Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Black metal = terms contradicting aesthetics?

chthonian

Re: Black metal, terms contradicting aesthetics?
November 27, 2005, 04:58:45 PM
The problem is that I don't think we can even agree on what black is... So regardless of who the founders of black metal were, black metal would still be wrong (by our collective understanding.) Just because someone creates something doesn't mean they are fully aware of or understand what they have created (for example Qourthon was a fucking idiot, but still one of the founders of black metal.) And, what about the founder(s) of the current understanding of the term "black" it's self? What if the founders of black metal were defying the founders of the very term they use? would this make them wrong?
It's really useless to worry about the founders, we must be concerned with everyone involved. The Aesthetic boundaries (for group sake) are not set in stone, but maintained. We may not agree on everything aesthetically, but the more we agree on and assert, the better we establish these boundaries.

Everyone has their own opinions, no one is actually right or wrong objectively, but I think we should try our best to come to agreements (only when we actually agree) on Aesthetics. Otherwise we will become less capable of creating dark serious art.

Re: Black metal, terms contradicting aesthetics?
November 27, 2005, 05:22:56 PM
Accept it or not, Black Metal in its original form is dead. And besides, what's the point of your rants ? You try to proove that the founders of the genre are not what they are considered to be ?

chthonian

Re: Black metal, terms contradicting aesthetics?
November 27, 2005, 05:32:00 PM
Quote
Accept it or not, Black Metal in its original form is dead. And besides, what's the point of your rants ? You try to proove that the founders of the genre are not what they are considered to be ?


Black metal in it's original form is dead, but there is maybe a few bands left that have transcended the post black metal band wagon and continued to make even darker music.
The point of my rants is to point out that black metal was doomed to begin with. And also, that we need a new genre with new terms, more assertive and logical people, concerned with the dark aesthetics.
It's founders like Quorthon that are partially to blame, Quorthon was in it for the beer and sex, and he said the Beetles were the best band ever. Is this what you think of when you think about "Black"? Qourthon was as good as a cock rocker in my opinion.

Update: Some of you may now try to point out that when I said "Quorthon is partially to blame," contradicts what I said earlier, that "the boundaries are not set in stone, but maintained."

Let me just say that, it's because of the fact that black metal is filled with lemmings, that has allowed for the stupidity of the founders to reek beyond their death. The leaders are dead, but their foolish unserious attempts, and their very mortal and juvenile ways have become the example for all self loathing black metal faggots.

Annihilaytorr

Re: Black metal, terms contradicting aesthetics?
November 27, 2005, 10:42:39 PM
Quote


Let me just say that, it's because of the fact that black metal is filled with lemmings, that has allowed for the stupidity of the founders to reek beyond their death. .


Metal is dead, but you make it seem like this "darker new genre" would somehow be free of the aspects that killed Black Metal.

I agree that the corpse of Black Metal needs to be buried, but do you honestly think a new genre could negate some of the most basic flaws of humanity?

chthonian

Re: Black metal, terms contradicting aesthetics?
November 27, 2005, 10:46:43 PM
Quote
Do you honestly think a new genre could negate some of the most basic flaws of humanity?


Excellent point!

It would be hard for even most black metallers to negate the flaws of humanity. Humanity is definitely weak (as all mortals), But I think the spiritual nature of aesthetics is part of that denial of our instinctual/mortal fate, the separation of the ego and the identity. I'm not saying that if you like drinking beer or having sex, that you are just a pathetic mortal, but rather that we need to realize that our spiritual needs are more important than anything in this physical existence. It is from there that we can become less human (or mortal rather), and more god-like (or demonic if you want).

Re: Black metal = terms contradicting aesthetics?
November 27, 2005, 11:40:14 PM
Quote
Black Metal is a contradiction because the aesthetics associated with "Black" are the complete opposite of the aesthetics of "Metal."


Metal is the aesthetic term, while "black" is a term describing its philosophical content.


chthonian

Re: Black metal = terms contradicting aesthetics?
November 27, 2005, 11:43:14 PM
Quote
Metal is the aesthetic term, while "black" is a term describing its philosophical content.


No, that doesn't work, Metal and Black both have their own aesthetic/philosophical properties. And this will always be a problem until we start agreeing on exactly what both of these terms mean specifically, before we shove them together.

Re: Black metal = terms contradicting aesthetics?
November 28, 2005, 03:48:04 AM
I can't grasp why you're so determined to say black metal is somehow a contradiction. You seem to be completely hung up on individual words and are not taking it as a whole denoting something. "Black metal" refers to something specific that may or may not have to do with blackness or metalness. "Black metal" is a certain philosophy on life that is itself given life through the medium of metal music (and arguably even through other styles of music, or at least influenced by them).

You can argue till you're out of breath about the terms themselves in the name "black metal". But even if you are right, it ultimately doesn't matter. Fighting over notation is pointless when there is no misunderstanding. You say black metal, and people get images of burning churches and the core bands and usually their philosophies (if they imagine cradle of filth, they're ill informed and regardless of what you name things people will misunderstand terms.)

I felt I should clarify before I left this here, that black metal points to something specific mainly in its pointing to a specific period of time and specific bands and the attitudes shared by them. It is unfair to try to abstract it and say your abstract omits the founders; the founders ARE what it is. This is because they never got together and agreed on some kind of "this is what black metal is". Rather, when we try to think of what black metal is, we think about what all those bands shared. Again, the terms are meaningless, we look to evidence to see what it really was.

chthonian

Re: Black metal = terms contradicting aesthetics?
November 28, 2005, 05:20:32 AM
Quote
I felt I should clarify before I left this here, that black metal points to something specific mainly in its pointing to a specific period of time and specific bands and the attitudes shared by them. It is unfair to try to abstract it and say your abstract omits the founders; the founders ARE what it is. This is because they never got together and agreed on some kind of "this is what black metal is". Rather, when we try to think of what black metal is, we think about what all those bands shared. Again, the terms are meaningless, we look to evidence to see what it really was.


It's just not that easy. What I am saying is something far deeper than just the Black Metal scene and it's forefathers, I'm asking about Black it's self, what is black in this case? A philosophy of mere nihilism? why is it called black then?

I think looking at the things the founders and also what black metallers of today share in common is a great source of evidence. However, the problem is that we can't even agree on the evidence. We can't even agree on who the founders really are, and what they had in common. The roots of black metal may extend very far back in time, beyond classical times, into prehistoric shamanism with forms of demonic worship and ritual chanting, and possibly even before physical existence! So who are the founders of it all?

Regardless of any of that, whoever the founders are really doesn't mean anything to us at all anyway. All of these so called founders all shared the fact that they were human in common, and like the rest of us, all had their stupid vices. Quorthon bragged in interviews about how he fucked women in air planes and limousines, and he was drunk when he recorded "The Return", yet when I listen to that album I don't even think about Quorthon. It wouldn't have mattered to me whether "The Return" had come out in 1970 or 1999, dark music touches my aesthetic existence on a deep level, and is therefore timeless. When that is achieved, it does not need a foundation or founders, because it supports it's self.
When most people listen to black metal, they do not think of the black metal scene, because black metal music is not aesthetically scene based (unless those are your aesthetics). I think most of us would agree that Black metal is against the mundane aesthetics of things like "scene", if we agree on that, we are making very good progress.

If you still want to stick to the founders argument, there is nothing illogical about it, as long as make up a new name for the genre you call black metal. Take those bands and call them all "Leroy's interpretation of what the founders of black metal thought - Black Metal" It's much more logical to do it that way.

What I am saying is, we should not use the same terms if we do not agree on them. If we continue to do so, things will remain as they are, as a group we are confused. This is why COF and Dimmu are black metal now. Philosophically, it wouldn't be incorrect for certain deathgrind bands to be black metal either.



Annihilaytorr

Re: Black metal = terms contradicting aesthetics?
November 28, 2005, 05:38:29 AM
And another thing, the term "playing" guitar should be rethought too, because metal music certainly isn't "playful" and music is not a game, therefore "playing" would not fit the guitar.  Guitar is a musical insturment, how can one "play" music? Music isn't a sport either. You don't score points on a drum set. So why should we use terms we cant agree on about the guitar?
Quorthon said he likes to play guitar, but its hard being dead and all, so he has a hard time doing it now, which sucks. And hes a moron.  Anyway, even if he played the guitar or conducted black rituals, he liked the beatles, so fuck him!! and after all, the roots of the guitar might go back to before time, before America even, to when the dinosaurs roamed the planets, and aliens ruled the universe!!!!

Re: Black metal = terms contradicting aesthetics?
November 28, 2005, 05:44:18 AM
The fact that this topic is even being discussed is proof enough that the Black Metal "movement" is (essentially) dead.

chthonian

Re: Black metal = terms contradicting aesthetics?
November 28, 2005, 11:14:05 AM
Yes, you are right, there are a million things we could all argue about...
But, I made this thread in the hopes that people would realize this, and that we need more terms, and more assertiveness and agreement on what they are, we all care about terms and labels. If I were to say that Burzum or Emperor were completely unblack metal or death metal, I'm sure a good number of you would find such a statement unthinkably offensive.

Re: Black metal = terms contradicting aesthetics?
November 28, 2005, 03:01:01 PM
Quote
And another thing, the term "playing" guitar should be rethought too, because metal music certainly isn't "playful" and music is not a game, therefore "playing" would not fit the guitar.  Guitar is a musical insturment, how can one "play" music? Music isn't a sport either. You don't score points on a drum set. So why should we use terms we cant agree on about the guitar?
Quorthon said he likes to play guitar, but its hard being dead and all, so he has a hard time doing it now, which sucks. And hes a moron.  Anyway, even if he played the guitar or conducted black rituals, he liked the beatles, so fuck him!! and after all, the roots of the guitar might go back to before time, before America even, to when the dinosaurs roamed the planets, and aliens ruled the universe!!!!

>:(You're just getting petty now, people play music because its fun, its called playing because thats how the language has evolved, PEOPLE played music to have fun, so meabye thats why they call it playing music. And if you think that black metal went back to before humans it went back before language, so it didn't start out as black metal, but some nameless thing. So stop looking for more meaning in black metal as a term than there actually is, the "founders" are what gave us the idea of what black metal is in the first place so how can you say they were all confused, maybe they were.  But at the moment you are trying to find more than there actually is in the "SCENE".

Re: Black metal = terms contradicting aesthetics?
November 29, 2005, 09:32:30 PM
All good things from humanity are playful.

Even murder!


Re: Black metal = terms contradicting aesthetics?
November 30, 2005, 01:12:52 AM
Quote
we all care about terms and labels


Actually I couldn't give two shits. If Ildjarn were suddenly labelled Misanthropic Techno-blast I would still love their music. If Morpheus Descends were suddenly named to be a neo-fusion of rapcore and trance, I'd still love their works. Its about the aesthetics and philosophical content, not the label put on it, in my humble opinion.