Why do people take metal so seriously?

[lord667]

This thread has caused me to reevaluate whether complex sophisticated music, is of more or lesser value as more simplistic and harmonius music.What do you guys think? Look at classical and jazz, the more sophisticated- the less people care or even listen to the music.

If you want to talk about "value" in real world terms, more sophisticated really means less valuable. Though sophisticated music may be beautiful and artistic, its real world applications are mostly just as conversation fodder for assorted aesthetes and hipsters. For music to have a use, and thus earn "value", it has to be aimed at the gut rather than the head - as rousing anthems, political themes, drunken terrace chants, or just plain old entertainment.

 

[The Sound Gardener]

Personally, I take music seriously because it can be used to convey emotion. Just as poetry and literature are taken seriously because they express important and applicable concepts, I believe some music should also be treated seriously. It is an art form, whether you like it or not, and art can be interpretted in different ways - some can be serious and thought-provoking, while others can just be for fun or parody.

FINALLY, somebody hit the nail on the head. This is the exact reason why I take the music I listen too seriously. It's all about the emotion and/or mood the music creates. I don't care if it's "unsophisticated" as long as it gets the job done. Take Sunn O))) for example, the songs are simple as shit, but it always puts me in a seriously relaxed mood. The music does what it's supposed to do (at least in my eyes.)

and i wonder why i have even bothered taking the time to reply.

Mission accomplished.

 

[zhora]

i used to take metal seriously when i was about 15, had long hair too. at the time i thought metal was the real music and everything else was crap. eventually other styles of music started to work their way into my CD changer and finally ( not too long ago ) i gave up discriminating based on genre alone.

now i can categorize music as lame, cheesy, catchy, complex, driving, emotional whatever, but the genre itself is not really important.

as for being a part of the scene - thats kinda impossible considering that i belong to several at the same time should i dress as candy-raver one day and head-banger the next ? NO. i just dress normally.

as far as chicks in the scene - its pretty lame to pick your music preferences based on how likely they are to get you laid. but if that's what you're after you'd probably better off being a candy-raver and an E-Tard.

 

[speed]

Ok while thinking about this, i remembered i took a Philsophy and Aesthetics class in College. So, I found the old collection of notes and articles and essays.

Anyway, I came across some good essays, and i ll write a few things here whil i have the time.

From Tolstoy:

So one is at quite a loss as to whom these things are done for. The man of culture is surely sick of them, while to the real workingman they are utterly incomprehensible. If anyone can be pleased by these things ( which i doubtful), it can only be some young footman or deprived artisan who has contracted the spirit of the upper classes but is not satiated with their amusement and wishese to show his breeding. (THis is from Tolstoy's essay what is art) I don feel like finding anymore quotes, but essentially he says art is only important if it reaffirms the sufferings of man- leads man to christin brotherhood, and can be understood by all. In many ways i agree with him- so what does everyone else think?

 

[SculptedCold]

I think Tolstoy should have spent less time writing inanities and more time writing fiction. =)

 

[speed]

Ive read most of Tolstoys books, and he is horribly overindulgent, and overl wordy without getting to the point. Yet, he still is an excellent writer. I just posted this quote because i wished to stir up discussion.

 

[speed]

Okay to clear up my quote on Tolstoy, my motive for posting it, is because of tolstoys belief that art must be understood by all peoples and classes for it to be understood at all. And also his reference that the only people who seek to understand sophisticated and complex music and art- are those young people who are trying to climb the social ladder- or are atmepting to act and look smart and refined. For everyone else, such complex arts( even the rich) are pointless.

And hell Tolstoy himself is guilty of creating art that is not understood by all. War and Peace is 800 pages too long, and exists within the drawing rooms of the aristocracy, not exactly a tribute to creating art for the masses.

 

[anonymousnick2001]

Actually, War and Peace is somewhat popular. I thought Anna Karenina was intended for the aristocratic sissies?

If Tolstoy is right, then what's wrong with pop music?

Why does everyone hate it so much?

(I don't.)

 

[lord667]

Okay to clear up my quote on Tolstoy, my motive for posting it, is because of tolstoys belief that art must be understood by all peoples and classes for it to be understood at all. And also his reference that the only people who seek to understand sophisticated and complex music and art- are those young people who are trying to climb the social ladder- or are atmepting to act and look smart and refined. For everyone else, such complex arts( even the rich) are pointless.

And hell Tolstoy himself is guilty of creating art that is not understood by all. War and Peace is 800 pages too long, and exists within the drawing rooms of the aristocracy, not exactly a tribute to creating art for the masses.

The theme isn't really relevant in that respect. Look at Dallas or Dynasty, definitely mass entertainment, certainly not gritty bluecollar stuff.

Although War and Peace really is a monster, it isn't too long for what it's trying to do. The story stands up in its own right as a half-decent aristocratic soap opera, and also as an allegory to support Tolstoy's musings on the nature of power and greatness. The allegory isn't hard to understand, as the whole work is peppered right through with editorialisation.

And he's right, it is quite popular. Last year when I got my MOT done, I was chatting to the woman behind the counter about it, and one of the mechanics had read it as well. I've met at least a half dozen others who've read or partly read it, and I don't move in "literary" circles much.

 

[speed]

I think so many people read it because it is considered one of the greatest novels. I like it, and yes I agree he peppers the book with his own editorial comments, and the last chapter finds the culmination of these ideas.

In this essay he does castigate himself though, for writing based on his own ego, and not his beloved christian brotherhood- in which he says he thougt Dostoevsky and Dickens did a far better job conveying these ideas than himself.

Hm I have alot of interesting articles here, by aother writers like Arthur Danto, Murdoch, etc. Ah but i am too lazy right now to qoute them. SOmeone else needs to start a discussion on likeminded principles of this thread.

 

[anonymousnick2001]

Yeah.

I'm still on the fence about the whole "metal being sophisticated" thing.

I'm not trying to prove anything--I just want to know, dammit!

 

[SADUDE]

Sophisticated can be as useless a word as art can be. The label of art appears to be used pretentiously 99% of the time anyway. People can be so carried away with something being sophisticated or artistic that it becomes more about the symbolic value of the music than the actual thing itself. You seem to want metal to appeal to people it never could. The music was designed to be unappealing. You do realise that you do not have to share every aspect of your life with other people? You can and will continue to enjoy metal by yourself. IT isn't that bad of a thing. WHo cares if it fits someone else's definitions of whatever. You alone decide what it can mean to you. If you are worried about it defining you or interfering with your self actualization process then do not share it. That is what I do most of the time. You get what I mean?

 

[anonymousnick2001]

Sophisticated can be as useless a word as art can be. The label of art appears to be used pretentiously 99% of the time anyway. People can be so carried away with something being sophisticated or artistic that it becomes more about the symbolic value of the music than the actual thing itself. You seem to want metal to appeal to people it never could. The music was designed to be unappealing. You do realise that you do not have to share every aspect of your life with other people? You can and will continue to enjoy metal by yourself. IT isn't that bad of a thing. WHo cares if it fits someone else's definitions of whatever. You alone decide what it can mean to you. If you are worried about it defining you or interfering with your self actualization process then do not share it. That is what I do most of the time. You get what I mean?

Every word, dawg.

I thank the members of UM.com in helping me come to terms with this personal dilemma. It was a win/win. It turned out that some metal was sophisticated and some jazz and classical unsophisticated, and as a bonus, none of it matters anyway.

I feel good.

 

[monikaedv]

That's interesting... signed:

 

[andrew_plamondon]

I don't think the term "natural" appeared at any point.

Take a look again at the definition from www.dictionary.com

1. To cause to become less natural, especially to make less naive and more worldly.
2. To make impure; adulterate.
3. To make more complex or inclusive; refine.

So yes, techno is less natural. How can we tell that techno is less naive than metal, more wordly ?
I guess we'll have to check that ! I guess that metal is less naive because it comes down to emotion ( mostly hate, disgust and some other ), and it sometimes has meaningful lyrics, while techno and dance lets you evacuate more carnal pleasure, like dancing.
Anyone agrees ?
It would at least make metal more sophisticated than techno/trance and those kind of things.