Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - ice-t

[1] 2 ... 5
Metal / Re: Contemporary classical: dead or just stinky?
« on: May 10, 2010, 10:12:09 PM »
We're talking about different cultures, not inscrutable alien lifeforms. Having a handle on the socio-historical context helps get more of the original intended effect that you'd otherwise miss with a naive face value reading. Nothing in what I wrote suggests any kind of cultural solipsism.

Metal / Re: Contemporary classical: dead or just stinky?
« on: May 09, 2010, 02:19:52 AM »
Not true at all. Life hasn't changed a bit in essence.
The only sense in which in this might be true is so broad as to be irrelevant to the topic at hand.

It's too simplistic not to. Why not deconstruct, and get away from reality entirely? That way all we must do is memorize a little music theory and voila, we're geniuzes!

Cool, so you actually think comparing a dude with a lyre reciting poetry to Der Freischutz is in any way a meaningful comparison and to suggest otherwise is to engage in some tired strawman of ivory tower academic navel-gazing.

Eno put something into this style. There are dozens of failed minimalists.
These are entirely unsupported assertions. What minimalist works are you familiar with?

Metal / Re: Unseen influences in metal
« on: May 09, 2010, 01:56:32 AM »
Cynic came much later in the game, wouldn't you say? Atheist put out their first album in 1989, and Cynic in 1993.

You even missed a generation of progressive rock bands and instrumentally literate heavy metal that came earlier. In particular, Voivod.

1) Voivod gets to be lumped in with bands that predates Atheist. I suppose it's also worth pointing out their experimental turn didn't really manifest itself until Killing Technology in 1987. 2) We're talking about influence here and earlier release dates don't always tell the whole story. Focus has had a more visible impact than Atheist even though both are roughly about as well known. One need look no further than the current crop of tepid tech death:

Human Remains came out of many years of hardcore coming closer to their style, but if you listen to that first CD, they created everything in finalized form that both nu-metal and metalcore use today. Can you think of a clearer expression? Stuff like Botch is similar but less developed, and just sounds like a harder Jawbreaker.

Watch this amazing feat of nu-metal historical scholarship:

IGN For Men: A lot has been written over the years about how you guys reinvented the sound of metal for the GenX crowd. Yet when I listen to your records I hear a gritty, garage funk band buried at the core of all the heaviness...

Munky: Well that's because, I mean when me and Fieldy and David first started playing together we were 17-years old, 18. No, I guess me and Fieldy were 18 and David was like 16. And that's...the first Faith No More record because everyone in Bakersfield...

IGN For Men: The one without Mike Patton and the original version of "We Care A Lot," right?

Munky: The one without Mike Patton, right, the one with Chuck Mosley. Because that had like crazy basslines following the drums, 'doon-doon-doon-koosh-dooga-dooga-doon-kerr-dung-dung.' And the bass and the drums followed each other. And the guitar would do a melody over the top., you know what I mean? And we were just like 'That is the baddest!' And that's basically what we based our sound on. Because we were so influenced by it.

I also stand by my previous post wrt hardcore/metalcore. Trying to pin it on any one band is a fool's errand, especially given the rather incestuous nature of that whole scene and that everyone seemingly stumbled onto defining elements of the syntax literally within months of each other. It makes no musico-historical sense to me in positing Human Remains as the stylistic pivotal moment in modern hardcore.

Metal / Re: Contemporary classical: dead or just stinky?
« on: May 05, 2010, 10:14:37 PM »
I disagree. If we change our focus away from making Beethovens, and turn it toward lesser goals, we've eliminated the cultural space for Beethoven and created a cultural space for trivial, lesser stuff.
The circumstances which made the Romantic period the Romantic or the Renaissance the Renaissance are no longer in place today. It's a "no shit" thing to say, but why do we suddenly forget about it when talking about the products of these societies, including our own? Are we really that shocked and dismayed that bards and oral epics haven't been kicking for centuries either? Are we ready to suggest that Homer trumps Luddie B? If we lost something by becoming an increasingly literate, technological society, it's far too simplistic to frame it in terms of being culturally better or worse off (note that this does not make aesthetic judgement meaningless or even preclude the possibility that certain time periods might have been more fruitful than others, though I do have a hard time taking seriously anyone who casually dismisses whole fucking centuries) More to the point, if you're too incurious and tone deaf to find great stuff made in the past 60, 70 years or actually understand what makes it worthwhile, then I guess it sucks to be you and this thread is made entirely in bad faith.
Eno is great because he got away from the goofy academic ("peasants pretending to be kings") sphere and wrote actual music. He contributed an artistry that was his own production, even if his method was influenced by over-educated idiots.
lol "actual music" - is the level of discourse we're having here? What minimalist works have you actually listened to? Let's be honest here, Eno fused pop with the avant-garde and thereby brought the imposing sonic glaciers of the minimalism of the time to a more human scale and the results are often genius, but let's not pretend that that genius sprang sui generis from the void or that his predecessors contributed nothing of worth.
We're on a metal forum. Much of the best stuff here has in its mixed heritage Venom, AC/DC, Van Halen and other quasi-doofus material. Yet they made great things with it.
No, not really. Or maybe, but probably not how you think. To be quite frank, metal is a rather impoverished music by the standard of even a post-war crooner and I'm always getting a rise out of the "introduce classical listeners to metal" topics. Do you really think that some metal artists' avoidance of verse-chorus forms while never truly transcending rock-based non-developmental riff repetition strike a classical listener as anything other than a quaint curiosity, or even better, categorically indistinct from pop music as a whole?

Metal / Re: Two approaches to music
« on: May 05, 2010, 05:16:48 PM »
serial music is the apotheosis of formal unity. ironically, this type of organicism comes from generating material which operates opaquely and to most ears ends up being more coherently parsed as the kind of "soundscapy" approach you're talking about in your second category.

to be brutally honest, there's been a lot of "let's categorize metal/music into n broad tendencies" lately and nothing non-trivial ever comes out of them.

Metal / Re: Contemporary classical: dead or just stinky?
« on: May 05, 2010, 12:48:27 AM »
Here: John Cage and Morton Feldman were a huge influence on the minimalists and the crossover with rock from the 60s to today is well documented. The minimalists were a huge influence on Brian Eno ("La Monte Young is the grandaddy of us all" or something like that) and Brian Eno was enough of an influence for half the fucking forum to never shut up about him. In fact, there's plenty of direct evidence of the influence of minimalists and all the "schools" of the avant-garde all over the place if you're not too tin-eared to miss them.

The classical tradition was always an erudite, if not explicitly academic, tradition. Its insularity has plenty of historical precedent and in retrospect some of the most important developments came from music made for like-minded cognoscenti - in this, the past half-century or so is not significantly different. That said, classical music will likely never be more than a niche market again for the foreseeable future, but its influence continues to trickle down to other genres, just as it has for centuries. That there's no longer a cultural space for "the next Beethoven" has nothing to do with whether or not what's being put out today is any good.

Metal / Re: Unseen influences in metal
« on: May 04, 2010, 11:59:00 PM »
Unseen influences from within metal:

4. Atheist, raised the ante for prog metal to exist
6. Human Remains, created second generation hardcore, all nu-metal/metalcore is based on this
There's nothing "unseen" or controversial about the rest of the metal list, but these are (atleast as how you present them) bordering on ahistorical. Atheist is one of those bands everyone seems to love but, outside of busier rhythm sections and a thin veneer of jazziness, really hasn't had a lot of direct influence. In fact, Cynic are the likelier source of innovating/popularizing this particular tendency and Watchtower, Dream Theater and every other technical thrash band either predate or are contemporary with Atheist.

I'm also not really seeing the historical justification for listing any one band (let alone Human Remains) as the sole progenitor of nu-metal. For nu-metal it's more helpful to look at broader trends in mainstream hard rock/metal - funk metal, groove metal/post-thrash, earlier hip-hop w/metal samples and the overall grunge aesthetic are all more relevant developments imo. As far as hardcore goes, I think groups like Rorschach or Heroin among many others in the late 80's/early 90s shaped modern hardcore in a far more observable manner.

What I'd really like to know is which asshole was the first to shit out the obnoxious "secundal screech far up the neck + open power chord" riff.

Interzone / Re: Overpopulation and birth limits
« on: December 29, 2009, 05:11:26 PM »
The correlation between population growth and CO2 emissions aren't as rock solid as we'd like to think. What we don't like to talk about is the long-term (im)practicality of sustaining First World lifestyles, let alone extending that lifestyle to the rest of the globe.

Interzone / Re: Where are all the intellectuals?
« on: December 29, 2009, 04:54:23 PM »
What are people's qualms with critical theory?

Interzone / Re: Questions on Individualism
« on: August 28, 2009, 05:58:08 AM »
Nobody has reduced failure to diversity.

It's both symptomatic and causation of fail in every case where diversity existed.
If I've overstated my case, it's not by a wide margin.

Diversity splits a civilization's interests into different directions, where before it was one.
The problem with this is that you tout NASA as some shining example of Northern European solidarity but ignore more glaring historical examples like the fractious pettiness of the Holy Roman Empire or late medieval France (not as strong as an example, but the point stands), whose constituent peoples' cultural kinship was closer than Americans to Germans. I don't think demographics have as big a role to play in fostering (an imposed) unity of purpose or what have you.

One of these directions is commerce as an apolitical engine that overtakes cultures because it consumes everyone's time and energy, yet also encourages foreigners to join in as traders, buyers or labor. This creates a cycle doesn't it? So, diversity is like one of the larger gears turning in the wrong direction, not really like a minor static component.
Excepting maybe gift economies, commerce has never been or ever will be apolitical. Setting that aside what you're describing really only fits the past 150 years but even so you've confused cause for effect - diversity won't hurt you as much as deindustrialization, outsourcing, deskilling and a host of other fun things will.

Interzone / Re: Questions on Individualism
« on: August 27, 2009, 02:52:04 AM »
No shit there needs to be some degree of cultural common ground for humans to work together functionally but a society's success isn't reducible to its ethnic homogeneity or diversity and citing Apollo 11 doesn't really say anything other than that American rocket scientists borrowed a German dude's notes.

Interzone / Re: Questions on Individualism
« on: August 27, 2009, 12:18:11 AM »
You're dodging the question

Interzone / Re: Questions on Individualism
« on: August 26, 2009, 10:16:48 PM »
Simple truths work best:

Societies of similar people are able to achieve more.
This is taken for granted but there's a defeaning silence when it comes to listing examples. What sort of achieviements? Which societies? Given all the material conditions present at the point that a state apparatus breaks down, can you reliably refer to its multi-ethnic composition as a leading cause?

Interzone / Re: Movies replace reality
« on: August 18, 2009, 11:16:56 PM »
Any media that attempts to mimic reality and impose "stories" is garbage. If it is idealistic, leave it as such, otherwise scrap it (romance, action, comedy, drama, et cetera). What the fuck is the point of watching something about "reality"?
What are you saying, exactly? Cameras are no different from stone, wood, canvas or even staff paper in their use as media for representations. Cinema is a perfectly valid artform but the fact that it largely remains a pretty cost-intensive medium will mean that the ones with their hands on the pursestrings are the ones who decide what gets made. Are you seriously opposed to all fiction ever?

Interzone / Re: Objective quality of music
« on: August 18, 2009, 11:04:28 PM »
What about all three? Innovation doesn't exist by itself; it is driven by the need to express. Sensuousness similarly. Further, craftmanship; we've seen too many cases of musicians playing below their ability to make a point. Maybe what art seeks to do, as W.S. Burroughs suggests, is represent some aspect of reality in an exciting and poetic way.
Did you read the whole thing? The author wouldn't likely disagree with anything you just said. I think it's also worth pointing out that he comes out of the whole Downtown/minimalist milieu so I doubt the subversion of conventional notions of craftsmanship would be lost on him.

When you try to quantify what separates "good" and "bad" art, all you get are silly descriptions like "innovation" and "complexity," but when it comes down to it, all that really matters is that the art has some sort of depth or profundity in its execution and intent--qualities that are best felt, not described in lists.

I could, for example, try to tell you what makes an album like Discharge's "Hear Nothing..." profound, but until you come to understand it through your own experience, my words will mean nothing to you.
If this is directed at me, I think you misread me. I don't advocate anything as bluntly reductionistic as "INNOVATION 3/5, PRODUCTION 4/5, LYRICS 2.5/5" and so on down the line as if they were the stats for a video game character. Moreover, I directly brought up exactly the issue of intent/execution in my post. If not, then whatever, gotta post post

[1] 2 ... 5