Metal and Ideology

[NAD]

It can be a form of entertainment, but I don't think entertainment is inherently present. There a fair number of artistic forms that are not conventionally "entertaining."

I'm using the term entertainment loosely. Conventional or not, unless the art form is not pleasing to be made in any mental or physical way, it is some form of entertainment. I do see your point though, and agree if we are using a more rigid (read: traditional) definition of the word.

Musicians can tell if other musicians really put their all in it or jsut made a halfass piece o shit. If they made it solely for fun, the songs would be boring and very easy to play. we have a genre of music for that called Punk Rock...

So simple music has no soul is what you are saying. I couldn't disagree more. I listen to a lot of simple groups that I can tell have put "their all" into it as you say, and I myself am a musician. It doesn't need to be complex to be enjoyable, and a simple song is not always a halfassed piece o shit.

 

[speed]

Although I agree with on your argument ( which I am distorting here) that true art is not simply entertainment- I disagree with you on art being a means of symbolic expression.

I offer this quote:

If any art is devoid of lessons, it is certaintly music. It is too closely related to mathematics not to have borrowed their gratuitousness. That game the mind plays with itself according to set and measured laws takes place in the sonorous compass that belongs to us and beyond which the vibrations nevertheless meet an inhuman universe. There is no purer sensation.

I would also like to know why you attack so many bands with such ridiculously over the top comments and conclusions; you rarely seem to back any of your statements up- as to why a band is not furthering symbolic expression: instead you usually just start insulting people, and telling them how smart you are. Now this is an interesting tactic, that guarentees that in your mind you will never lose an argument( how could you, you are on a different intellectual plane- up there in the eagles nest I suppose) Yet becuase of this eccentric way you go about proving your points, your arguments never ever change the mind of those of whom you are arguing with. Well anyway, I would like to carry on a real and meaningful debate with you- or at least read you carrying on a meaningful debate with someone else.

 

[Magnus7]

The definition of good music has to be different (if not even just little bit) to everyone. As an individual, different things are going to move you. No one I know likes everything I do, but I don't think life would be that interesting if they did.

 

[NocturnalSun]

so I can go out to a studio and record myself playing 4 power chords on guitar and add some lyrics I wrote and call that emotional? I can see a little of what you're saying, because Cold did a little acoustic melody thing to "Bleed" that song has meanings for me individually deeper than I can even say... that song's easy to play, so yea... I c. I honestly hate punk and uncreative bands with a passion, but im not about 2 force my ideas on ya. haha "Believe those who seek the truth, question those who find it." very good saying.. just noticed that

 

[Planetary Eulogy]

If any art is devoid of lessons, it is certaintly music. It is too closely related to mathematics not to have borrowed their gratuitousness. That game the mind plays with itself according to set and measured laws takes place in the sonorous compass that belongs to us and beyond which the vibrations nevertheless meet an inhuman universe. There is no purer sensation.

This is the basic idea behind the search for "pure music," which, as I've outlined above, is an ideology all its own. It still doesn't address the difference between music which expresses ideas and ideals and music which is intended solely as window dressing.

 

[Planetary Eulogy]

I would also like to know why you attack so many bands with such ridiculously over the top comments and conclusions; you rarely seem to back any of your statements up

Wrong. I ALWAYS back up my statements. Unfortunately, the substantive elements of arguments are quickly swallowed up as asshats predictably respond with ad hominems about "elitism" or moral platitudes about "respect" or how I have no "right" to "judge." I cannot very well have a substantive discussion with pathetic little shits who refuse to discuss substantive issues, so flaming it is.

 

[ffanatic]

I didn't read that, but I can guarantee it's as boring as fuck.

 

[speed]

Well Id like to discuss the substantive points of your argument- if i may.

You stated: 'Music for music's sake' is not inherently anti-artistic, the ideal being expressed is that of pure music. Such music is inherently obscurist in nature, but it does exist (one finds the concept cropping up frequently among the earlier Classical composers, it was part of their ongoing obsession with form, balance and the rational principle). Ok fine, but how about explaining art as pure music. I suggest you read D Mullhollands thread on Functional music.

I think the problems with your arguments (although always possessing original ideas) is that they are a bit byzantine, its hard to ever figure out your actual point. Ive reread your posts on this thread a number of times, and I thinK i barely understand your point- you go on about pure music- and the difference between the differance between music as entertainment- and music that expresses Ideas. Yet, you do not make a conclusion in any of these three points. I just want you to explain an argument for once- before you go on the offensive- if it makes sense i may agree with it- i have no set philosophy

The reason for the quote I posted (from Camus, I thought it was relevant), is my belief that music is an inherently different form of art- one that like the quote states is inherently devoid of lessons- one that is too tied to mathematics. Thus, my point is that music cannot in anyway further ideology. Thus, I suppose music can never truly express symbolic ideals etc.

 

[Planetary Eulogy]

ALL art, visual, aural etc. is reproducable mathematically. Visual art is just as intimately tied to mathematical principle as is music. The mathematical elements are structurally important, they allow for the creation of an aesthetic framework for expression. However, the core of art (including music) remains not the raw, mathematical aesthetic skeleton, but rather the sense of meaning that structure is intended to symbolically express. It is in this expression that art lies. Mathematics merely provide the craft (as one can see from the recent move towards computer analysis as a tool for pop songwriting).

To backtrack a little, I've basically made two points.

1. The symbolic expression of ideas and ideals is the central focus of all art (including music). Thus, music which is intended solely as entertainment rather than as a form of expression is not really art so much as it is a product.

2. 'Music for music's sake' still retains an ideal (pure music) to be expressed, so such experiments are inherently artistic in nature.

 

[Lyle]

However, the core of art (including music) remains not the raw, mathematical aesthetic skeleton, but rather the sense of meaning that structure is intended to symbolically express. It is in this expression that art lies.

And what if a work's "meaning" is not necessarily within the work itself, but rather derives from the viewers/listeners/whatever own mind?

 

[Planetary Eulogy]

And what if a work's "meaning" is not necessarily within the work itself, but rather derives from the viewers/listeners/whatever own mind?

We are all, of course, free to take what we will from art (or entertainment), but artistic expression flows from creator to audience and is self-contained within a work.

 

[the alumnus]

it seems from reading this post that mr. planetoid is a fan of mr. joseph schillinger. i wonder, are you also a fan of dream theatre?

 

[Planetary Eulogy]

it seems from reading this post that mr. planetoid is a fan of mr. joseph schillinger. i wonder, are you also a fan of dream theatre?

Despise them

 

[Stormwatch]

I feel like Homer Simpson here. BOOORING.

 

[speed]

Ok, I pretty much agree with you on everything so far- thanks for elaborating.

Now, the question becomes, how and why you are so quick to judge so many metal bands? Why do both Arcturus and Death suck according to your view of music? And just how do you go about judging those bands that create pure music, and those that dont?

 

[NAD]

so I can go out to a studio and record myself playing 4 power chords on guitar and add some lyrics I wrote and call that emotional?

Not necessarily... but it could be emotional, just like how some complex music could be sterile. I do not believe that complexity is a direct link to emotional and / or artistic quality.

 

[JayKeeley]

Let's see how many lines of boring, self indulgent, opinionated shite we can get in this thread!

LATEM spells METAL backwards.

 

[NAD]

Ooohh... yer good...

 

[SculptedCold]

I completely agree with your points Planetary Eulogy about music and art that is aimed purely for entertainment purposes lacks the central ideological expression that makes them art at all.....i've always believed that myself....

BUT.....it absolutely does not explain or justify your ridicule of underground metal bands who aren't clearly innovating. Yes, i'm sure Death and Dimmu Borgir DID/DO have little currency signs floating in their heads occasionally, but completely disregarding them as tripe for that is flawed and inconsistent with even your own reasoning. The fact remains that these people wouldn't be playing underground metal AT ALL if their main reason was for entertainment or money...they'd be making pop music. Further, even if your argument is that they WERE starting to write accessible music (ie, melody, simple structural repetition, whatever) it doesn't follow that that means they're deliberately abandoning ideals. Its clear to anyone that Death and Dimmu Borgir play with passion and expression.....but it also doesn't follow from the reasoning you've provided that 'apeing' or utlizing musical ideas from influences qualifies as worthless music; in what way does sharing or playing music that does this instantaneously mean the artist is doing it for entertainment purposes only??? You're not a mind-reader as i've said, and you simply don't know enough about the artists' intent to damn their music as ideologically lacking...neither can you irrefutably deduce from the music such a thing. In that case, I may as well just go ahead and say Atheist were lousy sellouts playing worthless music because they had the odd melodic-sounding riff.....OMG! Ear candy!

Your beliefs (so far explained) about the philosophy of art/music/entertainment don't qualify your previous damnings of bands like Death and Dimmu Borgir.

 

[ffanatic]

I completely agree with your points Planetary Eulogy about music and art that is aimed purely for entertainment purposes lacks the central ideological expression that makes them art at all.....i've always believed that myself....

BUT.....it absolutely does not explain or justify your ridicule of underground metal bands who aren't clearly innovating. Yes, i'm sure Death and Dimmu Borgir DID/DO have little currency signs floating in their heads occasionally, but completely disregarding them as tripe for that is flawed and inconsistent with even your own reasoning. The fact remains that these people wouldn't be playing underground metal AT ALL if their main reason was for entertainment or money...they'd be making pop music. Further, even if your argument is that they WERE starting to write accessible music (ie, melody, simple structural repetition, whatever) it doesn't follow that that means they're deliberately abandoning ideals. Its clear to anyone that Death and Dimmu Borgir play with passion and expression.....but it also doesn't follow from the reasoning you've provided that 'apeing' or utlizing musical ideas from influences qualifies as worthless music; in what way does sharing or playing music that does this instantaneously mean the artist is doing it for entertainment purposes only??? You're not a mind-reader as i've said, and you simply don't know enough about the artists' intent to damn their music as ideologically lacking...neither can you irrefutably deduce from the music such a thing. In that case, I may as well just go ahead and say Atheist were lousy sellouts playing worthless music because they had the odd melodic-sounding riff.....OMG! Ear candy!

Your beliefs (so far explained) about the philosophy of art/music/entertainment don't qualify your previous damnings of bands like Death and Dimmu Borgir.

Extremely well put, Sculpted.