Metal: A headbanger's guide

[Ravenous Enemy]

I approve of resistance to the Church, just not arson. Also the Churches burned were of extreme architectural value. It'd be more effective to turn them into a pub or something. Or maybe a museum, so in a few generations people can look back at them and see the effort that went into religion, as testament to humanity's stupidity. maybe.

 

[derek]

Church burning is an interesting phenomenon, I think. It definately does not warrant applause, but I find it interesting that cults of disaffected youths have sprung up wishing to burn churches and be "satanists". If the church was not so self centred, it's doubtful so many kids would be pissed off.

 

[Consuming Impulse]

Burning down a few historic stave churches isn't going to stop Christianity:

i know but its good disrespect to christianity. i aprove of church arson.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

i know but its good disrespect to christianity. i aprove of church arson.

joking or not, I agree with you.

 

[Consuming Impulse]

joking or not, I agree with you.

i aint joking. i aprove.

 

[Cythraul]

On looking at metal artwork (esp. cannibal corpse) one guy describes how society today has lost aquaintance with mortality - the whole concept - and how death is part of life. E.g. meat comes packaged ready to cook, with the death occuring behind closed doors. Human death occurs either on the TV or behind closed doors in a hospital. This has lead to a fascination with death and portrayal of such scenes in band artwork. Anybody agree?

I don't know about anyone else, but when I see death in television, movies, video games, etc. I tend to feel somewhat indifferent. It's almost as if portraying death in these contexts seems sort of trivial. I look at it and it doesn't affect me at all, probably because of my tacit acknowledgment of these types of things as pure escapism. I think that portrayals of death in metal, be it through lyrics or imagery, has the same kind of effect (or lack thereof) on me. But that's only when it's the juvenile sort of portrayal, i.e. the portrayal of death and gore for the sake of brutality and extremity or something stupid like that. If a band deals with the emotional aspects of death in a very honest way, in the real life effects and consequences of death, then I tend not to feel so indifferent. I don't think this answers your question but that's my view on it. Basically, I just think the subject of death is often trivialized or not portrayed in an accurate, honest way.

Sorry if this post seems stupid, I've had a few drinks.

 

[Ravenous Enemy]

It doesn't seem stupid. I would say I agree, but i think the motivation behind including these images - honest or just for the sake of it - is what we're interested in.

Are you in any way Welsh btw?? I just couldn't help noticing that your name means demon in welsh.

 

[Norsemaiden]

IMO church burning is an effective symbolic act of resistance against Christianity. It strikes at one of the greatest excesses of the church - massive, elaborate, ornately constructed and decorated buildings which serve a simle ritualistic function. Doesn't make it any more "right" than burning down any other building.

NorseMaiden: While you may understand mental states, your fundamental error in your approach to sadistic imagery in music is assuming that it has a simplistic, uniform cause. It has been proven time and time again in nearly every arena of human history that things do not happen "because of X" or "because of Y" but due to a complex amalgamation of influences. Similarly, the influence of something like brutal, gory imagery cannot be uniformly declared to be without evolutionary advantage. Are we to believe that everyone who has ever enjoyed the sight of an act of violence in any form of entertainment is deviant? I don't believe I should even have to point out how impractical such a strategy would prove. Unless you'd like to propose a model for adequately determining the evolutionary advantages and disadvantages of given social phenomena, I'd be inclined to say that to indulge in the arrogant folly of assuming we can accurately qualify the potential influence of any part of modern society on the influence of our species. Attempting to do so ammounts to speculation and extrapolation, nothing more.

Sadistic imagery or sadistic acts which serve a purpose fitting with normal (albeit savage) mental states would be: violent revenge, or terrorising an enemy by demonstrating brutality, for example. This contrasts with insane sadistic acts like chopping up a harmless or valuable person who is in no way an enemy and taking pleasure in such imagery. If it is not clear why the sadistic act depicted is happening, it would presumably fall into that latter category. A person found guilty of extracting brutal revenge on someone would be likely to go to prison if caught, whereas the person who kills and tortures someone for no reason other than the pleasure of it would go to a mental institution. Similarly if people like to view a movie with insane sadism in it, they are either twisted and mentally damaged themselves (even if not sufficiently so to be certified) or else they are just easily influenced fools who are trying to prove they're hard (!) or something similar and are just into it as a stupid fad.

Lots of things people do are insane. Most people in the civilised world are at least a little mad. However, I think imagery of the suffering of people (simulated or not) for no good reason is unacceptable. It is the same as enjoying watching simulated acts of pedophilia IMO. Or what about animals being treated cruelly?

 

[Cythraul]

Are you in any way Welsh btw?? I just couldn't help noticing that your name means demon in welsh.

No. I'm American. I got the name from an album by a band called Absu, whose lyrics actually focus a lot on celtic mythology.

 

[Demilich]

Lots of things people do are insane. Most people in the civilised world are at least a little mad. However, I think imagery of the suffering of people (simulated or not) for no good reason is unacceptable. It is the same as enjoying watching simulated acts of pedophilia IMO. Or what about animals being treated cruelly?

You're so quick to point out that obsession with random acts of violence, etc. can be seen as socially constructed, yet completely ignore the fact that any legal definition of insanity (and what is insanity beyond a legal term?) is completely the product of society. Look at the range of different things that have been called insane over the course of history. Homosexuality, for example, was classified in the DSM-II (I believe) but removed by the 1970s. This is just an example of how nothing "is insane" or "is not insane" beyond the reaches of any specific culture. Anything, including depictions in art of wanton acts of savagery, is only insane as long as those in power dictate that it is so. You seem to be incredibly wrapped up in following the "trends" of psychological institutions and government, which is unfortunate, as your stance on this issue indicates that you are extremely gullible. I'm simply trying to point out that your approach to whether or not something is insane is skewed, narrowminded, and terribly limited.

 

[Norsemaiden]

You're so quick to point out that obsession with random acts of violence, etc. can be seen as socially constructed, yet completely ignore the fact that any legal definition of insanity (and what is insanity beyond a legal term?) is completely the product of society. Look at the range of different things that have been called insane over the course of history. Homosexuality, for example, was classified in the DSM-II (I believe) but removed by the 1970s. This is just an example of how nothing "is insane" or "is not insane" beyond the reaches of any specific culture. Anything, including depictions in art of wanton acts of savagery, is only insane as long as those in power dictate that it is so. You seem to be incredibly wrapped up in following the "trends" of psychological institutions and government, which is unfortunate, as your stance on this issue indicates that you are extremely gullible. I'm simply trying to point out that your approach to whether or not something is insane is skewed, narrowminded, and terribly limited.

There was a trendy school of thought in the 60s that madness/insanity does not exist and that it is a social construct. There are still some people who think this way, as you do. I do not agree with that view. You say that I am gullible in taking my definition of sanity from a textbook definition. Actually I haven't done this at all. My definition is my own. Mainstream psychology has no snappy definition of mental illness and generally decides it on a number of criteria such as how common the behaviour is in society. In fact my definition is far less politically correct than yours. My definition is based on the laws of nature and yours is on a rejection of the laws of nature.

A lot of insane people don't recognise that they are insane and try to justify their behaviour. People with OCD do things like wash their hands 50 times an hour and if you tell them it is madness, they are likely to attempt to explain why it is necessary. If it becomes widespread in society for people to obsessively wash their hands, then it will no longer be officially a mental disorder. But it still would be by my definition of sanity being behaving in a way that has evolved through natural selection.


What you are trying to do is to justify depictions of women chopped to pieces and displayed on an album cover, or violent rape and murder so depicted or sung about (as two examples) as being perfectly valid subjects for a person to enjoy looking at for pleasure. (Is that correct, or have I jumped to conclusions?) Is it fair to say that there is a lot of latent homosexuality in such depictions particularly in that that it shows a hatred of women? (I should add at this point that I think homosexuality could have a possible evolutionary origin in that it may be that efeminate men could get closer to women and not be seen as a threat by the men, thus having opportunities for sneakily mating with women. Other than that it would have to be insane behaviour by my unconventional definition. That doesn't mean I hate homosexuals. But I do hate ideas that lead to people who have done no harm being killed, or for people to want to look at their injuries and imagine their pain for voyeuristic pleasure. Is that how you would like to get your kicks Demilich? Just out of interest, do you admire serial killers, and would you be outraged at artwork showing the sexual abuse of children, or is that unacceptable? If it is, why would you say so? It seems no less disgusting than the other kinds of acts you think enjoyable for your delectation.

 

[Pull The Plug]

Sadistic imagery or sadistic acts which serve a purpose fitting with normal (albeit savage) mental states would be: violent revenge, or terrorising an enemy by demonstrating brutality, for example. This contrasts with insane sadistic acts like chopping up a harmless or valuable person who is in no way an enemy and taking pleasure in such imagery. If it is not clear why the sadistic act depicted is happening, it would presumably fall into that latter category. A person found guilty of extracting brutal revenge on someone would be likely to go to prison if caught, whereas the person who kills and tortures someone for no reason other than the pleasure of it would go to a mental institution. Similarly if people like to view a movie with insane sadism in it, they are either twisted and mentally damaged themselves (even if not sufficiently so to be certified) or else they are just easily influenced fools who are trying to prove they're hard (!) or something similar and are just into it as a stupid fad.

Lots of things people do are insane. Most people in the civilised world are at least a little mad. However, I think imagery of the suffering of people (simulated or not) for no good reason is unacceptable. It is the same as enjoying watching simulated acts of pedophilia IMO. Or what about animals being treated cruelly?

It may be a cruel and disgusting thing, but acts of sadism and brutality are for entertainment purposes (and have been for a very long time); many people are simply curious or would like to understand this behaviour.

This does not make one mentally ill and it does not mean they are trying to prove they are "hard" either.

 

[Norsemaiden]

It may be a cruel and disgusting thing, but acts of sadism and brutality are for entertainment purposes (and have been for a very long time); many people are simply curious or would like to understand this behaviour.

This does not make one mentally ill and it does not mean they are trying to prove they are "hard" either.

You are right that sadism and brutality for entertainment have been around for a long time. People fighting in pits with dogs or the Roman arenas for example. However they didn't pick random people for these things, they were victimising people from other tribes or outlaws of some kind. And the Romans that did this were civilised people, which would make them far more prone to perversion than the uncivilised.

Indeed many people are curious to understand such behaviour. I haven't heard any explanation or justification for, lets say, an album cover showing someone sadistically tortured or killed for no apparant motive other than that it looks disgusting. So can someone please explain it in a way that makes it not seem mentally ill? Or what about pictures of aborted foetuses (when not making an anti-abortion point)?

Do the fans of such imagery like the idea of real snuff movies? Or is it only great entertainment when it looks real, but actually isn't?

Does anyone agree that there is more than enough ugliness in art and that maybe someone should do something radical and create something beautiful more often? Metal shouldn't be taken over by a glorification of extemities of ugliness and depravity. (I'm not saying it should always be about beautiful things either of course!)

 

[Tongue_Ring]

if there's a song that i've never heard before, then i'll listen to it once, and if i like it, then i'll listen to it some more, why does music have to be more complicated than that?
why is it neccassary to have any imagery of any type assocciated with the music? i am asking this question totally seperate from whether or not the imagery is appropriate for human beings to view the imagery is offensive, yes, [IMO] but it's offensiveness is amplified [for me] by the idea [my personal opinion] that the fucking imagery shouldn't fucking be there to begin with, people should be buying an album that sounds good when you're blinfolded instead of ignoring how bad the music sounds in the songs that have great-looking music videos or great-looking album art

 

[Demilich]

Indeed many people are curious to understand such behaviour. I haven't heard any explanation or justification for, lets say, an album cover showing someone sadistically tortured or killed for no apparant motive other than that it looks disgusting. So can someone please explain it in a way that makes it not seem mentally ill? Or what about pictures of aborted foetuses (when not making an anti-abortion point)?

Your ignorance is showing blatantly once again! You truly believe that your definition of insanity arises from the laws of nature, while in actuality it is a convoluted rhetorical quagmire attempting to masquerade individual morality as some kind of universal, natural law. Your ignorance of a band's reasons for using such imagery on their covers shouldn't even be the issue here -- why should people who exist entirely autonomously of you or your laughable moral system have to answer to any outside authority in choosing their album art? While they have to answer to a label for commercial purposes and a government/censorship institution for specific reasons, deeming anyone who enjoys such imagery insane is a great rhetorical leap that is not mirrored by reality. I don't know where to take this from here, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Tongue_Ring]

Your ignorance is showing blatantly once again! You truly believe that your definition of insanity arises from the laws of nature, while in actuality it is a convoluted rhetorical quagmire attempting to masquerade individual morality as some kind of universal, natural law. Your ignorance of a band's reasons for using such imagery on their covers shouldn't even be the issue here -- why should people who exist entirely autonomously of you or your laughable moral system have to answer to any outside authority in choosing their album art? While they have to answer to a label for commercial purposes and a government/censorship institution for specific reasons, deeming anyone who enjoys such imagery insane is a great rhetorical leap that is not mirrored by reality. I don't know where to take this from here, so I'll just leave it at that.

so, are you saying that the people that enjoy looking at gory/disgusting things are actually more sane than people that are more easily offended?

 

[Justin S.]

It's generally best to avoid "natural". It opens more debate and questioning rather than achieving resolution. The same applies to some outright rejection of it (ie 'its merely a social construct'). Even if it were possible to determine what exactly "natural" would be in each context, it would lack any value judgment, as this process comes after acknowledgement of a phenomena (and most certainly is a "construct"). Another issue: if everything that is is natural, than we have said nothing, and the criticism of "unnatural" meaningless.

Norsemaiden seems to suggest some belief in the "progression" of evolution, rather than a "state of affairs". Again, what is is, value judgments are distinctly separate. As soon as we claim goals, purposiveness, and rankings of worth in the unfolding of the universe, we enter irresolvable games of metaphysics.

Rather than grasp for the Truth(tm) of some "objective" ground, much more convincing arguments can be made by discussing relationality. What relation does a thinking, acculturated being have to art, to imagery, to death, to gore, etc. What motivations would prompt them to display it in such and such a way. Through this process one can find much more damning, grounded, and particular evidence for the ignorance of "gore-lust" than by accusations of violation of "natural laws".

All valuing in this manner is deeply flawed, but that's too broad of a topic for now. Needless to say, the problems of defining "natural" apply to the other terms found in this thread (sanity, sadism, etc.)

 

[Tongue_Ring]

It's generally best to avoid "natural". It opens more debate and questioning rather than achieving resolution. The same applies to some outright rejection of it (ie 'its merely a social construct'). Even if it were possible to determine what exactly "natural" would be in each context, it would lack any value judgment, as this process comes after acknowledgement of a phenomena (and most certainly is a "construct"). Another issue: if everything that is is natural, than we have said nothing, and the criticism of "unnatural" meaningless.

Norsemaiden seems to suggest some belief in the "progression" of evolution, rather than a "state of affairs". Again, what is is, value judgments are distinctly separate. As soon as we claim goals, purposiveness, and rankings of worth in the unfolding of the universe, we enter irresolvable games of metaphysics.

Rather than grasp for the Truth(tm) of some "objective" ground, much more convincing arguments can be made by discussing relationality. What relation does a thinking, acculturated being have to art, to imagery, to death, to gore, etc. What motivations would prompt them to display it in such and such a way. Through this process one can find much more damning, grounded, and particular evidence for the ignorance of "gore-lust" than by accusations of violation of "natural laws".

All valuing in this manner is deeply flawed, but that's too broad of a topic for now. Needless to say, the problems of defining "natural" apply to the other terms found in this thread (sanity, sadism, etc.)

i think Norsemaiden is the one who should answer this one

 

[Norsemaiden]

Demilich says I'm so ignorant and maybe he is right. But I'll have to stay that way if he can't help me (and others) by explaining the motivation for this "gore-lust". Justin S has made some good points. I think we both want these motives explained. Maybe I can get into it too then.

 

[Justin S.]

It goes without saying (I guess not ) that the context of the display of "gore" or other "extreme" imagery or language determines everything (this is its relation to the subject as well as audience, as mentioned previously). But even in this supposedly bounded scenario, the relationality extends to all other areas of being of the subject(s)-the relationships of intent, of display, of performance, of language, of art, ad infinitum.

Often, it doesnt not take the consideration of so many variables to grasp the relations because it it so poorly developed and transparent-the subject itself ignores these relationships. This holds for the great majority of metal imagery- uneducated, heavy handed, and reactionary. There is no depth outside a reveling in taboo.

This is not always the case, as extreme media could potentially address and add to our understanding of death, mortality, sensuality, sexuality, ritual, consumption, etc. Unfortunately, I have run across very little of this that hasnt already been treated with much greater depth and subtly in written works.