Well that's too bad, because plenty of people only toss in lyrics as an afterthought after writing the entire song plus vocal melodies first. Also, arguing whether instrumental music is proper art is bullshit. There are plenty of fantastic metal songs with no lyrics, not to mention classical and jazz.
Regarding the lyric as afterthought: of course it happens regularly, and a lot of the time they don't tend to be very good. But that's also not a very important point in this conversation.
Regarding instrumental or "absolute" music: the debate that I'm referring to occurred in the middle of the 19th century, sparked by post-Bach composers such as Haydn and Beethoven who began to compose with greater frequency purely instrumental compositions free of lyric or libretto. More and more composers began to do so in this period as doing so became more and more lucrative; previously, the majority of composers made their living in the service of the church, patron, and opera house, all of which generally necessitated some type of representational content. The mimetic-representational theory of art at this time was the dominant modus operandi in the aesthetic sphere, with philosophers of the likes of Kant not bequeathing absolute music with the status of art in the sense understood at that time. It was not really until Schopenhauer that things began to change, although he was still fundamentally working under the mimetic standard. Hegel, although he seemingly also sided with Kant, did help in moving away from the mimetic theory and moving toward the expressive theory of art, which assisted in the growing acceptance of absolute music as art proper.
are anti-, non-Christian themes the only the only criteria required for creating black metal?
Of course not. This conversation is more about what is fundamentally opposed to the precepts of the genre and not, rather, establishing a rigid textbook, or checklist as unknown fears, of what constitutes black metal. As I mentioned in my previous post, it is inarguable that the 'ideology' of black metal did evolve from the likes of Venom and Mercyful Fate and Bathory on through Master's Hammer, Root, Varathron, Mayhem, Burzum, Enslaved, and Darkthrone as canonical works that helped to cement the 'form' of the genre itself that, while porous, are not an open sewer drain.
I think its retarded to talk about an "original ideology of black metal". There never was one. There were several more or less common currents if you will but no coherent ideology. I mea come on - the genre was created by teenagers who in general, with few exception, has any grasp of any ideology. It was a way to rebel against what is currently seen as acceptable. Nothing else. And te band that coined the term black metal wasnt even serious with any of the shit they wrote about.
It appears that you are getting hung up on the terminology more so than the actual argument. Obviously when one speaks of the 'ideology' of black metal one references a fairly loose, free-floating collection of somewhat unifying ideas and precepts that have worked to establish a semi-coherent mechanism by which to gauge the verbal content of the genre. It's not like we don't know to whom to look - Venom, Mercyful Fate, Hellhammer, Celtic Frost, Bathory, Root, Master's Hammer, Mortuary Drape, Rotting Christ, Necromantia, Mayhem, Burzum, Darkthrone, Immortal, Enslaved, etc. We know to whom to look when seeking what could be termed the 'core ideals' that helped ferment black metal as a credible artistic movement spanning decades and continents, both in its unity and its variety, as well as in its flights of fancy versus its quest for verisimilitude.
Regarding your comment with respect to the actual musicians, even disregarding the obvious hyperbole and the fact that you are not actually familiar enough with any of them to speak so boldly about their intentions and ambitions, the art and the artist are separate entities. The music stands on its own in what it says. Slayer's music is what it is regardless of Tom Araya's Catholicism, for example. Discrediting the artist as a means of discrediting the art, accordingly, does not work here. And to suggest that the entirety of Venom's catalog is inauthentic because the band members did not actually worship Satan is quite literally misunderstanding the band's significance to the genre. Of course their 'discovery' of black metal as it is today was inadvertent and unintended, but that they sought a (for the time) radical departure from the norm is inarguable.
There is a huge difference on what bands sought to accomplish (Venom, Immortal, Burzum, Dissection or modern stuff like Deathspell Omega, Shining and Drudkh).
I don't know how 'huge' the differences are between all of these bands, but yes, of course there is divergence. Black metal is least among all genres of metal in terms of blanket conformity (though chiefly for musical reasons, especially as necessitated by the development of the 'black metal' sound from fundamentally heavy metal origins).
And slightly off-topic the big problem I have with Satanism in black metal culture is that it is so dependent on Christianity itself. Sure one can use it as a way of breaking the chains from a religious upbringing but shouldnt you be able to move on? To many people get stuck in critique and rebellion in regards to Christianity and spends less time of doing something contructive themselves (maybe to show everyone that their ways are better). How fun is it to rebel and blaspheme when you dont come up with something properly working to relace it?
The society in which we live is dependent upon Christianity itself, and black metal is in large part of reflection and commentary on our society, so it would be disingenuous not to address Christianity, by way of inversion, in the music. Blasphemy is still a valuable tool even in the 21st century.
To carry the notion that "Christian" music is christian first and foremost, must be used universally (folk is folk first, pagan is pagan first, satanic is satanic first, etc).
The difference is that 'Christian' music is normally used connotatively to allude to music created fundamentally for the purposes of preaching the gospel and conversion, with the music coming secondarily. Which is which there is a "Christian Rock" music section, but not a "Satanic Rock" or "Pagan Rock" music section. Obviously there are Christian bands that do not necessarily fall into this connotative "Christian music" classification.
To suggest that one idealogy cannot be expressed with a particular arrangement of notes/atmosphere is rather ludicrous. I will agree certain specific ideas fit better with specific genres, but whole idealogies are vast and vague.
Nobody is suggesting that "one ideology cannot be expressed with a particular arrangement of notes/atmosphere"; rather, what is being argued is as to what that product would be referred, namely Christian music played with black metal aesthetics. The term 'extreme metal' is a more connotatively musically related term, so I wouldn't object to the term "Christian extreme metal."
Also, as the insane and KD have suggested, the anti Christian/satanic arguements regarding black metal not only place it on a completely undeserved pedestal, but also puts Christianity on an equal but opposing and unnecessary pedestal.
To speak of black metal as having limitations on as to what can be conveyed ideologically through the music is by no means to elevate it, as far as I see. Whether or not you or others view it that way I have no control over, but it really is neither here nor there with respect to the conversation I am intending to induce. One's personal likes or dislikes should not enter this conversation at all, to be honest.
If lyrics were to determine music it would probably have a name that clearly corresponds with the lyrical content. Anti-christian metal would be metal with anti-christian lyrics - anything other than that wouldnt be anti-christian metal. The same would go for satanic metal, christian metal, ns metal etc.
Black in itself as a word doesnt have any clear ideological connections and therefore you cant really say anything about a clear ideological base in black metal.
Lyrics for most of music's history were of primary import in a song's essence, and musicians were generally regarded as eccentrics. Your post is evidence of how far music as developed in the past three centuries to the point where lyricism's stature has been reduced to an afterthought, with the prized possession being the poignancy of the string of notes that it accompanies. It is best, however, to go not too far in either direction, but rather to find a balance between the two. The importance placed upon the lyrics varies from genre to genre (within metal and without). Black metal, with its unique evolutionary history, happens to be one genre or subgenre upon which the importance is significant.
Your little explication of the word black is amusing to me, albeit it's irrelevant. The words "left" and "right" have no clear
natural ideological connections, yet if you ask somebody whether their views on social politics skew toward the left or right, you will more like than not be able to garner an answer. Likewise, the word "black" has, in the given context of the genre of black metal, been given its own new meanings through its usage, meanings specific to its usage in the term 'black metal.' A black crayon is no more Satanic than you are favoring the death penalty because you turned right. The context of the word is what supplies the necessary meaning.
