Metal Lyrical Content

[Cythraul]

That is your rightful opinion, friend, but did you read them?

Yeah, I did.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Anthromorphizing animal rights!!1!!

 

[Death Aflame]

My summary is damned accurate, as most metalcore bands write in that incredibly unintentionally-funny "we're badass because we throw stupid idioms into our 'well-thought-out' lyrics...that's all she fucken' wrote man...breakdown!1!" shit.

buried inside is generally breakdown free, believe it or not. I could do without those idioms as well ("that's all she fucking wrote"), but I suppose it suits the venomous critique that the rest of the lyrical content is based upon.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Pretty much every Canadian core band writes like that, I bet you'd like the extremely enlightened prose-tastic lyrics of BENEATH THE MASSACRE...THE SYSTEM FAILED WE HAVE TO PROVE IT NOW

 

[Death Aflame]

They're totally artless and literalistic. I cringe when I read crap like that. I mean, you can't get much cornier than those wildlife conservation lyrics.

I agree that they read more or less like a political manifesto, but that is the point, and clearly the aesthetic intent of the author. As such, I disagree with you that the lyrics are corny.

However, who are we to say that they are 'artless'? What does that word even mean? And no I would rather not delve into a debate about the issue of art, so take those questions as rhetorical only please (though I do think I understand your meaning, they are direct in intent and message and you don't like that approach for whatever reason).

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

He means that they're so damn direct they lack any kind of real artistic quality; they're just an annoying diatribe.

 

[Death Aflame]

Pretty much every Canadian core band writes like that, I bet you'd like the extremely enlightened prose-tastic lyrics of BENEATH THE MASSACRE...THE SYSTEM FAILED WE HAVE TO PROVE IT NOW

I'd have to read them, but yes personally I do like lyrics like the Buried Inside ones because I find them meaningful, as opposed to the vast majority of meaningless stuff that plagues metal lyrics ("blargh Christianity is bad, blargh"). Though obviously, not everyone is going to agree with me.

real artistic quality

>_>

they're just an annoying diatribe.

iyo.

 

[Dak]

The only problem I see with political geared songs/lyrics is the potential to alienate any fan who is paying attention to them but disagrees with the message.
RATM is a great example. I would like RATM but De La Roche, Morello and gang have a retarded political stance as far as I am concerned and listening to more than one RATM song at a time makes me want to resurrect Chi Guevara to assasinate the RATM members in ironic fashion.

("blargh Christianity is bad, blargh")

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I agree that they read more or less like a political manifesto, but that is the point, and clearly the aesthetic intent of the author. As such, I disagree with you that the lyrics are corny.

I believe the "aesthetic intent" you're talking about is actually a lack of aesthetic intent.

However, who are we to say that they are 'artless'? What does that word even mean? And no I would rather not delve into a debate about the issue of art, so take those questions as rhetorical only please (though I do think I understand your meaning, they are direct in intent and message and you don't like that approach for whatever reason).

In order to be artistic, you have to be trying to represent beauty through your work. Those lyrics do nothing of the sort. In being direct, they cease to be artistic.

I'd have to read them, but yes personally I do like lyrics like the Buried Inside ones because I find them meaningful, as opposed to the vast majority of meaningless stuff that plagues metal lyrics ("blargh Christianity is bad, blargh"). Though obviously, not everyone is going to agree with me.

Generic black metal lyrics are pretty bad too, but they do at least evoke mythological imagery, so there's at least marginally some artistic value there (though admittedly regurgitating the same ideas that 500,000 other artists have used is not terribly artistic).

The only problem I see with political geared songs/lyrics is the potential to alienate any fan who is paying attention to them but disagrees with the message.
RATM is a great example. I would like RATM but De La Roche, Morello and gang have a retarded political stance as far as I am concerned and listening to more than one RATM song at a time makes me want to resurrect Chi Guevara to assasinate the RATM members in ironic fashion.

See my post in the RATM thread in non-metal. I really don't see their music as being so utterly inseparable from their message. I don't care about their politics either, but I think their music is evocative of a revolutionary spirit, and I enjoy it as such.

 

[skeptik]

I believe the "aesthetic intent" you're talking about is actually a lack of aesthetic intent.



In order to be artistic, you have to be trying to represent beauty through your work. Those lyrics do nothing of the sort. In being direct, they cease to be artistic.

These statements are not true. Aesthetic =/= beauty; artistic =/= beautiful.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Uh, okay. So what's your definition?

 

[Cythraul]

I agree that they read more or less like a political manifesto, but that is the point, and clearly the aesthetic intent of the author. As such, I disagree with you that the lyrics are corny.

It's not surprising to me that, given the author's intent, the end result is insipid. I don't see how the intent or the "point" changes anything.

However, who are we to say that they are 'artless'? What does that word even mean?

 

[Death Aflame]

It's not surprising to me that, given the author's intent, the end result is insipid. I don't see how the intent or the "point" changes anything.

Think of it like documentary film compared to narrative film--both utilize the same form, but the aesthetic and intent of each are clearly quite divergent (though obviously aspects of each crossover). Neither genre is inherently worse than the other, and each clearly plays an important role in the cultural realm. To me, lyrics like the ones Buried Inside write (which often come with adjacent explanations, quotes and ideas to complement the notions being espoused in the songs proper) fit the mold of a different lyrical form entirely. You wouldn't hold The Corporation to the same standards as The Dark Knight, so why would you place Buried Inside's lyrics against something that, for instance, is primarily focused on telling a story?

Now is Buried Inside's approach artistic? Is documentary film artistic? I don't know, I'll leave that for the philosophers to tackle (though my inclination is to not deny them artistic status immediately, as you have done, considering the postmodern context in which we live).

 

[Omni]

Uh, okay. So what's your definition?

The fundamental definition of art doesn't specify that it has to be beautiful in order to be art, or even imply it.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Well, it sort of does*, but the fact remains that beauty is completely subjective and therefore not a useful term for definition.

btw DA, to the thing you ">_>"'d, I didn't mean "quality" as a value judgment i.e. it has no quality/is therefore bad or whatever, I meant that it has really no qualities of art; it's just a rant.

*edit: OK, it doesn't, I just needed something to say here. ORIGINALLY, the purpose of art was to display beauty, but as humanity changed and diverse cultures became integrated into the artistic world and vice versa, and subcultures found everything from pain to death "beautiful", it's really pretty much lost its entire objective meaning; it's just not useful anymore. Hope that clears it up.

 

[Omni]

The idea behind art is creating something that evokes a response from the senses or emotions. There's nothing about beauty or what specific senses or feelings it has to evoke in anyone.

 

[Orion Crystal Ice]

thread has turned good tbh.

Personally I see art as more of a 'selfish' *expression* in it's nature and aim rather than the aim being strictly to evoke thought or discussion.... the "beauty" would be simply the fact of that *expression* in itself.

But where will it lead us to say 'personally' behind everything..where is our firm foundation behind the idea of art, and after that, where is the firm foundation behind some of the ideas art expresses, i.e. the thread topic? Bringing me back to my original point of there needing to be a lot of credible weight present for one to throw one's weight behind an moral issue in the name of it's perceived objectiveness.

 

[Death Aflame]

btw DA, to the thing you ">_>"'d, I didn't mean "quality" as a value judgment i.e. it has no quality/is therefore bad or whatever, I meant that it has really no qualities of art; it's just a rant.

Yeah this is what I assumed, though I am still critical of the idea of not considering it as art, as evidenced by my analogy to documentary film (more to the point the first example is not 'just a rant' if it also contains complex metaphors that are ambiguous, like the line 'the essence of every picture is the frame'). Admittedly I am not at all well versed in the philosophy of art or aesthetics so take that as you will (I also think this wasn't supposed to be the main point of the thread, so maybe we could get back on topic).

 

[Belligerent]

Didn't Ministry make a bunch of albums about the Bush administration? Stuff like that gets dated extremely fast, imagine in 20 years when no one will get what the hell he's singing about.

Ministry beat a dead horse with that topic.

 

[Cythraul]

Think of it like documentary film compared to narrative film--both utilize the same form, but the aesthetic and intent of each are clearly quite divergent (though obviously aspects of each crossover). Neither genre is inherently worse than the other, and each clearly plays an important role in the cultural realm. To me, lyrics like the ones Buried Inside write (which often come with adjacent explanations, quotes and ideas to complement the notions being espoused in the songs proper) fit the mold of a different lyrical form entirely. You wouldn't hold The Corporation to the same standards as The Dark Knight, so why would you place Buried Inside's lyrics against something that, for instance, is primarily focused on telling a story?

I don't see how this helps your case. Exactly what lyrical form do those Buried Inside lyrics exemplify? If I think such a form is crap then what is so wrong with me criticizing it by pointing out that it fails to exemplify a form that I think is potentially good? I like certain documentary films, though I would never judge the quality of a documentary film with exactly the same standards I would employ in judging, for instance, a fictional drama (though some standards might overlap). However, if I thought that the very idea of a documentary film was crap, then I would not be out of line in criticizing a documentary film for failing to be something it was not intended to be and which I think would be preferable. I really do not see what artistic merit can be found in a bunch of tirades interspersed with half-baked "profundities".

Now is Buried Inside's approach artistic? Is documentary film artistic? I don't know, I'll leave that for the philosophers to tackle (though my inclination is to not deny them artistic status immediately, as you have done, considering the postmodern context in which we live).

I don't recall denying anything artistic status, but if I suggested such a thing I didn't mean to.