What if they think its origins were sketchy and that it took time for the scene to evolve into maturity?
"Why don't you have a seat over there?"
Edit: I'll explain why I find your argument absurd. With so much mainstream and underground material available about black metal a consumer doesn't need to look far to find at least some background story about the origins. It seems more likely that the speakers at the symposium found talking about church burnings and murder to be "boring" and overdone, in which case I'd disagree with them but that's besides the point right now. What you are suggesting with the gross of your arguments is that there should always be room for debate and different opinions, that's hardly an argument for anything is it? So I can't take your post serious. I also dislike the tone you use when you present your arguments.
So in other words academic discussion of anything other than 'kvlt' black metal is disingenuous, because it isn't dealing with "real" black metal?
See here you start by twisting my own words and coming up with a populist easy way to interpret what I just wrote. If I just presented an argument then why do you need to reinterpret that argument before you can even come up with a counterargument? Because you refuse to deal with my post seriously, in your mind you know you're right and no argument will convince you otherwise. After all... that would kinda be like losing
So you're saying that they should focus more on the bands that you consider to represent "real" black metal? What if they think its origins were sketchy and that it took time for the scene to evolve into maturity?
Here we go again. The same thing I just explained above. You are a poor debater.
Let's not forget that art is in some ways subjective,
Ok, so now you're finally going to present your counter argument. And how do you do it? "Let's not forget" As if it is a perfect truth known and understood by everyone. I really dislike your tone by now.
and it's debatable whether black metal can only stand for what the musicians themselves intend it to mean as opposed to what listeners take away from it.
Debatable. So it's not true or false. So that is a weak argument
And at the very least I would say opinions you don't agree with should still be welcomed assuming that they are reasonably well laid out and that the marketplace of ideas is not already over-saturated with them
Ah, here you do something right at last. "I would say" That's cool. You even start with "at the very least" Not sure what that's supposed to mean in this context but oh well. I'm just addressing your tone right now.
--unless perhaps you believe your own position is too weak to endure scrutiny.
I really don't like you by now. Why do you insist on these childish attacks on character? Unless of course you are insecure about your own position... You still haven't offered any good defensive argument why the symposium seems to be lacking so much focus on black metal's past.
I don't think it's at all fair to characterize the symposium as being hipster-esque. For example when I read Nicola's paper Anti-Cosmosis: Black Mahapralaya I jotted down a brief description to include on my website (and I still recall the article well enough to know my description is accurate): "From an arguably 'life-negating' or 'transcendental nihilist' perspective, discusses black metal as a means of realizing spiritually enlightening/liberating catharsis or Zen-like direct experience of reality" Nicola was one of the organizers of the symposium, and I don't think his paper smells of hipster.
Oh ok, because you wrote a description about the symposium it's not a hipster symposium. That's a great argument man. I haven't even flat out called this a hipster symposium so far anyway. For someone who puts so much emphasis on allowing people to have different opinions you certainly seem to have problems dealing with other peoples opinions yourself.