Portal - Outre

[Occam's Razor]

Well, to me, Payne's Gray have come closest to what I feel is the "atmospheric intention" Lovecraft had when he wrote his stuff (if he ever had an intention at all). All that lengthy, drone, pseudo-doom death whatever is mostly pretentious

Recently, this new Moss album... that sounds to me like an orthodox doom band starting out a song without getting beyond the intro... for about 70 minutes.


Okay, opinions and assholes, you know...

 

[Helm]

The Payne's Gray album is a difficult listen, and as far as the lovecraft concept goes it gets I feel a bit overshadowed by their "let's be prog!" mentality. I echo your points on Moss and most cthuloid Doomdeath yet at the same time the most cthulish music I've ever heard is Esoteric's Metamorphogenesis, so go figure.

 

[Occam's Razor]

I think the PG album is only difficult to listen to for a metal fan because it is not overtly heavy. They don't get their message across with the sledgehammer - you have to use your ears a little more to get into it. The prog stigma is only predominant in the theatrical vocals, if you ask me. It is not that they have their own heads stuck up their asses, showing off on their instruments or even falling to the clichés that have made "progressive" degeneate into a genre rather than meaning a state of mind.

But yes, maybe it is not a "cthulish" as all that Lovecraft death metal.


I was wondering what is more hackneyed: doing a Nostradamus double concept album or drawing influence from Lovecraft...

 

[Helm]

The instrumental sections in the PG album for me are compositional exercises, not so much 'look how well we play' cliches. These compositions are difficult and they serve a 'many-angled' end if you will, but the payoff is not satisfying for me. This comes down to not how difficult something is, but how smart it is. This is why for example I do not have the same problem with most good technothrash like Deathrow or Osiris or Flaming Anger, or early Sieges Even and Watchtower or even with Spiral Architect, the last two decidedly into progressive metal territory. The stuff is packed, but it makes sense and it goes somewhere. The PG material doesn't, really. It might have ment something to put unresolved sections and heavy dissonance into otherwise lyrical, straightforward metal in 1991 but now that it's been done while also serving considerably smarter ends, PG feel dated. If you put out an album in 1995 that feels dated by progressive metal 1991 standards, then I can't really recommend it.

I have no problem with it being lightweight, I wasn't expecting technothrash, I knew I was listening to second-wave progressive metal.

 

[Occam's Razor]

I do think that they do not belong as much into the progressive metal drawer as into the genre of progressive rock as it was meant to be in the seventies. I am not necessarily talking about the know names from Genesis to Yes, but rather those in the second rank (concerning notoriety, not quality), especially from countries like Italy, Greece or South America. That said, the "sense" the music should make for you (I assume you mean this particular push forward and focus that both characterize good metal of any sort) is entirely different. Those bands compose their material not solely on the basis of rock structures, but also draw from tendencies found in other forms of modern art, such as expressionism. That is probably why the term art rock was invented - and got emptied out nowadays because it recently refers to laptop folk and lo-fi indie guitar strumming with a pseudo introspective approach...

 

[Jim LotFP]

laptop folk

oooooo I like that.

 

[Helm]

When I say 'progressive metal' I mean the first term like I mean it in 'progressive rock'. I am not talking about technicians as much as I am talking about visionaries. Sadly second-wave, post-theater progressive metal becomes simply 'prog'. You know, ponytail metal, Jim has covered the phenomenon thoroughly. PG do not sport full-blown ponytails, sure and the material does have thematic focus. Sadly they lacked the compositional prowess as far as I'm concerned, to carry the concept home. It is a big shame because it took me a long while to track down the CD, and I loved the art and atmosphere but the actual music just doesn't have the guts for what they're attempting.

All music is 'art' music and I do not understand the need for that category at all.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Hmm, I think that the term art rock came up in retrospect after the demise of the prog giants of the seventies. With the common belief that punk took over for a while, at least in public awareness, the term may have been applied after the ebbing away of that hype to stress that a band played a sophisticated style of music.

Yeah, of course, any music is art in an ideal world, but I guess that has not been the case since music became a thing that could be viewed and marketed in economic terms, the more so as today, it is more a gadget or convenience good rather than something life enhancing - as art should be, giving you insights about yourself and the world.

But of course, that is my own definition of what art is or should be...

"pony tail"... I like that.

 

[Helm]

Our points of view can be reconciled in saying that music that fails to give you insights about yourself and the world is unsuccessful art, not in that the music that gives you these insights is the only 'art music'. It's best to not make a definition of art into a value judgment.

 

[Cheiron]

So I've been investigating criticism at a high level (summaries of what some have said, I haven't gone into their actual papers/books as I plan to at some point).

I've found two main methods of art criticism:

A) Art (music/literary/sculpture/painting/etc, though in this case the focus was on literary - I've extrapolated it to other forms) can be evaluated based on 1) what the creator intends for it to achieve, 2) if it achieves it, and 3) based on its inclusion of high issues (life, death, etc).

B) Music can be evaluated based on 1) if its interesting to listen to, 2) if its beautiful to listen to and 3) if it touches the listener.


Well hasn't this thread gotten far away from Portal =)

 

[Helm]

The functions of the first method for me should coincide with the results of the second. That it touches upon the human condition is a meaningless prequisite if the way in which it does so doesn't touch me as a listener. Being beautiful to listen to I can take or leave, it's a huge conversation about aesthetics. However not a sideways one from the Portal record as apparently people claim to find a lot of beauty in that mess so here you go.