This is hilarious. It boggles my mind how anyone can still think after this whole debate that any factual evidence has been placed against me that I have not refuted. It's actually the reverse that has happened. I proved myself correct using facts, while everyone else argued back with opinions that had no grounds in history or word definitions, or even logic.
And now people are trying to "troll" me off because they feel like crap when they can't argue back with solid evidence, but instead only ideas that no one needs to accept.
First you imply that it's all opinion when presented with evidence against your claims, now you claim that you are the only one throughout the thread who has been right or logical.
Man, I have no clue what you're smoking, but I'd like some.
What deadite is saying here is a good summation of my much larger post(s). Where you haven't merely given your own opinion, you have actively distorted the facts.
"My issue with the ANUS philosophy is that it is an example of historical revisionism. You view death and black metal as the purest representations of what metal is; correct me if I am wrong about that. The problem is, speed/thrash metal and all the metal subgenres that germinated from it are, in essence, heavy metal diluted with punk. You think metal is nihilistic? You are incorrect. Metal is romantic." You make a huge mistake from the get-go by portraying historical revisionism in a negative light. What you failed to take into consideration is that historical evidence must be constantly reappraised as each new generation inherits it.
For example, Christopher Columbus's voyage to India was considered impossible not because the world was thought to be flat(that had been disproven since the times of Pythagoras and Aristotle), but because the world was thought to be much larger than it really was. Washington Irving, an American author who was writing a biography about Columbus, decided to portray his subject's endeavor as being even more pivotal than it really was by insisting that the European conception of the world was flat. Almost two hundred years later, and that fabrication still rears its ugly head in grade school text books.
You would decry any examination of the historical evidence as "revisionist" when that is obviously what it is, and rightfully so; to do otherwise would give the traditional historical narrative a truth value that it does not deserve(note that I am pointing out that we have inherited this falsehood as a result of not consulting the original sources ourselves).
Also, Romanticism does NOT equal hedonism. Your later equivocation of the two by lauding Manowar as the pinnacle of the romantic aspiration in metal is then problematic because the Romantics (with the possible exception of Keats and Blake) were brooding, contemplative spirits. They weren't beer swilling party animals(other than the obvious example of Byron, who otherwise spent much of his time alone, estranged from all other human beings). What does the phrase "sturm und drang" mean to you?
"I define metal by its texture and riffing style, not necessarily by its lyrics." Well, fuck, so do we!
"I think a metalhead should be able to raise his fist in the air and say "I know that brotherhood and unity, truth and justice, and rocking as hard as you can is the best way to live; these are values that are absolutely true and good. If you disagree, then we might just meet in war." I do not like wishy washy there-is-no-absolute-right-and-wrong. I think metal gives off a stronger aura than that." This is merely your opinion. Also, since you present brotherhood and unity as your core values, then how do you treat your friends who prefer Iron Maiden or Motorhead to Manowar? Do you also denounce them as hipsters?
"What makes heavy metal special to me is that the music matches up perfectly with the atmosphere and attitude created by the lyrics. They go hand-in-hand. The verse-chorus format is one of my favorite song structures, a tradition that has stood the test of time for the reason that it best communicates anthemic feelings. A lot of times, heavy metal is a very simplistic art form, capturing raw human emotions in their natural state, celebrating their nostalgia for age-old traditions alongside rebellion and individuality; it warps the orthodox instead of creating a new one. That being said, I also love epic songs that take me on a journey, but life isn't about journeys. I like music that reflects my life, my feelings, and my fantasies; while I may go on journeys now and then, if all my music were a journey I would fail to celebrate myself in my entirety. A significant portion of my life consists of hanging out with friends, going to work, going to university, a party here and a camping trip there, and satiating natural human urges of hunger, thirst, lust, greed, and relaxation." Opinion. Also, I thought you didn't define metal by the lyrics?
"There is no logical reason for this argument to be persuasive to me, as it seems dangerously close to an appeal to authority fallacy. No matter what a thousand wise thinkers and poets may say, I do not need to agree with them. I do not agree with the notion that the most superior art is transcendental. I view it as equal to the recreation of already experienced thoughts and emotions,"
You've repeatedly demonstrated your lack of reading comprehension skills throughout this thread, but it seems to me that you've completely missed Shelley's point. Shelley is saying that art restores our interest in the mundane and the typical by casting it in a new, "transcendent" light. I believe you yourself have a similar argument? Also, opinion.
"But the direction of life itself is not, or at least should not be, evolution. It is a fallacy to assume that something more evolved is superior to something less evolved, since to survive you do not need to be stronger than your ancestors, just strong enough to not die out. I believe in perfection, that there is an ideal to shoot for; we reached that ideal in 1969 when Black Sabbath recorded their eponymous song. That song is musical perfection, and while thousands of other metal songs and metal albums have reached that perfection again and again, using different paths that all lead to the same summit, that level of perfection has never been topped and can never be topped. I have no problem with fusing metal with other genres, such as punk, to try to reach that perfection in more different ways; what I do have a problem with, and find offensive to the metal community, is when people claim that metal used punk to become superior. No, metal was already perfect without punk. It is way too strong to need other genres to carry it, and when people claim that extreme metal is better than pure and unadulterated metal, it is insulting to heavy metal, and not what I see as the remark of a true metalhead."Opinion. You make a grammatical error in the fifth sentence.
Also, if the degree to which something is evolved is not an indicator of quality, then why do you complain of the public's perception of Manowar as "less evolved"? Why care?
How is it an insult to metal to recognize that it improved with the incorporation of punk techniques into its repertoire? Do those who feel that power metal's (superficial) appropriation of classical techniques was an improvement also insult metal?