Why is the production so terrible for early black metal albums

[no country for old wainds]

Politeness is considered as always being some form of virtue, while really all it does is in many cases is soften the points being put across, making them weaker. It tends only to be necessary when trying to improve somebody's image of you, trying to get something you want, or trying to please somebody else.

Demiurge blatantly doesn't like the majority of people on this board, so it's no surprise he isn't polite to them or to you. I doubt he cares if it bothers you.

Of course, being confrontational often isn't the best way to go about debating something, but it depends on the circumstance.

 

[CONCLAVE OBSCURUM]

An authentic black metal album MUST have a raw production... it comes with the name.

Plus, if its RAW.. then... its more Tr00

 

[Remenis]

i think that we shoud separate the different cases,..for example i think that some bands produced their cd with a fucking low-fi production because they had a very low budget,or because the studios ,at that time, did not were good as the studios in which are recorded the Cds now.. then in my opinion there were bands that decided to record a Cd with this low-fi production because this was their will

 

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

I find the last few posts amusing. Even more so that metal itself has a built in elitism. By mocking Korn and similar bands you admit that they suck, AND what you listen to is superior. I can and shall also infer that you believe Korn should perhaps not even be considered metal (some do of course). Laughing at Korn, Slipknot etc is elitism. Isn't it somewhat hypocritical to slander elitests?

Please clarify.

Please clarify why you thought those few posts actually had meaning and weren't just a goofy intermission to the/mocking the seriousness of the topic thus far.

 

[anonymousnick2001]

Please clarify why you thought those few posts actually had meaning and weren't just a goofy intermission to the/mocking the seriousness of the topic thus far.

Actually, I second this.

 

[Demiurge]

Quite interesting that you're the one who usually resorts to childish and pedantic "insults" to try and prove your superiority in a situation. That, coupled with the verbose, pseudo-intellectual flowering of your language, is just a little tired at this point. You seem to bring back the Death discussion a bit. I, being uninformed of your past history, assumed that you'd never really been challenged in a debate before. My bumping of the thread was my personal 'rubbing it in.' I'd gotten the vibe that you'd stated your opinion as fact and were then plugging your ears going "nanananabooboo." If that bothers you so much, I apologize. Forum necromancy's a bad habit of mine. I do bring your name up quite a bit, yes. You're one of the few real elitists I've met. People like DiscipleofPlato and LuminousAether and GoD are commonly perceived as elitists, but they're really just cool guys with occasionally unpopular opinions. You seem to pass off every word you type as stone-cold fact.

I never asked you to be congenial. You may be honest, but you're severely lacking in tact. That's the difference between coming off as a geniunely honest person and an insufferable asshole. Congeniality has nothing to do with it. It's just called being polite.

I state the truth as truth. Or elaborated, I state what seems as close to objective truth as I can manage as truth. That is all anyone can do. That's what truth is in the real world.

Politeness translates to congeniality in this case. It is the statement of things not exactly as I see them, but in a manner that sugarcoats them to not offend. This doesn't mesh with my notion of honesty, which I support for practical, not moralistic purposes.

 

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

Actually, I second this.

I'd like to second this.

 

[anonymousnick2001]

I state the truth as truth. Or elaborated, I state what seems as close to objective truth as I can manage as truth. That is all anyone can do. That's what truth is in the real world.

Politeness translates to congeniality in this case. It is the statement of things not exactly as I see them, but in a manner that sugarcoats them to not offend. This doesn't mesh with my notion of honesty, which I support for practical, not moralistic purposes.

I can live with that.

I'd like to second this.

WELL I SECONDEDD YOU 1IRST BITXCH!!!!!11!11!11!!!!!

 

[Transilvanian Scotsman]

Please clarify why you thought those few posts actually had meaning and weren't just a goofy intermission to the/mocking the seriousness of the topic thus far.

Well, from what I've read most true Br00tal death mehtulhedz!!1one dont consider either of those bands to be 'proper' metal. Infact, I will extend that defintion of 'metalheads' to include those that like power, thrash etc.

Thus it would only seem natural to assume that both you disliked those bands. In my eyes you mocked their 'metalness'. Not exactly uncommon on many metal message boards (or other underground publications). Yet many people would claim they were metal, which mostly consists of nu-metal fans (those that only like nu-metal). Arguing whether they are metal or not would be 'elitest'.
Arguing against elitism and then displaying an act of elitism by mocking those bands seemed hypocrital.

Death metal fans are just as bad as Black metal fans at being elitest. I rarely see BM fans talk about slipknot, it is given they are not metal in the eyes of the BM fans. Personally, I would not like to see metal on TRL. I'm happy to listen to my CDs by myself without every other person bothering with such and such new 'extreme' metal band.

I accept you may think differently, it is becoming futile to argue in this topic. Since neither side is willing to listen to other. Quick dismissal followed by the words "nekkro" and "gr1m" is annoying.

As for goofy-ness, well I left my sense of humour 3 pages back when i felt the topic beginning to slip into futility. apologies all round.

 

[anonymousnick2001]

Thus it would only seem natural to assume that both you disliked those bands. In my eyes you mocked their 'metalness'. Not exactly uncommon on many metal message boards (or other underground publications). Yet many people would claim they were metal, which mostly consists of nu-metal fans (those that only like nu-metal). Arguing whether they are metal or not would be 'elitest'.
Arguing against elitism and then displaying an act of elitism by mocking those bands seemed hypocrital.

I'm still not seeing it. People make fun of bands all the time. How does that relate to elitism?

 

[Transilvanian Scotsman]

I'm still not seeing it. People make fun of bands all the time. How does that relate to elitism?

Hmmm.. I figured I made that point in the senteces above the one you highlighted. You mock them in such a way to illustrate their 'non-metalness'. Such as ONLY nu-metal bands have DJ's. And I have only heard of slipknot using more than 1 drummer (or whatever the hell they are).
It's not the fact that you mock them, which makes it elitest. But, the way you did it...

When I hear people mock korn/ slipknot etc and talk about them NOT being metal, they usually bring up the fact that slipknot have a DJ (amongst other things). I figured you were doing the same, or at the very least, categorizing them as a genre well below the standard of say, death metal. Considering such bands as a lower form of metal is elitest? (or considering them not as metal at all). I thought so. But then again I dont have any problems with believing nu-metal to be of a lesser form. Regardless of whether other people think I'm right or wrong.

Like I said before, I've seen people talk in a similar way you did. Therefore, I jumped to conclusions (rightly so in my mind).

Does that make it any clearer? If not, then I'm not sure I can restate it any other way.

 

[no country for old wainds]

Calling a band 'non-metal' is not elitist.

Calling a band 'bad' is elitist.

 

[Transilvanian Scotsman]

Calling a band 'non-metal' is not elitist.

Calling a band 'bad' is elitist.

Well obviously, if you consider say a rock or pop band.

Take CoF, a lot would say they are BM. And a lot would say they aren't. Those that say they aint, also in general dislike their music.
I should clarify what I mean by 'non-metal', when there is a dispute over 'metalness' and where people could consider them of a lesser standard. Perhaps a clumsy description. Best to consider only those bands which consider themselves metal, but a lot of reviewers would not.
The reaons for not calling them metal is most likely to arise from the fact that the reviewer does not like their music. I'm sure you know what I mean.

And oddly, you can still call a band 'bad', but not be an elitist? You dislike Emperor, probably think of them as 'bad', but would you argue whether they are/were black metal or not? (if you only consider the early albums, since no doubt you would be pedantic and only consider their later, lesser BM albums).

 

[no country for old wainds]

Well obviously, if you consider say a rock or pop band.

Take CoF, a lot would say they are BM. And a lot would say they aren't. Those that say they aint, also in general dislike their music.
I should clarify what I mean by 'non-metal', when there is a dispute over 'metalness' and where people could consider them of a lesser standard. Perhaps a clumsy description. Best to consider only those bands which consider themselves metal, but a lot of reviewers would not.
The reaons for not calling them metal is most likely to arise from the fact that the reviewer does not like their music. I'm sure you know what I mean.

Yeah, but then 'not metal' is a synonym for 'bad', rather than being used by its proper definition.

And oddly, you can still call a band 'bad', but not be an elitist? You dislike Emperor, probably think of them as 'bad', but would you argue whether they are/were black metal or not? (if you only consider the early albums, since no doubt you would be pedantic and only consider their later, lesser BM albums).

Well, I don't particularly like early Emperor but do recognise them as being BM, and I am elitist, so you're hardly contradicting what I said.

 

[DE]

GoD's mother is great in bed. GoD, however, is not. Am I being elitist in saying that? I sure hope so.

 

[no country for old wainds]

That's different, as I may vary in quality from one fuck to the next. An album never changes, only the listener does.

 

[Transilvanian Scotsman]

Yeah, but then 'not metal' is a synonym for 'bad', rather than being used by its proper definition.

Which is what I meant. I used it to mean bad. So I'm not sure why you made that post above. Since mine already stated it implicity.

Well, I don't particularly like early Emperor but do recognise them as being BM, and I am elitist, so you're hardly contradicting what I said.

No, but you implied that if a band was 'bad' then by definition they were 'not metal'; using that term as defined above. Thus if Emperor was 'bad', then you would be contradicting yourself. But, then again if you think of Emperor as metal then they can't be 'bad'.
This is turning into a thread of arguing about aruging. time to stop?

 

[no country for old wainds]

Which is what I meant. I used it to mean bad. So I'm not sure why you made that post above. Since mine already stated it implicity.

Maybe I was commenting on your misuse of the definition.

No, but you implied that if a band was 'bad' then by definition they were 'not metal'; using that term as defined above. Thus if Emperor was 'bad', then you would be contradicting yourself. But, then again if you think of Emperor as metal then they can't be 'bad'.
This is turning into a thread of arguing about aruging. time to stop?

I clearly indicated that those who used "not metal" as a synonym for "bad" weren't using it by its proper definition.

 

[anonymousnick2001]

Calling a band 'non-metal' is not elitist.

Calling a band 'bad' is elitist.

I suppose...

When I hear people mock korn/ slipknot etc and talk about them NOT being metal, they usually bring up the fact that slipknot have a DJ (amongst other things). I figured you were doing the same, or at the very least, categorizing them as a genre well below the standard of say, death metal. Considering such bands as a lower form of metal is elitest? (or considering them not as metal at all). I thought so. But then again I dont have any problems with believing nu-metal to be of a lesser form. Regardless of whether other people think I'm right or wrong.

Buddy, my band has a DJ. Some of my favorite bands have DJ's. I never once said that Korn or Slipknot were 'lower forms' of anything. Neither did Worm-Infested.

You drew a conclusion. And it was disproven. The End.