100% Metal Forum (Death Metal and Black Metal)

Metal => Metal => Topic started by: aquarius on November 17, 2010, 03:40:38 AM

Title: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: aquarius on November 17, 2010, 03:40:38 AM
I'm not decided on whether metal is totally dead or just currently stagnating. Punk for example - I can say it's dead in that whilst there are still plenty of bands, the genre itself has no purpose in the current world. Where the best of metal differs fundamentally is that it aims to create art that is eternal. So I'm interested not only in will it pick up again but in what way, assuming metal has been around roughly thirty years now with one genre evolving into the next and black metal/death metal peaking in the early 90s, what will it look like in another thirty years?
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: Cargést on November 17, 2010, 04:08:50 AM
I think we should regard Metal less as an isolated occurrence and more as the contemporary resurgence of an eternal aspect of the human spirit, which, going through cycles, is bound to arise again at some point in the future.
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: nothingnowhere on November 17, 2010, 07:01:29 AM
I think it's impossible to say what it will look like in thirty years for certain. I think at the moment metal is neither stagnating or dead, in fact, it seems to be gaining strength.
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: Veritas on November 17, 2010, 07:41:53 PM
What conditions allow for quality metal/anything to be produced?
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: nothingnowhere on November 17, 2010, 08:13:52 PM
What conditions allow for quality metal/anything to be produced?

A stronger awareness and attitude that has been developing in underground that marks a return to values centered around quality as opposed to "anything goes", adherence to tradition while avoiding stagnation, desire for genuine expression, reexamination of our roots, present, and future, and so on.

This attitude can be found in many bands, some new and others not so new, some with a simpler approach, and others treading more obscure pathways, but all, to my mind, true to the values of metal with the guns to back it up. I'm thinking of projects like (if anything on this list offends you, feel free to engage in healthy debate about it, or go whine in the corner while the rest of us engage with the real world): Averse Sefira, Beherit, Asphyx, Graveland, Midnight Odyssey, Autopsy, Diocletian, Birth A.D., Weapon, Winterwolf, Grave Miasma, Immolation, Demilich (who are going to be continuing on under a new moniker), Profanatica, Master, Triptykon, Watain, Goreaphobia, Disma, Vader, Dead Congregation, War Master, Blaspherian, Necros Christos, Black Funeral, and, without any doubt, others that do not spring to mind immediately and even more that I am not yet familiar with.

Before the fingers start pointing, I am not arguing that all of these bands are creating truly great work, although I certainly would argue that some are. Few bands ever have or will put out a Pure Holocaust, and the for the one's that do it's a rare event, but what these bands have done is contributed works of notable quality, that are important by their own merits and/or by the fertile ground that they have created for future bands to grow from.

Now: What conditions dissalow for quality metal / "anything" to be produced?
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: radiant=ANIME WITCHES on November 17, 2010, 08:15:37 PM
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_the_genealogy_of_art_games/

Quote
What finally kills off an artform is the invention of a higher one, thus what killed classical music was the electronic kind, what killed painting was photography, what killed the theater was the cinema — and videogames will eventually kill them all (something which in fact they've pretty much already done, notwithstanding recent efforts by the cinema, the previously highest art, to acquire a third dimension — sorry Hollywood, but id Software got there first). Let me qualify here what I mean by "killed" — I do not mean that the moment a higher art is invented, the lower one is immediately wiped off the face of the planet, or that new artworks belonging to lower artforms do not keep getting made. What I mean by "killed" is that, by and large, the most talented and ambitious individuals of every future generation are drawn to and devote themselves to the higher art because they can instinctively feel it has more of a future. Because they find it more exciting and more interesting; because they can sense it has a wider realm of possibilities before it — because, yes, because it is potentially more complex.
Quality metal will ceased to be produced for the same reason that no one gives a fuck about classic rock throwback bands or modern day baroque music. (Is there even such a thing?) People who, earlier, would have been attracted to metal for the new and exciting possibilities for musical expression that it offered will be doing whatever it is that's cutting-edge in 2040. Metal bands will be made up of the same kind of people who do Bruce Springsteen covers now or hipsters.

That said it is obvious that, without a significant expansion of technique in the future, metal already peaked as an artform and is dead.
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: nothingnowhere on November 17, 2010, 08:28:32 PM
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_the_genealogy_of_art_games/

Quote
What finally kills off an artform is the invention of a higher one, thus what killed classical music was the electronic kind, what killed painting was photography, what killed the theater was the cinema — and videogames will eventually kill them all (something which in fact they've pretty much already done, notwithstanding recent efforts by the cinema, the previously highest art, to acquire a third dimension — sorry Hollywood, but id Software got there first). Let me qualify here what I mean by "killed" — I do not mean that the moment a higher art is invented, the lower one is immediately wiped off the face of the planet, or that new artworks belonging to lower artforms do not keep getting made. What I mean by "killed" is that, by and large, the most talented and ambitious individuals of every future generation are drawn to and devote themselves to the higher art because they can instinctively feel it has more of a future. Because they find it more exciting and more interesting; because they can sense it has a wider realm of possibilities before it — because, yes, because it is potentially more complex.
Quality metal will ceased to be produced for the same reason that no one gives a fuck about classic rock throwback bands or modern day baroque music. (Is there even such a thing?) People who, earlier, would have been attracted to metal for the new and exciting possibilities for musical expression that it offered will be doing whatever it is that's cutting-edge in 2040. Metal bands will be made up of the same kind of people who do Bruce Springsteen covers now or hipsters.

That said it is obvious that, without a significant expansion of technique in the future, metal already peaked as an artform and is dead.

1) What makes one art form higher than another, either in your opinion or to certain fixed standard?

2) Do you think that metal is going to be entirely replaced by a totally foreign and new genre of music? Or do you think it will steadily adapt to changing conditions, surface tastes, and technologies, and if so, at what point does it cease being metal?

3) Do you think that, because they were written in the past, and their styles are now apparently obsolete, that Beethoven's 9th Symphony or Black Sabbath's Heaven and Hell would be less powerful if they had never been written, all other factors in history remaining somehow the same, and were now released in 2010?

4) Would you consider it fair to say that both classic rock and classical music never truly "died", but manifested itself into other developments and musical explorations, including what we would understand to be metal? Would this also be true of theater into cinema? (I'm not even going to get near "photography killed painting")

Edit: These questions aren't rhetorical or sarcastic by the way, and I'm not saying your flat out wrong, but I find this belief dubious at best and want to fully understand what you mean, so that we can both come closer to the truth.
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: scourge on November 17, 2010, 08:41:31 PM
Punk for example - I can say it's dead in that whilst there are still plenty of bands, the genre itself has no purpose in the current world.

Irrelevance is an astute diagnosis. Metal however wins by sticking with eternal truths or constants that cannot fall out of scope even if the trends of a given era do so. Same thing happened to speed metal when the visible threat of antagonistic nuclear superpowers diminished.
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: Cargést on November 18, 2010, 12:44:58 AM
post, mostly the quoted source

I can't help but read this as "we (modern humans) don't have the attention span to stick to anything any more, so we overlook tried and tested (and proven viable) artforms in favour of those which are more instantly appealing, even if they may not serve as Art better than preceding forms".  I prefer paintings to photographs.  I think they reveal more of the reality of the subject than a mere photograph.

I know I'll still be writing Metal by the time I die.
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: aquarius on November 18, 2010, 01:22:14 AM
Punk for example - I can say it's dead in that whilst there are still plenty of bands, the genre itself has no purpose in the current world.

Irrelevance is an astute diagnosis. Metal however wins by sticking with eternal truths or constants that cannot fall out of scope even if the trends of a given era do so. Same thing happened to speed metal when the visible threat of antagonistic nuclear superpowers diminished.

A good point, and it's for that reason that I don't think it would suffer the same fate as punk or speed metal. A few people have hinted that it's a contemporary style and instrumentation acting as a conduit for eternal truths, which is agreeable. I can certainly feel the spirit of black metal in nature, even in other forms of art but nothing really captures it to the same extent.

At one stage it seemed natural that the ideas present in quality metal would become more and more enamored in ambient structure, but now I find it lacks the same dynamic fire and spontaneity which created the best works in metal. Plus you have sun O, xasthur etc etc cloud the situation by producing a wealth of easily forgettable works in that genre.

I guess to be more direct we could discuss what albums are particularly notable for their potential to be expanded upon: Filosofem, Streetcleaner and the electronic works of Beherit come to mind as brilliant yet somewhat incomplete ideas.
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: rapidshare on November 18, 2010, 07:50:39 AM
I think we should regard Metal less as an isolated occurrence and more as the contemporary resurgence of an eternal aspect of the human spirit, which, going through cycles, is bound to arise again at some point in the future.

And also, metal is two things:


That's the real problem with metal: it means two radically different things at once.
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: Cargést on November 18, 2010, 01:09:22 PM
It would be interesting to consider ways in which we might better distinguish the legitimate from the irrelevant, when it comes to Metal.    Certainly, the substance is very different, but might there not be other forms which could be taken by the same substance?  Then again, Black Metal in the style of Darkthrone or Ildjarn might be the most accurate representation of the very essence of "Metal" being encoded into a sound which is the categorical opposite of something like Manowar, at least using the instrumentation "required" of Metal.  Perhaps this is why there's a lot of validity in the concept of making Extreme Metal "raw", "necro", etc. - the more unlistenable it is for non-Hessians, the clearer the denominations of "good Metal" and "bad Metal".  Then again again, too many poseurs adopt the "kvlt as fvck" stereotype sound without having anything of merit in the music itself.  Then again again again, these bands never manage to pull off the sound in the same way that the originators of that sound did - there's a stark contrast between the modern "raw black metal" and the early works of Bathory, Darkthrone, or even the output of Les Légions Noires (which, while not as compositionally competent, is certainly much better than the run-of-the-mill crap produced today).
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: nether on November 18, 2010, 01:20:03 PM
In thirty years, will we still have pop music on the same scale, and will it fill the same roles?

I agree that the best metal upholds eternal ideals that are expressed in the best work from almost any historical movement or genre, but its taking the form of pop music is unique.

@ Cargest: I've given this some consideration, and discussed it with friends.  Metal does not get much heavier than early Slayer, but the aesthetics become increasingly inaccessible, to the point that it simply appears in bad taste to the average listener.  Thus, nothing is communicated to the majority except the 'kvult as fvck' sterotype because that is what the aesthetics seem to say.  Metal is an acquired taste, and not everyone gets beyond the way it sounds.
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: esoteric on November 18, 2010, 11:55:22 PM
Has any popular music genre since the 60s had greater longevity than metal? I'm not sure. I can't think of any other type of popular music that has remained the same in sound, while metal has remained relatively the same in sound and spirit since 1970. It seems that rock music (as in rock 'n roll) changed dramatically with each decade. Dylan -> Rush -> The Cure -> Nirvana
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: nothingnowhere on November 19, 2010, 06:14:09 AM
Has any popular music genre since the 60s had greater longevity than metal? I'm not sure. I can't think of any other type of popular music that has remained the same in sound, while metal has remained relatively the same in sound and spirit since 1970. It seems that rock music (as in rock 'n roll) changed dramatically with each decade. Dylan -> Rush -> The Cure -> Nirvana

I don't think this is a fair assumption. I could just as easily say that metal has changed dramatically because Black Sabbath -> Metallica -> Darkthrone -> Demilich. They share a similar spirit stylistically they are very different. I could similarly say that it hasn't changed because Black Sabbath -> Witchfinder General ->Saint Vitus -> Cathedral. Similarly you could find much closer connections to Bob Dylan from him to the present, or Rush (who are associated with a totally different type of rock music), or The Cure (Who could be better described as post-punk/pop), or Nirvana (Who have just as much to do with garage rock or punk music as they do with pure rock music).
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: esoteric on November 19, 2010, 09:50:28 AM
Yes that's true. What I was trying to say is that metal has diversified in style but it remains about the same thing, thematically and musically (downbeat riffs). It has a central doctrine which has held since Black Sabbath. You could possibly say the same for punk, but I don't think rock.
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: nothingnowhere on November 19, 2010, 01:04:00 PM
I'd agree there, and I would further theorize that this is because rock never had a strong central doctrine to begin with.
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: radiant=ANIME WITCHES on November 20, 2010, 07:59:48 PM
1) What makes one art form higher than another, either in your opinion or to certain fixed standard?
Well, if we follow the linked essay (and I find no fault with its central argument), the higher art form is one with a greater possibility-space, due to technology, technique, etc... There is of course no objective scale for the enjoyment a piece of art gives, due to the obvious differences of taste, but metal was an inherently higher artform than rock before it because of its innovations in technique (compositional in addition to technical skill). I don't think it has to do with any eternal principle -- Burzum, Atheist, and Black Sabbath share little in the way of philosophy, but all three are "higher" than rock for their more sophisticated technique. (And once again I must stress that composition is included in this definition of technique, as I am well aware that Eric Clapton could play far more scales per millisecond than Varg. It is also undeniable that the depth of compositions never went beyond Top 40 verse-chorus or aimless noodling, whereas Burzum's music was very deliberately structured in various ways.)

I realize this is not the generalized principle that you were looking for but I think specific examples are more instructional and no generalized "law" is without its exceptions.

Quote
2) Do you think that metal is going to be entirely replaced by a totally foreign and new genre of music? Or do you think it will steadily adapt to changing conditions, surface tastes, and technologies, and if so, at what point does it cease being metal?
Good questions. Short answer is I don't know. I feel that metal will probably continue to be created, just as people continue to write country music and dreadful "punk" rock, but it will no longer be significant, like country music and punk rock. Note that a "dead" art is not one that is no longer created, it is one that no longer attracts the best and brightest individuals.

I hope that people will continue to write music that combines the ferocity, mystery, and intelligence of metal. This music will of course be influenced by current tastes and technologies. What it will look like, I don't know (otherwise I'd be writing it in order to ensure my chapter in music textbooks centuries from now), although I can see something like an expansion on the ambient stylings of Engram in the future. Would this be "not metal?"

At what point does something cease to be metal? Hell if I know. Genres are not set in an eternal doctrine; in part they are set by the listener, so deciding when something is objectively "not metal" is fruitless. But I think the first clue will be the abandonment of the electric guitar as the primary voice. For this reason I actually have a hard time calling stuff like Summoning's Dol Goldur metal but I do it because it's expedient and not wholly inaccurate.

Quote
3) Do you think that, because they were written in the past, and their styles are now apparently obsolete, that Beethoven's 9th Symphony or Black Sabbath's Heaven and Hell would be less powerful if they had never been written, all other factors in history remaining somehow the same, and were now released in 2010?
This question is nonsensical because they never could have been just written in 2010, all other factors somehow magically remaining the same. However, if a man of the ambition and drive of Beethoven was born in 1990 rather than two and a half centuries ago, would he choose to write music in the classical form, or would he choose an art that was more vibrant and with greater possibility, perhaps even something beyond music? Just a hypothetical question. I don't think great classical music could be written in the current era because classical music is exhausted of its potential development and anyone who wants to write with just an orchestra writes shitty film scores, i.e. John Williams, Danny Elfman (what a fruity goddamn name), etc...

I love Beethoven, have all his symphonies on CD and can sing along with pretty much the entire 7th, but I think there is a significant part of my enjoyment that is derived from his historic significance. And as much as I love his music, I have always found metal more compelling, not for its relative simplicity but for its ability to more completely immerse the listener in its sound. I've written a ton of shit already, and don't feel like delving into the reasoning, but it's probably worth exploring later.

Quote
4) Would you consider it fair to say that both classic rock and classical music never truly "died", but manifested itself into other developments and musical explorations, including what we would understand to be metal? Would this also be true of theater into cinema? (I'm not even going to get near "photography killed painting")
You've clearly misunderstood the meaning of "died" in this context, please reread the original post or, perhaps, read the entire linked essay.

Anyway, thanks for the questions, they were fun to mull over although I really have not answered them thoroughly enough.

PART II: PAINTINGS ARE MORE REAL THAN PHOTOGRAPHS

I can't help but read this as "we (modern humans) don't have the attention span to stick to anything any more, so we overlook tried and tested (and proven viable) artforms in favour of those which are more instantly appealing, even if they may not serve as Art better than preceding forms".  I prefer paintings to photographs.  I think they reveal more of the reality of the subject than a mere photograph.
Your reading is unfortunately incorrect, and the bolded statement is hilarious nonsense. I am inclined to say that "reality of the subject" is a nonsense phrase devoid of meaning (kind of liKe saying "my favorite part of Pollock's painting is its joyous life"), but even if it did have meaning, it's still fucking nonsense. A camera, in showing an image with far fewer intermediaries than with a painting and with far greater detail, shows us far more "reality" than a painting ever could. I am still inclined to say my own explanation is hogwash because there is no reality gauge for these things!

I, too, have a general aesthetic preference of paintings over photograph -- but this, for me at least, is more of a fetish for things that signify an older era than a statement on the absolute potential of the artforms. And I have seen, in National Geographic magazines and Chinese pornography magazines, photographs whose beauty would rival that of the Dutch Masters or Bronzino. As for their "reality;" well, of that non-subject I hardly feel qualified to speak.

Lastly, of course, it is worth noting that a photograph can capture a painting to the smallest visual detail and then transfer it to almost any medium, whereas in ancient days the process required a copying procedure that, even with the most painstaking work, could never exactly replicate details. Painting was made positively obsolete, and indeed, unless you happen to be of the noble class (or of the nouveau riche, though I feel remiss in even mentioning them) most of the "paintings" on your wall are "mere photographs." Their only failure of "reality" is that they are not "original" works produced by one solitary master, and if you can only enjoy art based on the authenticity of its authorship, you are enjoying it for another reason altogether than the pleasure the object brings you. On that subject I would recommend Baudrillard's The System of Objects.
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: istaros on November 20, 2010, 08:45:13 PM
I prefer paintings to photographs.  I think they reveal more of the reality of the subject than a mere photograph.
Your reading is unfortunately incorrect, and the bolded statement is hilarious nonsense. I am inclined to say that "reality of the subject" is a nonsense phrase devoid of meaning (kind of liKe saying "my favorite part of Pollock's painting is its joyous life"), but even if it did have meaning, it's still fucking nonsense. A camera, in showing an image with far fewer intermediaries than with a painting and with far greater detail, shows us far more "reality" than a painting ever could. I am still inclined to say my own explanation is hogwash because there is no reality gauge for these things!
I think Cargést was saying that a painting, being further removed from the reality it attempts to capture, serves as a better medium for revelation than a photograph does. Obviously a photograph is a closer approximation to the actual light waves that would be reflected from the subject. A painting, on the other hand, requires more mental interaction from the viewer to fill the chasm between the subject itself and the viewer's receipt of said subject - in a photograph, this chasm is essentially absent, so any understanding derived from it is given(by the photographer), not reached(by the viewer). I assume this is why he chose the word "reveal" instead of "convey."
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: radiant=ANIME WITCHES on November 21, 2010, 02:13:03 AM
I prefer paintings to photographs.  I think they reveal more of the reality of the subject than a mere photograph.
Your reading is unfortunately incorrect, and the bolded statement is hilarious nonsense. I am inclined to say that "reality of the subject" is a nonsense phrase devoid of meaning (kind of liKe saying "my favorite part of Pollock's painting is its joyous life"), but even if it did have meaning, it's still fucking nonsense. A camera, in showing an image with far fewer intermediaries than with a painting and with far greater detail, shows us far more "reality" than a painting ever could. I am still inclined to say my own explanation is hogwash because there is no reality gauge for these things!
I think Cargést was saying that a painting, being further removed from the reality it attempts to capture, serves as a better medium for revelation than a photograph does. Obviously a photograph is a closer approximation to the actual light waves that would be reflected from the subject. A painting, on the other hand, requires more mental interaction from the viewer to fill the chasm between the subject itself and the viewer's receipt of said subject - in a photograph, this chasm is essentially absent, so any understanding derived from it is given(by the photographer), not reached(by the viewer). I assume this is why he chose the word "reveal" instead of "convey."
I have no idea what Cargest meant when he said that, so your guess is as good as mine. Anyway, if this is indeed what he meant, I still think its nonsense. First of all, a painting does not necessarily require more mental interaction from the viewer than a photograph. This is ludicrous; some painters paint subjects with perfect clarity and almost photographic detail while photographers may choose to blur images, use different lighting techniques, or unconventional viewpoints to make a photo less, I dunno, immediate? More vague? That's really what your statement about the chasm seems to convey. Secondly, "medium for revelation"? As in, the painting as a transmitter of messages? If this is the case, it's a meaningless phrase, as literally anything can transmit "messages" and the messages will all be dependent upon what a viewer takes out of something. If by "revelation" you meant, "conveys messages of a divine, eternal, or perennial nature," then I am no expert on the subject and you can draw whatever conclusions you want.

But lastly, this line of thought is not an objection to the original argument, even if its valid. The higher art is ultimately the one in which immersion comes most readily, and by virtue of its greatly expanded capacity for detail and its flexibility (as any photograph can ultimately be manipulated into whatever one wants via digital imaging), the photograph is ultimately more immersive. Now, if one thinks that the higher art is one that brings messages from god with more frequency, and that paintings are the way to do it, the be my guest. I ain't gonna stop you. But that's irrelevant to the other stuff I said.
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: Cargést on November 21, 2010, 07:01:18 AM
The higher art is the one which reveals to the observer more of the reality.  You should read Shelley's "Defence of Poetry", as I've suggested to many users of this forum before.

Istaros is pretty close to what I meant, but I'd say that a painting is also viable in this way because it requires more of the painter than a photograph does of the photographer.  There are also other ways of looking at it, though, as with pretty much anything.

For the record, I like a lot of analogue photography, which definitely (when used as a medium for a work of Art) requires a huge amount of skill and forethought on the part of the photographer.  I disagree with the proposed "superiority" of more modern forms of "art" - a digital camera is the peasant's tool for creating images.  It's easy, accessible, and, ultimately, reveals little, as a result of its lack of depth.  A layman can't paint well at all, yet even I can take a good photograph.

Painting <-> Black Metal;
Photography <-> Pop/Rock.

Also, radiant shithead (lololol), the onus of relevance is on you, not anyone else, since you're the one challenging the legitimacy of a statement.  If you're then going to turn around and say "I won't push the point if we're talking about different things", then you've clearly made an error somewhere earlier on.
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on November 21, 2010, 01:25:57 PM
I prefer paintings to photographs.  I think they reveal more of the reality of the subject than a mere photograph.
Your reading is unfortunately incorrect, and the bolded statement is hilarious nonsense. I am inclined to say that "reality of the subject" is a nonsense phrase devoid of meaning (kind of liKe saying "my favorite part of Pollock's painting is its joyous life"), but even if it did have meaning, it's still fucking nonsense. A camera, in showing an image with far fewer intermediaries than with a painting and with far greater detail, shows us far more "reality" than a painting ever could. I am still inclined to say my own explanation is hogwash because there is no reality gauge for these things!
I think Cargést was saying that a painting, being further removed from the reality it attempts to capture, serves as a better medium for revelation than a photograph does. Obviously a photograph is a closer approximation to the actual light waves that would be reflected from the subject. A painting, on the other hand, requires more mental interaction from the viewer to fill the chasm between the subject itself and the viewer's receipt of said subject - in a photograph, this chasm is essentially absent, so any understanding derived from it is given(by the photographer), not reached(by the viewer). I assume this is why he chose the word "reveal" instead of "convey."
I have no idea what Cargest meant when he said that, so your guess is as good as mine. Anyway, if this is indeed what he meant, I still think its nonsense. First of all, a painting does not necessarily require more mental interaction from the viewer than a photograph. This is ludicrous; some painters paint subjects with perfect clarity and almost photographic detail while photographers may choose to blur images, use different lighting techniques, or unconventional viewpoints to make a photo less, I dunno, immediate? More vague? That's really what your statement about the chasm seems to convey. Secondly, "medium for revelation"? As in, the painting as a transmitter of messages? If this is the case, it's a meaningless phrase, as literally anything can transmit "messages" and the messages will all be dependent upon what a viewer takes out of something. If by "revelation" you meant, "conveys messages of a divine, eternal, or perennial nature," then I am no expert on the subject and you can draw whatever conclusions you want.

But lastly, this line of thought is not an objection to the original argument, even if its valid. The higher art is ultimately the one in which immersion comes most readily, and by virtue of its greatly expanded capacity for detail and its flexibility (as any photograph can ultimately be manipulated into whatever one wants via digital imaging), the photograph is ultimately more immersive. Now, if one thinks that the higher art is one that brings messages from god with more frequency, and that paintings are the way to do it, the be my guest. I ain't gonna stop you. But that's irrelevant to the other stuff I said.

I'm fairly certain that, based on what you said, someone could provide a convincing argument that a piece of shit is the pinnacle of art.
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: nether on November 21, 2010, 03:18:14 PM
Arguments as to the superiority of one art form over another are useless.  Provide more specific examples if you wish to prove your point.
 
When you say painting, are you referring to the Dutch still lives or Rembrandt?  Maybe Picasso, or Malevich, or Frank Stella, or Julian Schnabel?  Caravaggio? Van Gogh? Dali?
 
Is National Geographic the pinnacle of all photography, or of a specific kind of photography?  Is it just kitsch?
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: Veritas on November 21, 2010, 08:31:26 PM
The higher art is ultimately the one in which immersion comes most readily

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean or how it is justified, but I think it is at the heart of whatever the dispute is here, and that we may as well go back to the basics.

What is art? What is its purpose? How is the purpose achieved? How, then, do we tell whether one artwork, or artform, is "better" than another? etc.
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: nothingnowhere on November 21, 2010, 08:32:52 PM
Look up

1) By fixed standard I didn't mean a magical code written in the stars about metal that is true forever, but rather some objective point which we could agree to make judgments from, which I think you adequately supplied in the form of the medium that allows the "greater possibility-space".

2) Once again I think I gave the wrong impression. It would have been far more clear if I had said something such as "at what point can/should we cease to consider it metal?" In retrospect this seems a useless question anyway, as it's very much impossible to imagine all the possibilities for future music.

To me (good for me, right?), I think it's fair to consider Summoning as a metal band, and I think they're a good example, along with albums like Engram, or Advent Parralax, or From Firmament to Forest, that there is still a ton of, if not endless, ground to explore using the themes, techniques, and general conventions of metal. Of course, all of these albums add new themes, techniques, and conventions themselves, while ignoring some old ones, which of course brings back up the difficult question: when is it no longer metal? I'm not going to pretend I know, but its starting to feel like something that's not worth worrying oneself over for the sake of always having a clear classification of something.

3) This was probably a stupid question. I have to wonder if our greater immersion into metal has more to do with the music and the culture we were born into rather than an inherent superiority? It's something to think about, and I won't say I know either way right now.
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: nothingnowhere on November 21, 2010, 09:02:14 PM
For the record, I like a lot of analogue photography, which definitely (when used as a medium for a work of Art) requires a huge amount of skill and forethought on the part of the photographer.  I disagree with the proposed "superiority" of more modern forms of "art" - a digital camera is the peasant's tool for creating images.  It's easy, accessible, and, ultimately, reveals little, as a result of its lack of depth.  A layman can't paint well at all, yet even I can take a good photograph.

This is like saying you prefer a piano to a synthesizer because the piano requires more skill and forethought, and that the synthesizer is the peasant's tool for creating images. It's only half-true.

Let's see a real world example of they this argument is nonsensical.

Electronic Keyboards: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLT66yJBYbA&feature=related VS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUCYq2qLxJc&feature=related

Digital Photography: Amateur Work: Some pictures (http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs167.snc1/6253_115896169834_843864834_2168417_2860613_n.jpg) a friend shot (http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs138.snc1/5893_105940484834_843864834_2033682_2389366_n.jpg) while in Europe (http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs167.snc1/6253_115896089834_843864834_2168404_33952_n.jpg), presumably on a fairly cheap and common camera

VS

Professional/Artistic Stuff: Some random (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4016/4617067903_e2934a3c3a_b.jpg) assorted (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4029/4683184380_7fca59a7e5_b.jpgg) photos (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1035/4609798307_dc2e0a33ba_b.jpg) by a (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1379/5182342238_9af3c5f593_b.jpg) different acquaintance with a much high quality digital camera, a knowledge of his craft, and a sense of artistic vision.


While I would agree that the art that demands the most out of an artist tends to create the works of the strongest power, it's erroneous to believe that because things like photography can be simpler and easier to accomplish, that they are necessarily those things.  Not anyone can write the music Klaus Schulze can with the technology he does, and similarly not everyone can take the photographs my friend can. They require dedication, patience, work, skill, artistic vision, etc.
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: Cargést on November 22, 2010, 10:37:40 AM
This is like saying you prefer a piano to a synthesizer because the piano requires more skill and forethought, and that the synthesizer is the peasant's tool for creating images.

It's not, really, since I was referring specifically to pictoral Art, and not music, but you still bring up a valid point later on.  Just because an art medium is more accessible does not make it less of a challenge to create something truly worthwhile.  Also, thanks for the Klaus Schulze - I'm going to look into his works.
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: nothingnowhere on November 22, 2010, 11:25:58 AM
Also, thanks for the Klaus Schulze - I'm going to look into his works.

Do yourself a favor and start with X and Timewind.
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: Emperor_of_Algol on December 08, 2010, 04:21:52 PM
Also, thanks for the Klaus Schulze - I'm going to look into his works.

Better late than never...
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: istaros on December 08, 2010, 05:18:58 PM
First of all, a painting does not necessarily require more mental interaction from the viewer than a photograph. This is ludicrous; some painters paint subjects with perfect clarity and almost photographic detail while photographers may choose to blur images, use different lighting techniques, or unconventional viewpoints to make a photo less, I dunno, immediate? More vague?
True, but that is in direct opposition to the basis of your claim of photography's superiority:
A camera, in showing an image with far fewer intermediaries than with a painting and with far greater detail, shows us far more "reality" than a painting ever could.

As does this:
But lastly, this line of thought is not an objection to the original argument, even if its valid. The higher art is ultimately the one in which immersion comes most readily, and by virtue of its greatly expanded capacity for detail and its flexibility (as any photograph can ultimately be manipulated into whatever one wants via digital imaging), the photograph is ultimately more immersive.
Either photography provides a closer reflection of reality, and is thus artistically superior to painting in doing something it cannot - or its artistic value lies in its immersiveness as defined by the ability to be modified away from reality, in which case it is on equal terms with painting.

3) This was probably a stupid question. I have to wonder if our greater immersion into metal has more to do with the music and the culture we were born into rather than an inherent superiority? It's something to think about, and I won't say I know either way right now.

Of course it has everything to do with the culture we were born into. 90% of metal's nature is in its overturning of common values. In an ideal culture, metal would not exist as a musical genre, and certainly not an underground genre, because said culture would actively embrace those values expressed in the best metal works. There would be no need for metal as we know it.
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: lord.aspie on December 08, 2010, 06:19:35 PM
^ music in that society would probably be similar to the adventurous spirit of metal.
Title: Re: Metal in thirty years time
Post by: Cargést on December 08, 2010, 10:37:22 PM
Certainly, but it wouldn't be "anti-social" music to the extent that it is now.