Hi, everybody, also looking for some advice

[bottledwater]

To me it seems backwards to place your own personal preferences (and by exension assume they're forever static) ahead of the core ideas excellent bands offer.  The examples you've directed us toward lead me to believe you're more interested in a sound that has X amount of treble than you are in an approach that consists almost exlusively of wildly creative ideas.

That said, I think you'll ultimately be more satisfied if you consider albums from a concept-details approach.

i purposefully do not pick songs/books/literature/anything because of their meaning, or because i agree with them. i have this huge thing against being influenced by other people's thoughts (even if you agree with a book, it is still influencing you because eventually you might change your mind if you had never read that book, but now that you read it, you might be less likely to change it, so it still causes an influence.) so i never listen to a song because i like the meaning, or dislike the meaning, or agree with it, etc. so i have to like songs based on the sound waves they make, not their meaning. the same goes for books, movies, tv shows, anything really. i dont need people to tell me what is right and wrong, because ultimately, if it is based on logic and fact, i will discover it for myself. also, i know my ideas/preferences are not forever static, in fact, i think they are more prone to changing than almost everyone else's(there are some restrictions with this however, like i would never listen to any nu-metal/Narrow Squirting Bowel Movement just out of principle, there are some core elements which probably wont change unless something big happens).

so that is why i am asking for songs based strictly on the sound, and while i disagree that i will be more satisfied, i respect your opinion and thank you for your help.

[My AIDS, Your Arse]

i have this huge thing against being influenced by other people's thoughts (even if you agree with a book, it is still influencing you because eventually you might change your mind if you had never read that book, but now that you read it, you might be less likely to change it, so it still causes an influence.)

No man is an island. Everyone is influenced by the same tide of the unconscious; what matters are those who are capable of influencing the currents.

Logic and fact alone do not determine right and wrong.

It's good that you're keeping an open mind here. You may consider reading this introduction.

Arch Enemy is very catchy, stylized Iron Maiden-esque rock, and I'm familiar with a lot of the material.

You should try out:
Dismember's Like an Ever-Flowing Stream
Entombed's Left Hand Path (already suggested, yeah)

[bottledwater]

No man is an island. Everyone is influenced by the same tide of the unconscious;

this is true, but it is something i wish were not true. my ideal existence would be just existing, completely alone and uninfluenced far away from anything else that exists, with no need for food/air/sleep just so i can think, forever. its weird, but that is what would consider heaven.

what matters are those who are capable of influencing the currents.

i respect that you see it that way, but i disagree. i have no desire to change anyone else or anything else, in part because in doing so i will become what i am trying to escape (i.e: the influence. i won't try to get people to follow me, because i may not be right).

Logic and fact alone do not determine right and wrong.

i disagree, i think right and wrong are decided based on what logic is (they should be derived from logic), so logic must determine right and wrong.

[Necrophiliac]

If you look for a sound made by other people, but conceptualized in your own head - you're never going to find it. And if the production, tone and mixing are all that matters, it seems you'd be best off downloading a sound-editing program and either working out your own, or editing currently existing things. I had an acquaintance that would manipulate or remix songs to be more pleasing to him. You'll destroy the integrity and; at least with some albums, the unique way the music is presented... but I suppose the individual interpretations are what matter in the end.

[bottledwater]

i would love to do that, but i have no musical talent. none at all.

[My AIDS, Your Arse]

No man is an island. Everyone is influenced by the same tide of the unconscious;

this is true, but it is something i wish were not true.

So you would forego reality for a fantasy?

That's not very logical or rational of you... if you want to enjoy existing, you need to start by realizing that you're a tiny part of the big picture, not an isolated vacuum in your own bubble in the universe.

what matters are those who are capable of influencing the currents.

i respect that you see it that way, but i disagree.

You disagree, but why? Everyone's either influencing or being influenced.

Not influencing others because of a perceived hypocrisy doesn't make you into a saint, and "refusing" to be influenced doesn't make you one either. So what is to be gained from being a sitting rock? Nothing.

It's entirely possible to influence others without them consciously following you. Ever hear of the subconscious and the unconscious? Ever start tapping on a desk or on the floor, and hear others begin to do the same following you? Or do you catch yourself following others in this way?

And people make mistakes. It's better to make some small mistakes, count your losses, learn, and try again, than to do nothing whatsoever. It's bad to be cowardly. But yeah, don't get people to follow you if you're incompetent -- This is where you take the time to become competent.

Logic and fact alone do not determine right and wrong.

i disagree, i think right and wrong are decided based on what logic is (they should be derived from logic), so logic must determine right and wrong.

You think, or you know?

So what about the biblical sense of right and wrong? Is there ever a good time to kill a person, even though it's against one of God's commandments? Or are there times when you must do it?

You must mean logical right and wrong, in the sense of inherent truth. Truth is beyond notions of right and wrong, which need context to make them as such. Right and wrong don't exist in reality, right?

[Conservationist]

im looking for a very specific sound

Unless you're a musician researching an ingredient for your own already-established act, this is a mistake.

Do not focus on the outward traits.

Focus on the composition and the communication.

Otherwise, you will box yourself into a corner with something you cannot understand.

[esoteric]

Your obsession with the whole 'crisp and clear' thing sounds like you just need an audio equipment upgrade. Everything should already be crisp and clear, even on the dirtiest production jobs. When I started off listening to metal, the reason I automatically turned to bands like Nevermore with sterile production jobs was because I was listening to everything on those contraptions of harmonic cacophony they call a 'boom-box'. I couldn't distinguish what was going on in say, Demilich because it sounded like a mess.

[Conservationist]

I think he means a convergence of several things: percussive, sharp and fast intonation to notes; good production with high compression; certain rhythms that emphasize offbeats so notes ring clearly.

[bottledwater]

so i never listen to a song because i like the meaning, or dislike the meaning, or agree with it, etc. so i have to like songs based on the sound waves they make, not their meaning.

those "soundwaves" are often more effective at conveying a meaning than any lyrics, and that is the whole point of music. Music is a language all on its own, it can tell stories, convey meanings and even worldviews... if you can look at the big picture.

i completely agree with you on this, the music itself is much better at conveying an emotion or meaning, but i think the meaning you will extract from just the music is very subjective (i.e it is easier to get the meaning you want from it), but the lyrics are more specific, so your ability to find your own meaning in them is a lot more limited (of course you can still do it, its just more limited). i should have said "so i have to like songs based on the sound waves they make, not their lyrical meaning."

[Eleison]

A painting can have exactly the same degree of universality as music, it's geometry is analogous to the symbolic dimensions of a musical piece.  As for language it is a way of organizing sound waves just as music is, it's meaning is not by necessity more limited.  People shouldn't be so quick to assume that their favourite art form is the 'best one'.

[My AIDS, Your Arse]

A painting can have exactly the same degree of universality as music, it's geometry is analogous to the symbolic dimensions of a musical piece.  As for language it is a way of organizing sound waves just as music is, it's meaning is not by necessity more limited.  People shouldn't be so quick to assume that their favourite art form is the 'best one'.

The problem is that a painting is static and unevolving, and while the best works of visual art are imposing and profound, they lack the fragile stepping stones of the sublimation of transience in time -- which is what music is essentially founded on. Music relies on the listener to bring the piece to life in their mind, letting them piece together the patterns that fall, collide, and maintain themselves without destroying themselves completely (or whatever is happening in a given work).

Searching for symbolic meaning in art is almost a waste of time, unless you're looking at a political cartoon in the New Yorker. It's like searching for symbolic meaning in reality: reality is not a symbol! I'm inclined to agree with Zdzislaw Beksinski's sentiment about artistic symbolism:
"It misses the point to ask me what what scenes in my paintings 'mean'. Simply, I do not know, myself. Moreover, I am not at all interested in knowing."

"Meaning is meaningless to me. I do not care for symbolism and I paint what I paint without meditating on a story."

"In my paintings I never use any 'means'. I paint them completely naively, just as I would be taking photos of my own dreams. Ideas come to my mind in a fraction of a second and I see no reason why I should consider them wise, stupid, immoral, constructive, or destructive. They are simple identical to me, and their implementation is the result of an inner need."

He's a great artist, and draws a lot of his ideas from music.

"The blend of vivid colors in relation to other more subdued colors in my paintings is like a musical theme. As in a symphony, a motif occurs, is blurred, comes back in crescendo, is finally accentuated, and becomes pure and complete."

"[...] in many of my paintings I have attempted to create something comparable to jazz variations. If everyone is familiar with the theme of these variations, like jazz standards, then even someone with little musical knowledge can follow their variations, so far as he or she senses the motif of a well known piece.

When I paint a face, crucifixion, mountains, the sea, human bodies, i.e. themes everyone is familiar with, as for centuries they have been perpetuated in thousands of traditional paintings, then I can expect the viewer to easily follow the path of my given variations. Should these themes be more exotic and esoteric in nature, then I could reasonably expect the viewer to be unable to follow my variations and become stranded. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, it often happens that I alter my initial theme because for purely technical reasons it is necessary to add some figure, a tree or building, or a color accent the painting needs. One should not forget that I used to be an abstract painter and even now tend to perceive a painting as a certain composition of shapes and colors."

But I agree 100%, people shouldn't be quick to assume their favorite art form is the best. Whatever pierces subjectivity and transmits to the perceiver an inherent Truth is the best art.