Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

In search of relativistic merit

In search of relativistic merit
February 21, 2011, 10:33:58 PM
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:

This thread has been created out of another thread. That is to say, there was another thread, and the conversation in it branched off in two fairly separate directions, and the mods thought each direction deserved a thread of their own, so they separated the single thread into two different threads. I realize this may confuse some of you (since the mods don't indicate when they split threads like this). Do try to follow the plot, of this public service announcement.

The floor is currently open for placing bets on which mod split this thread: Scourge or Conservationist? Notice the new thread title they came up with: "In search of relativistic merit". Did Scourge make this thread, to exemplify a failed attempt at grappling higher truths in my ramblings? Or did Conservationist make this thread, to help examine and explore this thread's subject matter? In layman's terms, does Scourge disapprove of this thread, or does Conservationist approve of it?

Perhaps we should consider here the 'tetralemma':

1) Sourge disapproves
2) Conservationist approves
3) both
4) neither

What are #3 and #4? If we take this concept into 4-D (4 dimensions), we can see the other two options are 3) I put this question to you here, or 4) this public service announcement never existed and you're left to your own devices to wonder what the fuck is going on.

On the other hand, Nagarjuna points out the option that it could also potentially be 5) neither none of the previously-listed options nor all of them, or 6) both all of them as well as none of them, since every-'thing' exists in mutual contingency. Add some wicked Zen to the stuffy Buddhism and you see where this public service announcement comes from:

Perhaps Scourge and/or Conservationist titled this thread "In search of relativistic merit" in an honestly neutral way (who the fuck can tell if it's meant as an insult?), leaving it for you, the viewers to decide and discuss about the thread's subject matter. This is the way of the philosopher king, the philosopher king understands how to use the stuff like html, social media, photon torpedoes and censors, not to mention the public service announcement button that the ship's designer was such an idiot for installing two millimeters next to the red alert button (and the buttons are very small, but who cares how the ship is designed, all that matters is how you use it). Yes the philosopher king makes the machinery move all on its own, like the magical Tao behind the scenes, you think the computer voice is automated, you don't even give it a second thought, and nobody even sees the king.

You may now return to your regularly unscheduled broadcasting after this gross intrusion for which we do so apologize.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Looking at the Dark Legions Archive of bands, how many of these are truly worthy of praise?

OK, I mean this in the nicest possible way... do you really expect me to waste my time in this thread? We can't just dive right into album reviews, we need first to establish the parameters. For example, more superficial music can serve its purposes, even though it might be 'lesser', but how do we want to account for this? Now personally I listen to basically none of the bands you just listed, or the bands reviewed by DLA in general, so I'm hard-pressed to use that selection of bands you submitted as any point of reference. Also I think the relevancy of reviews in general should be questioned, personally I could care less about reviews, and relatedly I could also care less about looking at albums as a whole, I'm only interested in individual songs. It seems to me if you want to review albums as a whole, then you're packaging the good with the bad in order to focus in on more than just the creme of the crop, but on overall image and stuff that goes into an album between the songs themselves, as if the bands themselves bear any significance beyond the music they produce, as if they're on some sort of pedestal or worthy of 'following'. It's also not clear to me what constitutes "black metal" for the parameters of this thread, for example I would include some songs by Solefald, Samael, Transcending Bizarre?, Sigh, Ephel Duath, Peccatum, Obtained Enslavement, Nokturnal Mortum's later work like the song 'Hailed be the Heroes', Korovakill, Borknagar, etc, but in many cases it's more extreme or avantgarde black metal, or maybe a mix of black and death, or etc; I'm not clear what is the advantage of reviewing metal in blocks of sub-genres rather than more loosely as one whole. Yes, I'm probably the only one who would have such a weird response to your thread, and that fact pisses me off, I don't even fully know why I bother writing this, will it change a fucking thing? Look at the responses, people fucking love to give lists of their preferences, and hey so do I it's an expression of your personality among friends, but thread after thread after thread it becomes such a waste of space and time.

Re: In search of relativistic merit
February 22, 2011, 06:14:37 AM
OK, I mean this in the nicest possible way... do you really expect me to waste my time in this thread?
You personally?  No.

Quote
We can't just dive right into album reviews, we need first to establish the parameters.
Said parameters are already understood.  There is already an implicit consensus.

Quote
For example, more superficial music can serve its purposes, even though it might be 'lesser', but how do we want to account for this? Now personally I listen to basically none of the bands you just listed, or the bands reviewed by DLA in general
OK... and?

Quote
It's also not clear to me what constitutes "black metal" for the parameters of this thread
This thread isn't exclusive to Black Metal.  Regardless, if you don't understand what constitutes Black Metal, why even bother sharing your views?

Re: In search of relativistic merit
February 22, 2011, 03:29:39 PM
I'm finding the part > composite assertion to be an illogical, rock music listener's value. We've already been over this before. Ranked by importance:

0. the vague term genre
1. for each genre, a given band
2. for each band, its albums
3. for each band's albums, their respective songs

Toss out the bands that do not fit the idealized form of the genre or re-genre them into another like Technical Progressive Cocksmoke Hipmetal.

Quote
It seems to me if you want to review albums as a whole, then you're packaging the good with the bad in order to focus in on more than just the creme of the crop, but on overall image and stuff that goes into an album between the songs themselves, as if the bands themselves bear any significance beyond the music they produce, as if they're on some sort of pedestal or worthy of 'following'.

Re: In search of relativistic merit
February 22, 2011, 03:40:12 PM
why even bother sharing your views?

Because I care for and hope for something 'more'.

I'm finding the part > composite assertion to be an illogical, rock music listener's value. We've already been over this before. Ranked by importance:

0. the vague term genre
1. for each genre, a given band
2. for each band, its albums
3. for each band's albums, their respective songs

Toss out the bands that do not fit the idealized form of the genre or re-genre them into another like Technical Progressive Cocksmoke Hipmetal.

OK, you didn't make any argument there, you just stated how you look at the situation. Thank you for sharing.

Re: In search of relativistic merit
February 22, 2011, 03:45:28 PM
Because I care for and hope for something 'more'.
Well, thank god we got that cleared up...

Quote
OK, you didn't make any argument there, you just stated how you look at the situation. Thank you for sharing.
I don't believe he's interested in arguing.

Re: In search of relativistic merit
February 22, 2011, 04:13:41 PM
Because I care for and hope for something 'more'.
Well, thank god we got that cleared up...

Quote
OK, you didn't make any argument there, you just stated how you look at the situation. Thank you for sharing.
I don't believe he's interested in arguing.

You said you were only using DLA as a reference point, then Scourge comes in and states DLA's view on genre categorization, and then you suggest his answer is satisfactory. You said:

They [DLA] can do whatever they like with their website.  The fact that it creates a longer page with more reading has nothing to do with what I'm asking.  I'm questioning the very legitimacy of these bands in and of themselves.  I was basically just using the DLA as a reference point.  I'd ideally, in accordance with Cons' suggestion, like to revisit a much wider range of bands.  I simply chose a few (semi-arbitrarily) that I thought stood out as odd inclusions.

Also you said:

Quote
We can't just dive right into album reviews, we need first to establish the parameters.
Said parameters are already understood.  There is already an implicit consensus.

I don't know what "implicit consensus" you're referring to.

Re: In search of relativistic merit
February 22, 2011, 04:22:27 PM
The reviews are already ordered in this manner if you visualize the tree structure of the hyperlinks, so there is no need to completely redesign a significant portion of the website and rewrite each review to focus instead on each band and some select top hits rather than albums.

Probably for brevity in the reviews, level three only appears as listings under the album and occasionally in commentary for reinforcement in evaluating each album, which consequently at the time of most of the authoring was the basic unit (album) for purchasing the music. Hence, a reason for orientation around level two rather than three. Presently, we may purchase some whole collections, an album, or selected tracks.

It has not been shown that a track or a few selected tracks are a superior representation of a band's quality and in turn, the band's relevance to its genre than a complete album or two. Therefore, the burden of proof would not be on myself, as someone relaying in better detail what is already in place. In fact, it is irrational to demand any argument from my part at this point.

Re: In search of relativistic merit
February 22, 2011, 04:39:05 PM
You said you were only using DLA as a reference point, then Scourge comes in and states DLA's view on genre categorization, and then you suggest his answer is satisfactory.
Where did I suggest such a thing?  I was simply informing you that he did not appear to be interested in arguing anything.  Not every post has to argue a specific point.

Quote
I don't know what "implicit consensus" you're referring to.
Yeah, I know you don't.

Re: In search of relativistic merit
February 22, 2011, 04:46:34 PM
The reviews are already ordered in this manner if you visualize the tree structure of the hyperlinks, so there is no need to completely redesign a significant portion of the website and rewrite each review to focus instead on each band and some select top hits rather than albums.

Probably for brevity in the reviews, level three only appears as listings under the album and occasionally in commentary for reinforcement in evaluating each album, which consequently at the time of most of the authoring was the basic unit (album) for purchasing the music. Hence, a reason for orientation around level two rather than three. Presently, we may purchase some whole collections, an album, or selected tracks.

It has not been shown that a track or a few selected tracks are a superior representation of a band's quality and in turn, the band's relevance to its genre than a complete album or two. Therefore, the burden of proof would not be on myself, as someone relaying in better detail what is already in place. In fact, it is irrational to demand any argument from my part at this point.


Hmmm, well, since you bring it up, personally if I maintained a website I would probably try to support all my decisions, including whether to review albums or just songs, by posting public explanations for them on the website itself; I would put the burden of proof on myself initially in the name of transparency and communication with the website readers. However I don't mean to criticize you on this point at all, perhaps even you've written such a document somewhere on DLA. DLA's policy on metal reviews couldn't be further from what I'm discussing in this thread, I trust you understand this as it's clear from my posts, I was never talking about this.

You said you were only using DLA as a reference point, then Scourge comes in and states DLA's view on genre categorization, and then you suggest his answer is satisfactory.
Where did I suggest such a thing?

In the text I proceeded to quote from what you said, here I'll quote it again:

They [DLA] can do whatever they like with their website.  The fact that it creates a longer page with more reading has nothing to do with what I'm asking.  I'm questioning the very legitimacy of these bands in and of themselves.  I was basically just using the DLA as a reference point.  I'd ideally, in accordance with Cons' suggestion, like to revisit a much wider range of bands.  I simply chose a few (semi-arbitrarily) that I thought stood out as odd inclusions.

Re: In search of relativistic merit
February 22, 2011, 04:53:21 PM
In the text I proceeded to quote from what you said, here I'll quote it again:
I meant where did I suggest that his "response was satisfactory?"  I thought that would have been clear by the use of the word suggest in relation to your post.  Sorry.

Re: In search of relativistic merit
February 22, 2011, 05:21:01 PM
In the text I proceeded to quote from what you said, here I'll quote it again:
I meant where did I suggest that his "response was satisfactory?"  I thought that would have been clear by the use of the word suggest in relation to your post.  Sorry.

My mistake, I see you were referring to my mention of the satisfactoriness of Scourge's response. The reason I thought you suggested Sourge's response was satisfactory is because you defended it saying "I don't believe he's interested in arguing."

Re: In search of relativistic merit
February 22, 2011, 05:22:44 PM
*Jumps into discussion*

Doesn't seem much of a defense, but, rather, merely a statement.

Carry on.

Re: In search of relativistic merit
February 22, 2011, 05:26:36 PM
My mistake, I see you were referring to my mention of the satisfactoriness of Scourge's response. The reason I thought you suggested Sourge's response was satisfactory is because you defended it saying "I don't believe he's interested in arguing."
That wasn't really so much a defense as it was a simple observation.  Anyway, this thread's derailed.  Not gonna throw any blame anywhere, just like to get back on track.

Re: In search of relativistic merit
February 22, 2011, 05:31:04 PM
*Jumps into discussion*

Doesn't seem much of a defense, but, rather, merely a statement.

Carry on.

I can see I'm having a hell of a time here making people understand me. I always realized Scourge wasn't looking for an argument, but I considered his 'summary judgment' on the issue to be overbearing, so I pointed out what (I hope) was already obvious to everyone, that he didn't persuade anyone one way or another as to the merits of album reviews versus song reviews. I definitely think his tone was condescending, because he didn't really even give his opinion, he didn't say *why* he feels the way he feels about it, he just said how DLA does it and that my way was the way of a rock music listener.

My mistake, I see you were referring to my mention of the satisfactoriness of Scourge's response. The reason I thought you suggested Sourge's response was satisfactory is because you defended it saying "I don't believe he's interested in arguing."
That wasn't really so much a defense as it was a simple observation.  Anyway, this thread's derailed.  Not gonna throw any blame anywhere, just like to get back on track.

Fine, let's ignore the meta-narrative and get back on the tired old track.

Re: In search of relativistic merit
February 23, 2011, 03:09:42 AM
We've already been over this before.

I also hate repeating myself, so I can completely understand why Scourge wouldn't want to say what's been said over and over again.  Whole > sum of its parts.  This is obvious.