Amorphis - Privilege of Evil.

This is better than I anticipated, thank you for the recommendation. I had never heard this, just going off what else I had heard from Amorphis - it actually is very competent death metal in a darker version of the style Demigod is now remembered for.

deadlink

Out of curiosity  do you plan to post about metal? It seems like there is quite a disproportionate amount of chatter in Chasm, more so than at other times before such a place existed (before '08? Internet Archive can't access www.anus.com/metal/forum), though this sort of thing is to be expected to a certain extent. Is it possible to split this forum in half, into a Philosophy and Etc. forum, and a metal forum?

Psychopathological Zine

+

Combines a melodic angularity learned from a hybrid of Merciless and Demigod, following aesthetic trends from many of the new aged Blasphemy/Beherit spawn from the last few years. Apt compositionally, but suffers from a lack of textural and macrostructural variety throughout the album, though this failing is less true with this album than with many its contemporaries. One of the most promising releases in this style.

Lots of opinions on the internet. Apply real-world initiative, cooperation, and planning and things will get done. Dealing with one another anonymously and through limited media will/has cause problems. Ever had a job? Were you successful? Apply/consider those same principles that caused things to get done, good or not.

Simple: some/many disagree here. If you haven't learned it by now, this is "Prozak's" site, always has been. Understandable - most, if not all of the work has been done by this one person (maybe you could say a few), and compiled herein (ANUS, Deathmetal, Corrupt, whatever). Obviously this person likes sharing this with others, or enjoys the sense of control/influence/socializing that it creates. Most people enjoy this sort of thing.

If you contribute wholeheartedly, you will be doing so to fulfill the desires of the leader here, which will change (as they have already) multiple times. Nothing necessarily wrong with this - nearly everyone else here would probably do the same thing if they had a similar hobby, and get frustrated with people who are nothing more than onlookers (forum-users) laying claim to their work and space.

There are better things to do than criticize, though sometimes it can be helpful. You are better off doing other things  than criticizing something you ultimately do not plan to contribute to, unless you are constructive and specific. You probably have other things you could do that would be more productive and real: cook, go to the gym, take a hike, read a book, reflect, go on a date, listen to metal, go to a concert, and so on.

/opinion

Quote from: Annihilation on February 09, 2013, 05:55:13 PM

There are bad people, yes. Caused and/or inborn?

What forms the authority of this diagnosis?
Proof. Sentiment ain't data.

Proof is some obscure thought-quirk conjured up by those unable to know what is what.
This inability is caused by a root inability to detect reality.
Reality exists outside of whatever the individual thinks of it.
Reality is what people generally refer to as 'God', thus misunderstanding it.
Without this reality, there can be no context by which things can be known.
Thus 'proof' is needed by the unknowing, to label the unknown as true, or false.
These labels change nothing. Reality remains reality.

Whenever I see anyone demanding 'proof', I know them by their words.
I live in a world without proofs. In my world, things work or they don't work. They serve, or they don't serve.
They are real, or they are not real. And, fortunately, I am able to discern which is which.

Then you discern that your argumentation is unpersuasive - i.e., it don't work.

Whenever I see anyone [advertising and arguing for an exclusive license to the perception of and appropriate interaction with reality (zealots of any kind)] I know them by their words.

I live in a world without [self-referential claims to truth]. In my world, things work or they don't work. They serve, or they don't serve. They are real, or they are not real. And, fortunately [- because, surely, it is a matter of fortune -], I am able to discern which is which.

Quack!

HATE, because you need it:



MAIN

- Equally worthwhile info/music can be culled from YouTubing "Bach". Perhaps doing miniseries for certain composers by genre (cantata, concerto, etc), which would allow for more lesser-known but quality pieces to be covered.

- there are no substantive connections made to metal, apart from the use of "brutal" adjectives. Writing could be somewhat more fleshed out or removed.

TANGENTIAL

- the opinion tidbits - critiquing Gould, commending the Stokowski transcription - are silly
> I am not a fan of Gould (and don't find the common recognition of his recordings as "definitive" as justified), but I - or any discerning individual with a computer - can confirm that the assertions regarding his motivation are not fully accurate and needlessly slandering. He was a very good musician, and rather eccentric (quite different from the implications of "hipster").
> the "Bach never wrote 'melodies' for piano" remark is off the mark as well. One needn't go any further than wikipedia:

Silbermann and Bach (from Gottfried Silbermann)

The 18th-century musician Johann Friedrich Agricola tells a story about the relationship of Silbermann, Johann Sebastian Bach, and pianos. After Silbermann had completed two instruments, Agricola says, he showed them to Bach, who replied critically, saying that the tone was weak in the treble and the keys were hard to play. Silbermann was stung and angered by the criticism, but ultimately took it to heart and was able to improve his pianos (exactly how is not known, but it may have been the result of Silbermann's encountering Cristofori's most mature instruments). The improved Silbermann pianos met with Bach's "complete approval" ("völlige Gutheißung"), and indeed a preserved sales voucher dated May 8, 1749 shows that Bach acted as an intermediary for Silbermann in the sale of one of his pianos.

It has also been proposed that the Ricercar from Das Musikalisches Opfer was improvised on one of Frederick the Great's pianos. Throughout much of the 18th century, distinctions of instrumentation among keyboards were often not severe. Beethoven's "Pathetique" sonata was originally advertised as a sonata "pour le clavecin ou le Piano-forte" - clavecin being a more general term for keyboard, but likely designating the harpsichord.