Ideological Relevance of Black Metal

[challenge_everything]

The point about Satanic imagery as opposed to ideology has some merit though.

 

[TheInsane]

Let's look at this from another angle. It seems obvious that the "founders" of black metal were trying to achieve as rebellious a sound as they could.

Thus the sound they created was more an anti-current-music than anti-religion. Therefore, a band with any lyrical/personal idealogy could also use the black metal sound for the same reason.

Yes, I would agree with this. It is anti-current more than anything else. More than it is Satanic since Satanic in black metal doesnt nead a belief system or an ideology but basically only opposition to a main current of society. Satan is often only used in its basic meaning as opposer. What he opposes ranges so widely that it cant be said anything about other than that he opposes something.

The point about Satanic imagery as opposed to ideology has some merit though.

This is one of my main points I have been trying to put forth. Since post #1 in this thread some have made claims of a "satanic ideology" or a "anti-christian ideology" or a "black metal ideology". And to me that doesnt exist. And ideology is something that is thought through and has actually been given time to grow and maybe even mature before it can be considered as such. Black metal in its early stages, in what mostly came to define the genre during the 2nd wave, was teenage rebellion dressed in satanic imagery. It wasnt ideological.

it would be even harder to pinpoint "the sound" of black metal. Venom and Mercyful Fate sound absolutely nothing alike let alone the second wave bands that followed compared to those bands. I would even go as far as to say that second wave, especially the main bands, were pretty musically different from each other.

1st generation is like 1st generation metal. Is Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath or Deep Purple metal, or is it hard rock? Its on the edge, starting something new while maybe not embracing all that the new genre ame to include. Venom is more punky thrash than anything and Mercyful fate is clearly heavy metal. But they spawned something. And Id say neither of these bands were really black metal as we would define it today but like Sabbath, Zeppelin and Purple they laid the foundation and is seen as the bridge between an existing genre and the creation of a new one.

The sincerity of Satanism in black metal is irrelevant and doesn't discredit the legitimacy of the ideology. How many times do I have to say this? . . .

. . .Now you're just implementing personal preference into your argument. How many times do I have to say that the sincerity isn't important? It's about the ideas themselves, not the level of sincerity of those ideas. Whether you think black metal is ideologically based or not, you can't seriously be dumb enough to think that Satanism didn't play a kind of really large part in the development of black metal just because Venom "wasn't a serious band." There's a reason why pretty much all first wave black metal had Satanic themes. . .

Of course the seriousness of an ideologys practitioners discredit the legitimacy or the ideology. How could it not be that way? There is a reason people look down upon hypocrites.

I never said Satanic imagery and some so called Satanic ideas are very prevalent in black metal. If I did please point me to where I said this.

I honestly don't know since they're a shitty band that I don't care about. My guess is yes though, since I'm sure they bear some resemblace to the ideologies of the first wave bands. I've said on numerous occasions that the bands don't have to have "the ideology" of black metal and explained why "the ideology" is relevant anyway. I have no idea why you keep bringing that up.

I feel like you contradict yourself here with "bands don't have to have "the ideology" of black metal and explained why "the ideology" is relevant anyway". So if they dont have it thats ok but the ideology is still relevant even if they are unattached to it?

Fair enough. I still think there is a pretty big difference between contradicting ideas in sub-ideologies and a complete contradiction to the ideologies of the founders.

You dont consider these completely oppside views on life to be contradictory to what you call the ideology of the founders (as if such existed)? How can two totally opposite views on life not, in at least one of the two cases, go against the ideology of the founders?

Negura Bunget's ideology was brought about by the progression of anti-Christian themes. So no, maybe they aren't anti-Christian but the band along with their ideologies simply wouldn't exist without the ideologies of Venom.

Really? Do you have any proof of this statement. Negura Bungets ideology doesnt have anything in common with Venom lyrics and Id bet they are way more coloured by their historical ancestors than they are of Venoms lyrics. Remember, paganism was a common lyrical subject in rock music before black metal.

 

[TheInsane]

Dodens Grav

Yes, "the core ideology of black metal" is at the base of discussion, but not the semantic explication of the word 'ideology.'

I think it does matter. There is no reason as to why we would redefine the word for this discussion. "The core ideology of black metal" is pretty much non-existant since its to loose to be an ideology. Its more of a dryer where you mixed whites with reds with black and with yellows. A mish mash of ideas, thoughts and feelings. No ideology to be found.

This is a curious statement, because the conception of black metal in the 80s was by far more universal on an ideological level than it was on a musical level. . .

. . .I do very well and truly believe that I have satisfactorily argued that Satanism and anti-Christianity are the core values inherent in the first wave of black metal. Every band from Venom to Mercyful Fate to Bulldozer to White Hell to Future Tense to Kat to Törr to Tormentor to Master's Hammer to Sarcofago to Sodom to Mayhem, ad infinitum, possesses this common ideological trait. They are so drastically more divergent instrumentally than lyrically that it's almost remarkable. . .

Already answered this in the post above.

You have managed, however, to more or less successfully describe the nature of the black metal ideology; it is a loose, somewhat unfixed, initially unintentional construct that is capable of expansion without implosion. I would say, however, that it is not the concepts themselves that are loose, but the conglomerations of the various concepts together that represent the 'looseness' that we both rightly observe in the ideology.

As I said above this is why I dont consider it to be an ideology. Maybe several different ones with most being to immature to be called ideologies in the first place. I would say that there are no base concepts of a black metal ideology which is why I cant accept the usage of the word black metal ideology. Can anyone pin-point 10 thing that the core black metal idieology stands for without having several examples of main figures in the scene contradicting them (talking about contradiction in lyrics/official statements - I think many of them didnt really lived what they preached so to speak)?

. . .I assume that you mean to say instrumental content. "Musical" content refers to the whole song, necessarily including any lyrics or librettos associated with the song.

Youre right, I was refering to instrumental content.

I could write a dissertation examining the coherent and consistent themes of Satan as a symbol of anti-Christianity, non-conformity (the goat is also relevant here), hedonism, and blasphemy in Venom's lyrics qualifies them as a 'serious' enterprise in and of themselves irrespective of the lyricists' ultimate motivations, but I can't imagine you'd choose to care at all.

I am sure you can. However I could write about all the inconsistensies and contradictions in them as well. I feel that by saying that Venoms lyrics qualify as a serious enterprise you could also say Manowars lyrics do the same. Alot of reoccuring themes, probably enough to base an ideology on. But also alot of inconsistency and contradiction and obvious lack of actually trying to put forth an ideology. Its imagery, its showmanship. Nothing more, nothing less.

You are certainly right to deduce that the notion of black metal as we understand it today is largely a retrospective occurrence, but this is actually how all genres are formed, not only in music, but in all avenues of art or entertainment.

I did not talk about the actual music although it holds true for that as well. I spoke about how some people see a core ideology of black metal. I dont think it exists its just a retrospective design where people have tried to give the rise of black metal a uniform history. And even if Satanic themes were present in most 1st wave black metal bands they didnt mean the same thing - or even remotely close to the same things to the people writing these lyrics. So even if we say Satanism is at the base it dosnt mean anything more than the imagery. There was no one ideology behind it.





And finally;

There is alot of talk about true black metal and sell-outs etc. There is also talk about how diverse the music is especially with the early bands (which I agree with). But how come some bands gets discredited when they evolve? How comes Dimmu Borgir so often is not refered to as black metal by hardcore fans of the genre? As far as I know they still have Satanic themes and if ideology is at the core shouldnt they still be considered black metal according to these people?

 

[Manic Ferocity]

I'm only going to respond to one of these since I've already explained the others on various occasions. The sincerity of ideology is not relevant in terms of music. You can't have a genre spanning a decade with the same ideology and claim that black metal doesn't have a core ideology, plain and simple.

1st generation is like 1st generation metal. Is Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath or Deep Purple metal, or is it hard rock? Its on the edge, starting something new while maybe not embracing all that the new genre ame to include. Venom is more punky thrash than anything and Mercyful fate is clearly heavy metal. But they spawned something. And Id say neither of these bands were really black metal as we would define it today but like Sabbath, Zeppelin and Purple they laid the foundation and is seen as the bridge between an existing genre and the creation of a new one.

It is a lot more commonly understood that Black Sabbath was the first metal band and the other two bands border on but still fall under the hard rock tag. There is still debate whether or not Venom can be considered black metal because Norwegians decided to develop a consistent sound for the genre, which I think is a pretty baseless argument anyway.

 

[TheInsane]

ObscureInfinity

I'm only going to respond to one of these since I've already explained the others on various occasions. The sincerity of ideology is not relevant in terms of music. You can't have a genre spanning a decade with the same ideology and claim that black metal doesn't have a core ideology, plain and simple.

You never provided anyrelevant proof of the genre having the same ideology (singular) throughout its existence. You only pointed to bands using a certain imagery - and rightly so. Never once did you actually describe the one core ideology and on what tenets it is based. Sorry but anti-christianity doesnt count as an ideology.

So please, an ideology has to have some kind of core tenets and until you can proove that black metal in general has it I cant accept your reasoning that there is even a core ideology.

Black metal can be, and often is, ideology-driven but there is no such thing as a singular core ideology.

It is a lot more commonly understood that Black Sabbath was the first metal band and the other two bands border on but still fall under the hard rock tag. There is still debate whether or not Venom can be considered black metal because Norwegians decided to develop a consistent sound for the genre, which I think is a pretty baseless argument anyway.

Agreed somewhat. Thats the problem with genres. The first person, as far as I know, whose music was described as "heavy metal" was Jimi Hendrix (from where the genre got its name). Although Hendrix today probably wouldnt be categorized as any kind of metal. Purple and Zeppeling were borderline cases. Sabbath leaning more tometal than the others but still with so much rock in it that its not all that easy to call them a proper metal band. hendrix, just like Venom, may have given name to a genre but in hindsight he wasnt, and they werent, actually playing music in that genre.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

I'm not sure what sort of proof you're looking for. All first wave black metal (essentially until Bathory started incorporating Viking themes), had anti-Christian ideologies/imagery. How is anti-Christian not an ideology let alone one that all black metal can be traced back to?

Well there's obviously going to be rock influence in the first metal band. It's still undeniable, at the time, that Black Sabbath were the largest departure from rock into the sound we've come to know as metal. Deep Purple, Blue Cheer, Led Zeppelin, and Jimi Hendrix have their leanings but Black Sabbath was THE complete transformation.

 

[ArneZ]

The "Ideological Relevance of Black Metal" is what killed black metal in the first place. hail Venom.

 

[TheInsane]

I'm not sure what sort of proof you're looking for. All first wave black metal (essentially until Bathory started incorporating Viking themes), had anti-Christian ideologies/imagery. How is anti-Christian not an ideology let alone one that all black metal can be traced back to?

Anti-christianity is not an ideology. It is one stance a person has in regards to a certain religion. It says nothing in itself about the key elements that has to be prevalent for an ideology to take shape.

http://www.washington-seattle.info/Ideology

For Willard A. Mullins, an ideology is composed of four basic characteristics:
it must have power over cognition it must be capable of guiding one's evaluations; it must provide guidance towards action; and, as stated above, must be logically coherent.

An ideology is a comprehensive vision of actions, goals and expectations.

Anti-christianity can be part of an ideology but isnt an ideology in its own right since it says nothing but that it is against christianity.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Did you not read Dodens' or my posts? Ideology is different in the context of music.

 

[Dak]

Because you say it is. Solid arguement ya got there.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Dodens explained why it is and I agree. Keep up with the conversation before you post chief.

 

[TheInsane]

Did you not read Dodens' or my posts? Ideology is different in the context of music.

It is not. You cant redefine a word to fit your arguments - or you can but it dosnt make it right or sound. And ideology is something that is thought through and based on alot of ponderings and is in general a whole outlook on life - or a large scale of life.

Anti-christianity in itself isnt an ideology in secular life, in religious life or in musical life.

What Dodens_grav wrote on ideology was this:

The reason that I belabored the point about what 'ideology' is in reference to in the context of black metal ("fairly loose, free floating, somewhat unifying, semi-coherent ideas") is because you were having trouble getting passed the usage of the word 'ideology' as something more concrete and uniform than is meant in this case. It is important that we understand the way in which the term is being used in this discussion. The ideology of a music genre (if it has one cogent enough to be extrapolated) is different in nature to a political ideology in that the former is far more amorphous and prone to evolution and expansion. It is coherent to an extended degree, but not infinitely, as new voices slowly echo the core fundamentals of that ideology while introducing new elements that are harmonious with the base values already firmly established. This in essence even leaves room for dissent within that ideology for issues about which it is not fundamentally valuable to have complete unison (such as, for example, the desire to destroy nature or the desire to revere it).

I agree with this! However I feel that political ideology has the same behaviour as what he calls musical ideology. However, I dont think there is a core black metal ideology whatsoever. The core does not exist and it never did. It was all Satanic imager, anti-christianity and revolt. Neither in itself is enough to form a proper ideology - stable or dynamic.

 

[skeptik]

"Ideology" is just a place-holder term to account for the description that you just quoted above and claimed that you agree with. I'm honestly really bothered by the fact that you refuse to comprehend this idea, and it's unfair to the argument to do so. If I said "for the purposes of this conversation in particular, the word 'sphincter' will mean 'any four-legged creature'", you should be capable of comprehending this data and engaging in the conversation intelligibly with such remarks as "the deer is among the most graceful and beautiful sphincters to walk the face of the earth". Nuanced understandings of terms applicable to individual arguments are far more common than you evidently think, which is apparently 'never'. Kant was notorious for using words in ways that other philosophers did not, and in order to read Kant intelligibly one would have to account for his unique understandings of the words. My position does not rest on the word "ideology" itself but rather my account of the way in which I'm using the word. It almost seems as if we would be basically agreeing with each other if I'd just chosen to use a different word, which is really quite stupid.

Also, how is anti-Christianity incapable of being an ideology, or entailing one? The key element is quite obvious.

 

[Dak]

None of your arguement or OI's echoing has proven what was suggested before, that any idealogy can use black metal, it is not the exclusive realm of the "church burners".

@OI: I guess I should have said "ya'll" instead of you. I have been tracking it, and still see nothing but pure opinion giving black metal this undeserved position.

 

[damnromulans]

Hey Dakryn, as a Christian do you enjoy black metal that is expressly anti-Christian (or do you just prefer other genres of metal?)?

 

[Dak]

I never cared much for the general lack of melody/energetic riffs in most black metal. Anti YHWH/[Jesus] lyrics definitely doesn't help. A band can bash on organized religion all it wants, but getting specific about [Jesus] will make me extra critical of the rest of the elements of the music.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

I never cared much for the general lack of melody/energetic riffs in most black metal.

Interesting... its precisely those elements in black metal that keep me interested. :Spin:

 

[Dak]

Interesting... its precisely those elements in black metal that keep me interested. :Spin:

Thrash, heavy, and death metal generally are packed full of energetic riffs. Black metal not so much.

For whatever it's worth I would listen to more black metal if I lived in a colder climate, but something about it being 100 degrees + and living in the sunniest place on the planet does not lend itself to listening to the musical equivalent of a blizzard.

So maybe I should adjust my arguement a little. You could not sing about "fun in the sun", beach party type songs using black metal, since black metal is inherently introspective, and.....

Black metal is not a party.

 

[TheInsane]

If I said "for the purposes of this conversation in particular, the word 'sphincter' will mean 'any four-legged creature'", you should be capable of comprehending this data and engaging in the conversation intelligibly with such remarks as "the deer is among the most graceful and beautiful sphincters to walk the face of the earth". . .

. . .Kant was notorious for using words in ways that other philosophers did not, and in order to read Kant intelligibly one would have to account for his unique understandings of the words.

Why would you use "ideology" as a word then when that is obviously not what it is? Could you not have actually choosen a word that symbolized what you actually meant? Like the an "idea" maybe? The word itself can hold different meanings from the most simple to more advanced like in Platos philosophy. But in general dont you think that word symbolizes your concept better than the word ideology, which obviously in almost all other cases is something quite different from what you try to make it be in this thread? An ideology is made up of several ideas. The core of black metal is at most an idea in my view.

Philosophy is a special thing and it does play with linguistics - I know since I have a university grade in the subject. But I dont think its fair to compare Kant or Heiddegger who go out of their way to explain deeply philosophical thoughts with common words with a discussion on the internet where another alreadye xisting word would serve the purpose better.

It almost seems as if we would be basically agreeing with each other if I'd just chosen to use a different word, which is really quite stupid.

Maybe we would. What I find stupid is the need to redefine a word when there is perfectly acceptable other words that describe things better.

Also, how is anti-Christianity incapable of being an ideology, or entailing one? The key element is quite obvious.

Anti/christianity in itself is not "a systematic body of concepts about human life or culture". That is why it is not an ideology but can be part of one.

 

[skeptik]

I choose to use the word ideology because it's the most accurate term to describe the concept under discussion, even if it doesn't fit squarely with the general conception of the word that most people recognize. But here is the Oxford English Dictionary entry for the word:

1. a. The science of ideas; that department of philosophy or psychology which deals with the origin and nature of ideas.
b. spec. Applied to the system of the French philosopher Condillac, according to which all ideas are derived from sensations.

c. The study of the way in which ideas are expressed in language.

2. Ideal or abstract speculation; in a depreciatory sense,
unpractical or visionary theorizing or speculation.

3. = IDEALISM 1.

4. A systematic scheme of ideas, usu. relating to politics or
society, or to the conduct of a class or group, and regarded as
justifying actions, esp. one that is held implicitly or adopted as a
whole and maintained regardless of the course of events.

Obviously the definition that we're most used to is number 4, but the word has greater variety than you continue to suggest. My usage of the term is more in line with the second definition. I also use the word ideology because of the connotation that it offers us, namely the idea that one cannot be in direct contrast with an ideology and still be included in that ideology. In other words, the argument is that the core, essential value of black metal, spoken in terms of a negative, can be said to be something like 'non-support of Christian and religious faith, beliefs, practices, morals, and influence'. So no band can be said to play black metal if they demonstrate support for Christianity qua Christianity, for example, but this does not mean that all black metal bands must necessarily demonstrate direct opposition to Christianity. So unless you consider these black metal lyrics:

Sometimes I cry in grief
Not for the dead that once surrounded me
Or for the sadness that comes to me
When I am lonely

But I cry
For those who have chosen a life without Christ

There are twelve months
Three hundred and sixty-five days a year
But it takes just one second to answer Him
And receive eternal peace

I don't see the source of our disagreement outside of your staunch opposition to the terminology that I've employed, and I'm honestly not interested in responding to arguments regarding terminology any more.