Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Burzum - Belus

Re: Burzum - Belus
February 23, 2010, 04:47:16 AM
I find it hard to get upset over an instrumental character in the development of black metal clouding what's now a shoulder-to-shoulder scene by releasing material written when the movement actually existed.   This is especially considering that people have been clamoring for more Burzum, and what he delivered was written back when everything was still legit. 

No matter what happened people were bound to feel important and editorialize, and with that in mind releasing old material doesn't strike me as a bad move on Varg's part.  Because I think we all know there would have been a never ending "what could have been" temper tantrum had the guy done nothing.  Even now people are speculating about the worthiness of adding distortion to those fucking ambient albums.

Re: Burzum - Belus
February 23, 2010, 05:42:29 AM
I dont mind the album so far.However, I am unsure how to take some tracks, as i find a few of them juvenille. I see the pro's and con's of the album that everyone is talking about, my one complaint so far is the overuse of the melodic guitar sweeps that have now been done to death and leave pretty much no impression on this listener anymore, haha. In general while listening to this album i often catch myself thinking "sounds like filosofem, but not as good" or "man this makes me want to listen to other burzum albums".

I do admire his sublime sense of melody, and their are certainly some highlights on the album.


Re: Burzum - Belus
February 23, 2010, 08:07:40 AM
People who like Belus: listen solely to early Black Metal, perhaps even only first wave bands;

People who don't like Belus: listen to some or a lot of "new Black Metal", or have listened to it in the past.

So Vikernes stumbles across a good thing on Filosofem, with Jesus Dod.  Then later bands like Drudkh or whatever (I don't really know this, I'm just assuming) decide to use the same kinds of techniques to create their own atmospheres, but they're "Pagan Metal" instead, so they don't make it as "evil" as Burzum was.  Then, a decade or so after people start overdoing Filosofem, Vikernes gets out of jail, and records a load of songs that he wrote more than fifteen years beforehand, arranging them in a "Filosofem meets Hvis Lyset Tar Oss" manner (as described by himself), with a Pagan twist given the concept of the album, which combination, from the perspective of someone who doesn't listen to new Black Metal, is interesting, even surprising, at times, and definitely "extremely good".  To someone who's spent far too much time listening to crappy modern "Black Metal", the album sounds tired and repetitive, since, over a huge number of bands, and an even greater number of songs, they've heard it all before.

This begs the question (again): why do people not look at the context?

Re: Burzum - Belus
February 23, 2010, 09:44:10 AM
To someone who's spent far too much time listening to crappy modern "Black Metal", the album sounds tired and repetitive, since, over a huge number of bands, and an even greater number of songs, they've heard it all before.

This is precisely the point with the similarities. Although it's not that one could have really heard it all before--the melodies, the composition. We heard other bands imitate the style of Burzum, but they were never very good at it. I'm not going to hold this against the new album. Anyway, whatever be the real quality of this album, the huge "defecation" remains irritating. I'm reminded here of the Frithjof Schuon quote in the Ants thread.

Re: Burzum - Belus
February 23, 2010, 12:24:35 PM
People who like Belus: listen solely to early Black Metal, perhaps even only first wave bands;

People who don't like Belus: listen to some or a lot of "new Black Metal", or have listened to it in the past.

So Vikernes stumbles across a good thing on Filosofem, with Jesus Dod.  Then later bands like Drudkh or whatever (I don't really know this, I'm just assuming) decide to use the same kinds of techniques to create their own atmospheres, but they're "Pagan Metal" instead, so they don't make it as "evil" as Burzum was.  Then, a decade or so after people start overdoing Filosofem, Vikernes gets out of jail, and records a load of songs that he wrote more than fifteen years beforehand, arranging them in a "Filosofem meets Hvis Lyset Tar Oss" manner (as described by himself), with a Pagan twist given the concept of the album, which combination, from the perspective of someone who doesn't listen to new Black Metal, is interesting, even surprising, at times, and definitely "extremely good".  To someone who's spent far too much time listening to crappy modern "Black Metal", the album sounds tired and repetitive, since, over a huge number of bands, and an even greater number of songs, they've heard it all before.

This begs the question (again): why do people not look at the context?

Excuse me? I explained in a previous post I don't even like Filosofem that much and you accuse critics of Belus of listening to a lot of "new black metal"? You just made yourself look infinitely ridiculous in my view. I never liked any of the "bands that overdid Filosofem" because I don't even like Filosofem that much, so why would I even bother with the imitators? I'll just go ahead and say that ambient/drone black metal is a complete failure in general. Fuck Paysage d'Hiver, Forest (Rus), Xasthur and all those bands. I never liked them because they were too boring for me. I like old Bathory, Darkthrone, Beherit, Emperor, etc. Raw and epic stuff without boring "I make music that makes people fall asleep" gimmicks. The post-96 BM I listen to is solely because I don't want to give up on the genre but I don't like it as much as the old stuff and I sure as hell don't listen to it as much.

I might as well argue that "people only like Belus because they're less than 30 years old" and I'd make as much sense as you did. If you want to defend the album go ahead but don't talk nonsense, you're not doing Belus or yourself any favors.

Glemselens Elv has unity and development, it doesn't matter if it is too soft.

Kaimadalthas Nedstingning has non-cliché riffing actually, I won't say that it is "amusing" but shining in a sense that it is not afraid of showing a brighter face of black-metal.

I like Keliohesten because the melody is very solemn, and the variations on it reminds me to Hvis Lysset Tar Oss, the song, altough obviously not that good.

I like music that grabs me by the balls and drags me across the room (not in a Slipknot kind of way but like old Mayhem, Darkthrone or Demoncy) I think Varg is correct for saying that Belus isn't a black metal album. For me it does matter that it's too soft, music is supposed to evoke certain feelings etc. If it doesn't evoke those feelings then it simply doesn't, format has nothing to do with the feelings that are in a song. If people talk nonsense in three different languages they're still talking nonsense, the same can be applied to music.

Re: Burzum - Belus
February 23, 2010, 12:43:54 PM
I haven't listened 100%, but I don't think it's bad. Just inferior

Re: Burzum - Belus
February 23, 2010, 04:12:21 PM
People who like Belus: listen solely to early Black Metal, perhaps even only first wave bands;

People who don't like Belus: listen to some or a lot of "new Black Metal", or have listened to it in the past.

So Vikernes stumbles across a good thing on Filosofem, with Jesus Dod.  Then later bands like Drudkh or whatever (I don't really know this, I'm just assuming) decide to use the same kinds of techniques to create their own atmospheres, but they're "Pagan Metal" instead, so they don't make it as "evil" as Burzum was.  Then, a decade or so after people start overdoing Filosofem, Vikernes gets out of jail, and records a load of songs that he wrote more than fifteen years beforehand, arranging them in a "Filosofem meets Hvis Lyset Tar Oss" manner (as described by himself), with a Pagan twist given the concept of the album, which combination, from the perspective of someone who doesn't listen to new Black Metal, is interesting, even surprising, at times, and definitely "extremely good".  To someone who's spent far too much time listening to crappy modern "Black Metal", the album sounds tired and repetitive, since, over a huge number of bands, and an even greater number of songs, they've heard it all before.

This begs the question (again): why do people not look at the context?

Excuse me? I explained in a previous post I don't even like Filosofem that much and you accuse critics of Belus of listening to a lot of "new black metal"? You just made yourself look infinitely ridiculous in my view. I never liked any of the "bands that overdid Filosofem" because I don't even like Filosofem that much, so why would I even bother with the imitators? I'll just go ahead and say that ambient/drone black metal is a complete failure in general. Fuck Paysage d'Hiver, Forest (Rus), Xasthur and all those bands. I never liked them because they were too boring for me. I like old Bathory, Darkthrone, Beherit, Emperor, etc. Raw and epic stuff without boring "I make music that makes people fall asleep" gimmicks. The post-96 BM I listen to is solely because I don't want to give up on the genre but I don't like it as much as the old stuff and I sure as hell don't listen to it as much.

I might as well argue that "people only like Belus because they're less than 30 years old" and I'd make as much sense as you did. If you want to defend the album go ahead but don't talk nonsense, you're not doing Belus or yourself any favors.

Exception to the rule.

Re: Burzum - Belus
February 23, 2010, 06:38:39 PM
Ok I listened.


It's true that first 4 tracks are expendable and not even really worth the time to listen to them.  The 5th tack was at least decent late 80s metal disguised as pagan lord of the rings worship, so not half bad.   

The last three tracks are pure Burzum.  The production and delivery, which were a thorn in the side for the first tracks suddenly come together to form a strong Burzum voice.  During these tracks, I no longer had to apologize and make excuses for the albums, because it was Burzum.  Why should I apologize for the greatest metal band of all time?   Anus has only failed in noticing the potential of these tracks, instead competing for the best metaphor about how much someone they claim created "godly albums" sucks.  If the intelligent aren't listening, why should anyone bother making anything good?

As far as complaints of repetition go, yes EVERY track is repetitious, but repetition is only a problem depending on what is being repeated.  A lot of good Burzum and early black metal is even more repetitious still, but it never stops the music from being good and often even is part of the message. 

My constructive criticism for Varg is that if you wanted to make a concept album, you should have kept these three tracks underwraps until you had more material, instead of throwing a bunch of Belus lyrics over older work and releasing it all at once.  Alternatively, if your goal was just to release something quickly, then you should have just released an EP of these songs, still a worthy option, but as it stands, if those tracks are indicative of future Burzum compositions, we have nothing to worry about.   

Re: Burzum - Belus
February 23, 2010, 08:51:02 PM
People who like Belus: listen solely to early Black Metal, perhaps even only first wave bands;

People who don't like Belus: listen to some or a lot of "new Black Metal", or have listened to it in the past.

So Vikernes stumbles across a good thing on Filosofem, with Jesus Dod.  Then later bands like Drudkh or whatever (I don't really know this, I'm just assuming) decide to use the same kinds of techniques to create their own atmospheres, but they're "Pagan Metal" instead, so they don't make it as "evil" as Burzum was.  Then, a decade or so after people start overdoing Filosofem, Vikernes gets out of jail, and records a load of songs that he wrote more than fifteen years beforehand, arranging them in a "Filosofem meets Hvis Lyset Tar Oss" manner (as described by himself), with a Pagan twist given the concept of the album, which combination, from the perspective of someone who doesn't listen to new Black Metal, is interesting, even surprising, at times, and definitely "extremely good".  To someone who's spent far too much time listening to crappy modern "Black Metal", the album sounds tired and repetitive, since, over a huge number of bands, and an even greater number of songs, they've heard it all before.

This begs the question (again): why do people not look at the context?

Excuse me? I explained in a previous post I don't even like Filosofem that much and you accuse critics of Belus of listening to a lot of "new black metal"? You just made yourself look infinitely ridiculous in my view. I never liked any of the "bands that overdid Filosofem" because I don't even like Filosofem that much, so why would I even bother with the imitators? I'll just go ahead and say that ambient/drone black metal is a complete failure in general. Fuck Paysage d'Hiver, Forest (Rus), Xasthur and all those bands. I never liked them because they were too boring for me. I like old Bathory, Darkthrone, Beherit, Emperor, etc. Raw and epic stuff without boring "I make music that makes people fall asleep" gimmicks. The post-96 BM I listen to is solely because I don't want to give up on the genre but I don't like it as much as the old stuff and I sure as hell don't listen to it as much.

I might as well argue that "people only like Belus because they're less than 30 years old" and I'd make as much sense as you did. If you want to defend the album go ahead but don't talk nonsense, you're not doing Belus or yourself any favors.

Exception to the rule.

Allow me to define this whole "Belus discussion" as I see it: Those who are desperately defending the album are all fanboys. Those who are ruthlessly slamming the album are all butthurt fanboys. Everybody choose your side and sharpen your weapons!


Ok I listened.

It's true that first 4 tracks are expendable and not even really worth the time to listen to them.  The 5th tack was at least decent late 80s metal disguised as pagan lord of the rings worship, so not half bad.   

The last three tracks are pure Burzum.  The production and delivery, which were a thorn in the side for the first tracks suddenly come together to form a strong Burzum voice.  During these tracks, I no longer had to apologize and make excuses for the albums, because it was Burzum.  Why should I apologize for the greatest metal band of all time?   Anus has only failed in noticing the potential of these tracks, instead competing for the best metaphor about how much someone they claim created "godly albums" sucks.  If the intelligent aren't listening, why should anyone bother making anything good?

As far as complaints of repetition go, yes EVERY track is repetitious, but repetition is only a problem depending on what is being repeated.  A lot of good Burzum and early black metal is even more repetitious still, but it never stops the music from being good and often even is part of the message. 

My constructive criticism for Varg is that if you wanted to make a concept album, you should have kept these three tracks underwraps until you had more material, instead of throwing a bunch of Belus lyrics over older work and releasing it all at once.  Alternatively, if your goal was just to release something quickly, then you should have just released an EP of these songs, still a worthy option, but as it stands, if those tracks are indicative of future Burzum compositions, we have nothing to worry about.   

Well said. I don't understand the complaints about repetition either. I think it has more to do with the riffs that are being repeated which, for some, make certain tracks a tedious experience. Belus was supposed to be a lighter album. If there are any future Burzum albums I hope they will be dark again, or at least have that feeling of heaviness that simply belongs in metal to separate it from pop music.

Re: Burzum - Belus
February 23, 2010, 09:09:55 PM
I'd rather be a fanboy than butthurt!

What I love is how the riffs are recalled throughout the album.  The first riffs of track 4, "Kaimadalthas's Descent", recall track 2, "Belus's Death", and track 7, "Morningred", recalls the second ("cleaner") riffs of track 4.  Given the subject matter, this is perfect - Baldr's descent into the underworld calls back memories of his death due to Loki's ploy; subsequently, his return to the living world (the return of Summer, the return of Light) recalls his original descent.

Glemselens Elv has the sound of a river; Sverddans has the sound of a fencing match; Keliohesten has the sound of a charging horse.  The songs fit the concept, no matter how you look at it, and that is as perfect an intellectual stimulation as one can derive from such music.  For me, the emotional stimulation derives from the power of some of the riffs, and the thrill of hearing the connectivity of it all.

Re: Burzum - Belus
February 23, 2010, 11:16:06 PM
This album falls somewhere in between the negative reviews and the glowing positive reviews. Whilst it's inconsistent, it still has some good moments that make it somewhat worthwhile. I don't think it'll be a long term place winner in my stereo, but it'll be good for a spin every few months. I've got plenty of albums like that, I think the key is not to over play them.

Re: Burzum - Belus
February 24, 2010, 12:08:13 AM
People who like Belus: listen solely to early Black Metal, perhaps even only first wave bands;

People who don't like Belus: listen to some or a lot of "new Black Metal", or have listened to it in the past.

So Vikernes stumbles across a good thing on Filosofem, with Jesus Dod.  Then later bands like Drudkh or whatever (I don't really know this, I'm just assuming) decide to use the same kinds of techniques to create their own atmospheres, but they're "Pagan Metal" instead, so they don't make it as "evil" as Burzum was.  Then, a decade or so after people start overdoing Filosofem, Vikernes gets out of jail, and records a load of songs that he wrote more than fifteen years beforehand, arranging them in a "Filosofem meets Hvis Lyset Tar Oss" manner (as described by himself), with a Pagan twist given the concept of the album, which combination, from the perspective of someone who doesn't listen to new Black Metal, is interesting, even surprising, at times, and definitely "extremely good".  To someone who's spent far too much time listening to crappy modern "Black Metal", the album sounds tired and repetitive, since, over a huge number of bands, and an even greater number of songs, they've heard it all before.

This begs the question (again): why do people not look at the context?
http://begthequestion.info/

Re: Burzum - Belus
February 24, 2010, 12:31:02 AM
http://begthequestion.info/

I am nought but a product of my birth and environment.  Thanks for reminding me of this, though. It begs the question: why do people keep getting things wrong, and why do I then have to suffer for it?

Re: Burzum - Belus
February 24, 2010, 01:12:25 AM
I would make a comparison between Engram and Belus: they both have similar riffing technique (at least to my untrained mind) but Engram is vastly superior to this. I've given Belus several listens to the point that it gives me a headache. I can listen to Engram for days straight without much effort.

Who can appreciate both Engram and Belus?

Re: Burzum - Belus
February 24, 2010, 02:22:58 AM
Conceptually they're miles apart, where one band was always under-appreciated and churned out great stuff nevertheless, and the other was the poster-child of growing the scene and making things seem contemplative.  There's some incidental convergence with the whole electronic thing, but even that was pretty dissimilar.

Anyway, with what actually happened there was a situation where fans were up in arms over hearing new/unreleased material, and then both bands actually produced some.  Since then everyone with an online forum account keeps posturing as an authority on the issue, as if all this transpired out of nowhere and it even matters in the first place.  You'd have to be pretty ambitious to completely ruin a scene that's overcrowded, shot, and short on good material. 

When it was all said and done they offered some good material, so I'm not quite seeing the necessity for testimonials about everything breaking down or whatever.