out how to do that on the innerweb yet)

eh? I've never met a person (or group) that didn't deserve a good insulting about something. Hardly something to get violent about.

 

[Some Bastard]

Not counting those classical music boxes I just bought, I've been concentrating my buying on the 1980-1985 period for most of this year. Some 70s and late 80s stuff recently. Latest purchases were a Blue Öyster Cult best-of (I'd finally given up on finding a whole handful of albums of theirs in one go) and Testament's The New Order, and Annihilator's Alice In Hell. I think my next targets are going to be Pagan Altar and Artillery.

Blue Öyster Cult? Cool!

You do realize that to a certain extent they were a fabricated band too, right? And that by today's standards they could hardly be called Heavy Metal. Hard Rock maybe, but certainly not Heavy Metal.

But the people who think Judas Priest are the very definition of heavy metal are completely wrong. That's not a matter of opinion. There's more to it, no matter how popular or not it is.

I agree that there's more to it than popularity but how and why are these people wrong?

And when you talk about "segment"... are you talking record sales? Number of bands? I think I can guarantee you there were more bands selling more records in the 1990s sounding closer to Napalm Death than to Judas Priest. In the US at least.

When I'm talking about segment I'm talking about the music itself, not record sales (like you said yourself, popularity is not an issue). Death Metal is a subgenre of Heavy Metal.

Well my definition does put limits on what heavy metal is, but definitions have to do that. Whether it turns out to be small or large isn't much of a concern to me as long as it makes sense to me. As far as overly romanticized, well, being accepting of reality is not something I'm often accused of. I realize my ideal is rather unrealistic but it makes no sense at all to aim low in these matters.

I'm glad you realize that. I guess I don't really see the point of your ideals then but hey, whatever floats your boat

We have different ideas of what a scenester is. I see scenesters as the type that cheerlead for the scene in general, always liking the bands of the moment, always doing what they can to "support the scene" in whatever capacity they can. They enjoy hanging out with bands, they enjoy gathering socially around their scene. The name of the band is incidental to their listening, attending, and socializing around them.

And that isn't me.

I guess we do. To me sometimes you do come across as the virtual equivalent of the kind of person I described.

Do you question or test their logic before dismissing them? The hair thing in particular seems completely ridiculous on the surface but putting it to the test gives frightening results. (and I apply this feeling outside of metal, too... feeling disappointed when anybody gets a haircut, hehe...)

But I don't know that being a passive observer of events is any better a policy.

Do I question or test their logic? They avoid me like the proverbial plague once they've had a piece of me

The hair comment wasn't about me (still have it - never dared to cut it off), it was a friend of mine at a local Heavy Metal bar. I've known him since the 80's and for some reason he decided to cut it all of. Then one day this 16 year old kid came up to him and said he didn't belong there

I'm not a passive observer of events. Far from it. Sometimes I wish I was

My "work" in heavy metal is an extension of my enjoyment of the music, and my enjoyment entails approaching everything skeptically, questioning everything, going with the assumption that everything matters, and seeing what comes out the other side of that intact. If I claim it as entertainment (books, music, movies, whatever), I put it through this grinder of examination. If I'm not inspired or driven to be this critical, then I evidently don't care enough about it to bother.

Believe it or not, but I'm just as critical as you. I just think quality is more important than whatever genre something may or may not fall under. That's what I mean by 'scenesters'. The people who's first reaction to something even slightly different is always: "But..... it's not Heavy Metal (*sob* *weep*)". And add "traitors" and "not tr00" when (shock! horror!) it concerns a former Metal band, quality be damned

Or as in this case, the people who make insinuations about a band based on one crummy video (and I maintain that the proper thing to do would have been asking the band members themselves about it first - the fact that you're not a journalist doesn't mean you can't do your homework and/or do some proper research before writing shitty things about a band)

eh? I've never met a person (or group) that didn't deserve a good insulting about something. Hardly something to get violent about.

I'm not a violent person but if someone wants to insult me (or my friends) he better have a good reason to do so

Usually I can win it with words though