America should have avoided making black metal

[JewishPhysics]

Same as comparing two completely different sets of standards. It's a non-discussion.

What prevents discussion of standards?  You don't believe a logical discussion or analysis of standards can occur between people?  I think it can.  In fact, I know it can.  I engage in it all the time.

[Vesupria]

Apologies, I meant analysing the worth of two bands using two different sets of standards and trying to compare these analysis in order to find which band is objectively better.

Not comparing the actual standards (which I think provides great scope for discussion by the way).

What I am saying is this universal objectivity for art does not exist. Objectivity within set principles is possible. I am surprised that anyone here disagrees with this.

[Cargést]

We don't, we just all understand what the set principles are.

[Vesupria]

I think that this is where the whole argument lies.

Histrocially speaking, philosophy is littered with disagreement on these 'set principles' and I am not even talking about art.

The problem is, that these principles are still arbitrary. They may be wise, and I will not disagree with this, but they're still ultimately arbitrary.

I will also gaurantee that on a broad level a lot of people here will agree with the certain principles, (ie they want Art that communicates something about reality) but when push comes to shove, there are a lot of more specific sub-sets that will cause major disagreement (What is reality? What transcends the mundane?). We haven't even begun talking about the application of principles yet either. That's a completely different kettle of fish.

It really depends on what you want to get out of art. Whilst there are close-minded people here, there are still lots of disagreement on some aspects of this even.

For this reason, I will never agree that true objectivity exists in Art.

[Cargést]

To some extent, I'll accept "arbitrary", but I wonder, if they're "wise", how "arbitrary" they are, if the criteria for their selection could be deemed to be valid?  But then, of course, how arbitrary is validity without a human context?

I think "true objectivity" exists in Art as much as it exists in material reality, in that, despite its undeniable existence, it is, wholly, unintelligible to any one individual, given that we have (subjective) experiences of things, not things themselves.  If a human's brain is of a non-standard form, for some reason, then they may understand different collections of notes or rhythms in an entirely different way to the majority of humans, thus P. Diddy's latest turd could be perceived to be more enlightening and more relevant than the metaphorical Sound Which Started the Universe.  This same person's brain may interpret the colour red as the sensation of a grape entering an artery.  For the individual, this is truth.

[scourge]

Some temporary individual perception represents the entirety of the whole pretty awfully, so we can safely ignore virtually of these as irrelevant except for the very best. That brings us to the methodology of the arbiter who declares these best perceivers and artists. Is the arbiter's methodology sufficiently principled, or, how many connected steps toward that distant first principle has our arbiter taken?

All we have in the end is the best arbitration to follow unless we ourselves can do better. And, we can in any case always do better than settling for relative subjectivity as a substitute for arbitration, so this relativism business needs to be discarded immediately.

[Cargést]

Relativism is a fact, not a preference.  Experience is relative to individuals, understanding is relative to individuals, reality is relative to individuals, as far as individuals can claim to experience or understand reality in any way.  Relativism does not negate the existence of an objective, perceivably "exterior" reality, nor does Relativism support subjectivitism in any way.  It is, of course, a pitfall for subjectivists, individualists, and solipsists etc. to jump into.  Our experience generally shows us that there is a real and quantifiable world outside of this body.

[scourge]

Your needless response avoided the point: a few people out there are much better than most. Relativists would very much like this inconvenience to go away but inequality is going to keep dealing with them.

[Cargést]

No, "Relativists" (do we also have "gravityists"?) don't give a shit based on Relativism at all.  Perhaps if "they" have some moronic liberal agenda, they will care about supposed "equality".  I accept Relativism as a fundamental problem when dealing with the classification of the objective, and I'm certainly opposed to whitewashing nature.

I apologise if I'm being too anal on ANUS.  I do get your point, overall, and I agree.  I'm merely stating that Relativism is not the same as Subjectivism, though people often use Relativism (incorrectly) to support Subjectivism.

[Conservationist]

They may be wise, and I will not disagree with this, but they're still ultimately arbitrary.

This is blockheaded. Nothing is arbitrary; you make choices, some garner bad results. People like you (liberals) want us to believe that every choice is valid and equally mysterious, but that's horse shit and you know it, because the consequences differ. You may have given up hope for yourself, but don't lead others down that path, please.

[Cargést]

I think you're missing the point.  Outside of human conception, things are "arbitrary" when conceived of by humans (we're not the be all and end all, are we?  Reality doesn't follow us; we follow Reality).  Nobodywould consider that all choices are equally valid - that's so blatantly wrong that even considering the sheer idiocy required to believe it is near mind-breaking.

[Vesupria]

They may be wise, and I will not disagree with this, but they're still ultimately arbitrary.

This is blockheaded. Nothing is arbitrary; you make choices, some garner bad results. People like you (liberals) want us to believe that every choice is valid and equally mysterious, but that's horse shit and you know it, because the consequences differ. You may have given up hope for yourself, but don't lead others down that path, please.

Tell me once where I said any of that garbage.

Of course different choices have different outcomes. I thought that this was self-evident. Your perception of those outcomes is what creates the set of principles wherefore you base the criteria that evaluates those events and outcomes. Hence, they are arbitrary.

The fact that something is arbitrary does not automatically detract from its quality. This is what you seem to not want to accept.

By the way, "nothing is arbitrary" and "you make choices" seem  to be contradictory statements. Can you please refine your wording?

[Stranger]

Looking back over four evolutionary waves now, Black Metal was evidently Northern European, meaning not just heredity but surrounding culture as well.

sarcofago is from northern europe?

it's disrespectful to this band when people claim that all of black metal derives from northern europe.

euronymous WAS influenced by sarcofago. burzum WAS influenced by von.

just how much they were influenced...is certainly debatable. but pretending that they had nothing to do with the formation of the first modern wave of black metal, is simply ignorant.

[scourge]

Let's follow your logic then. Isn't it more compelling to state that Jesus Christ and his distant Pope influenced Norwegian black metal?

[Iron]

Because this subject comes up again and again, and almost seems to be an inevitable point of termination in any thread where there is a dispute over the quality of a given piece of music, it might not be a terrible idea to actually make a sticky post for the subject. The argument could be hashed out there and banned from any other thread. I think it's pretty clear that the point is contentious enough that it's going to continue to pop up. This way, it can be discussed in a contained way without derailing discussions and demoralizing/exhausting people.