Metal Music Banned in Malaysia
- Thread starter Orchid
- Start date
BillowOfZeal
and I looked up her skirt
Every society needs its scapegoats (no pun intended, given the subject matter!) and music is the unfortunate animal sent into the desert. Metal in itself is very extreme if we try and look objectively, momentarily neglecting any further insight into our subculture; the violent lyrics, or obscure and therefore interpreted as evil whatsoever, the heavy sound, the upbeat tempo and the unconventional (hence usually "Satanic") image that constitute the common preconceptions of metal are very prone to generate a response as radical as they seem themselves, and as far as common people are concerned, such a diversion is very easy to use as a scapegoat. Because not every citizen, stable or unstable, of any state can conform to a set pattern of rules, societies are always in a state of spiritual illness of varying degree, and in stead of terminating the actual reasons for this sickness every subculture is assaulted at one time as they are considered responsible for this, not the other way around. In a liberal state such as Finland the assault comes only at levels below politics; in a place like Malaysia, which is less liberal and more limiting, it may transcend the border between the social and media level and the official, government level. It goes without saying that whoever perpetrates any crime or does any harm to anyone/anything is by nature unstable, and therefore seeks not release or consolation in extreme cultures. It is these people who constitute the group whose problems should be solved, not the music they listen to; even Norman Bates saw 'kill'-messages in the cover of The Beatles' "White album." Are The Beatles therefore evil? No, since they have received wide acceptance and are not extreme by nature. It is much easier to pick on the aesthetically irregular. As of this day and age, cultural racism thrives prosperously.
Another remark to be made is that metal is often recognized as another style where form (extramusical matters) exceeds content (the actual music): it's not how you sound, it's what you say and wear, which is completely false. This gives rise to the idea that if this form is extreme and aurally obscure and the mere reason for music is to be a medium to get this form into wider knowledge, then the music is in itself merely an extension of this form: happy, easy music would seem out of place when the message is 'evil.' This forms a concoction of a very questionable nature, and people think that it is evil, that it is not a musical subculture: it is a vessel for nazis/satanists/whatever to voice their antihumanistic (yet another misconception as far as satanism is concerned) ideals and nothing more. Punk was initially not about musicianship, so we may look upon it as a style of a form-dominant quality, even if the message in itself was not evil. But metal, being in my opinion an extension of prog and hard rock, is about musicianship and exorcism of personal demons, the latter of which creates much of metal's stylistic form. It is through its spiritual essence - the ritual, cathartic soul purging - acceptable, but whenever this essence takes a more grotesque form it is not seen as such: much rather it is actually labeled a form-dominant genre. Hence we may conclude that the grotesque form of metal music is not seen as an element of metaphor, but a vessel of evil and despicable in its decadent brutality.
Much of this is applicable to the cinema as well, but since it is visual and reachable only at will [music is never as secluded into homes and theatres and is potentially heard on the radio or at open air concerts etc., whereas films are not easily seen unless wanted to] it is always more of a content-dominant artform, since the only people who see, for instance, a horror film, they have a reason for it - in the case of horror films, fear - and they recognise this reason and do not stigmatize the content with the form. How many people see violent action films as generally more negatively effective than extreme metal music? I would suppose that not very many see the matter at this angle, which is why they do not come across this possibility. This is not to say that films are worse than music, but the same laws apply to much of artistic expression.
Art is always the product of an era and varying between each part of the world. So, the bottom line is this: metal music tells not of the evil inherent in the musicians, but of the evil intrinsic of the surroundings it aspires from. This gives metal most of its extramusical form and also gives out the notion of the link between the form and content of music: metal music would not be as it is if it weren't for our western slave societies, so what is happening now is that society is beating its own chilren.
Thank you for reading!
Another remark to be made is that metal is often recognized as another style where form (extramusical matters) exceeds content (the actual music): it's not how you sound, it's what you say and wear, which is completely false. This gives rise to the idea that if this form is extreme and aurally obscure and the mere reason for music is to be a medium to get this form into wider knowledge, then the music is in itself merely an extension of this form: happy, easy music would seem out of place when the message is 'evil.' This forms a concoction of a very questionable nature, and people think that it is evil, that it is not a musical subculture: it is a vessel for nazis/satanists/whatever to voice their antihumanistic (yet another misconception as far as satanism is concerned) ideals and nothing more. Punk was initially not about musicianship, so we may look upon it as a style of a form-dominant quality, even if the message in itself was not evil. But metal, being in my opinion an extension of prog and hard rock, is about musicianship and exorcism of personal demons, the latter of which creates much of metal's stylistic form. It is through its spiritual essence - the ritual, cathartic soul purging - acceptable, but whenever this essence takes a more grotesque form it is not seen as such: much rather it is actually labeled a form-dominant genre. Hence we may conclude that the grotesque form of metal music is not seen as an element of metaphor, but a vessel of evil and despicable in its decadent brutality.
Much of this is applicable to the cinema as well, but since it is visual and reachable only at will [music is never as secluded into homes and theatres and is potentially heard on the radio or at open air concerts etc., whereas films are not easily seen unless wanted to] it is always more of a content-dominant artform, since the only people who see, for instance, a horror film, they have a reason for it - in the case of horror films, fear - and they recognise this reason and do not stigmatize the content with the form. How many people see violent action films as generally more negatively effective than extreme metal music? I would suppose that not very many see the matter at this angle, which is why they do not come across this possibility. This is not to say that films are worse than music, but the same laws apply to much of artistic expression.
Art is always the product of an era and varying between each part of the world. So, the bottom line is this: metal music tells not of the evil inherent in the musicians, but of the evil intrinsic of the surroundings it aspires from. This gives metal most of its extramusical form and also gives out the notion of the link between the form and content of music: metal music would not be as it is if it weren't for our western slave societies, so what is happening now is that society is beating its own chilren.
Thank you for reading!
Demonspell
cheating the polygraph
This exchange took place 48 days before the WTC attack. A frightening omen to be sure, and the Hitler incarnate seems extremely chilling to me, as a recent New York Post identified the Taliban as the heirs of the legacy of Nazism and nihilism.
HoserHellspawn
Pixel Manipulator
Hey, I remember this thread. A true Opeth forum classic.
I suppose I should probably deliver the pseudo-promised sequel, eh?
I suppose I should probably deliver the pseudo-promised sequel, eh?
Similar threads
