Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

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 - Vesupria

[1] 2 ... 8
Interzone / Re: DLA 2.0
« on: August 16, 2011, 04:32:13 AM »
Black Funeral
Blut Aus Nord
Dark Tribe
Deathspell Omega (if only for Si Monumentum)
Destroyer 666
Funeral Mist
Gontyna Kry
Nokturnal Mortum
Vlad Tepes
The moderators can break this into another thread if they wish, but there is nothing note-worthy about any of these bands. Most of these bands tack of a "gimmick" of their own to the Black Metal sound. There was a time where I had a place for pretty much all of these bands in my collection, but persistent, sustained listening uncovered their lack of depth.

The DLA should pick a canonical collection (no grey areas such as the above), of no more than say 100 of the very best Metal albums, and dedicate itself to uncovering the language, structure, presentation and mythos of each. A simple review as is the current format could easily be expanded upon by the most curious of minds.

If this is a "group" project; then all submissions can be taken for ideas, but the actual writing, presentation and sifting through these ideas etc should be completed by a single individual or a small group for the sake of consistency and quality control.

Interzone / ANUS criticism
« on: August 13, 2011, 02:05:19 AM »
Gents, the only thing that this site has achieved in the last twenty years, and ever will achieve in the future is spreading the appreciation of Metal as a viable form of artful expression (that goes far beyond the "evil" and "anger" that the public perception has created).

However, it is not the sole source of this "cause", it is the most organised and influential, but certainly not the only place where I have read about Metal as an abstract art-form.

The focus on here should be on Metal as a language, a dissection of its technique, and an exploration of its structural ingenuity; not a philosophical wank-session that is as sideral put it, arbitrary at best.

This site has not ever achieved anything outside of bringing a new form of celebration of Metal and its origins. Anything else is futile, and will continue to be viewed as nothing but an immature public annoyance. Infoterror, please. What a crock of shit.

I'm Australian too btw. Our currency is still screaming along against the green back. It's a fairly safe-haven too. Either that or gold.

I wouldn't touch the US stock market, but our market has been repressed since the "debt crisis" became headlines again in April. We're tugging alone on China's coattails, in the midst of a massive resources boom, so our economy is fundamentally sound for now even though the market has declined.

Bring on GFC MK II.

If the share market completely tanks and you've stored enough cash there's no reason why you cannot significantly bring froward your retirement if you pick the right approach.

Metal / Re: Why not create your own metal music?
« on: July 22, 2011, 04:07:52 AM »
My sound card on the laptop is crud. Wouldn't I have latency issues?

Metal / Re: Why not create your own metal music?
« on: July 22, 2011, 01:29:54 AM »
Does anyone have any thoughts on Line 6 POD Studio UX2 or similar USB recording interfaces?

I am looking for an inexpensive way of recording to my laptop (to share with friends, nothing professional or public) without the hassle of using a mike (or even amp, for that matter). This sounds like it could be a decent solution for around $200-300.

Anyone use or have seen this kind of thing in regards to recording extreme metal?

Metal / Re: Why not create your own metal music?
« on: July 08, 2011, 04:58:57 AM »
Regardless if they know it or not, or are too modest to admit it, the better players who do not formally learn any theory usually intuitively figure it out for themselves without consciously recognising it.

Metal / Re: Cianide - Gods of Death
« on: July 07, 2011, 01:24:00 AM »
We really need to have an established and properly located list of qualities (or lack thereof) of D, C, B, and A grade material.  Does such a list exist?  If not, is anybody interested in working on one with me?
Anything that is not an A or a B is a C. I do not go any lower than a C, nor do I distinguish between different levels of C. C is for compost.

Metal / Re: User reviews
« on: June 28, 2011, 04:37:03 AM »

Maybe some of the energy in this thread (Vesupria, Dinaric Leather) could be applied to actually analyzing the various Blasphemy pieces.
I'd love to do this, but preferably with an album that we both really enjoy. Why discuss something in depth that you don't enjoy in the first place? My quick review is about all I need to say. Otherwise it'll most likely turn into a dick-waving contest like above.

Interzone / Re: Fix this forum
« on: June 28, 2011, 04:35:19 AM »
Probably my only suggestion is to encourage people to talk about the actual music. The only reason I come here is in hope of the odd occasion that someone has noticed a structural or internal subtlety in an old favourite classic that has for some reason escaped me in the past. Those little gems buried in a mass of filler.

Delete all name dropping of bands or albums without decent explanation. We've all been guilty of this in the past, of course.

Metal / Re: Cianide - Gods of Death
« on: June 28, 2011, 04:27:08 AM »
I cherry picked the track on the Death Metal.org to the left called "Forsaken Doom." I don't really care to listen to the other track.

To my ears this is completely vapid. The song has no momentum, it does not go any where. For this reason it is indistinguishable from the experience offered by most Metal (ie elevator music for those with inner rage). The opening riff-set is the same as the conclusion. We don't arrive somewhere different from where we started. There isn't much, if any attempt, at variation. I think these criticisms can generally be levelled at any C-grade "Thrash" or "Speed" from the 80s, "Death" or "Black" from the 90s or any Metalcore from the 00s. Aesthetically they're all (subjectively) solid if you are not looking for much more than a coherent set of foot-stomping riffs (albeit with a high tendency towards "groove" in Cianide's case). But they place such a high price on rhythmic expectation over melodic substance that I cannot bear to listen more than a few times.

I remember having the exact same problems with their earlier releases. It's plagued by most of the same problems as the majority of Swedish and Dutch DM.

But it lacks the magic of something with a higher degree of internal structure, and I take it that the actual review (which barely touches on the structural elements) leaves this most important criteria (for me) out because there is very little of it to speak about.

As an aside: I take it that the Celtic Frost comparison is more in line with "Morbid Tales" (yawn!) than "To Mega Therion"?

Interzone / The English: homosexuals of indeterminate parentage
« on: June 06, 2011, 12:48:17 AM »
The best justification for my personal reverence of Blood Upon the Altar I can give is that it's so visceral, violent, and hateful that it took all that seperated metal from other forms of music and elevated them to the furthest degree to make the most brutal music ever known. If you want brutality and violence in musical form, Blasphemy will deliver that in the most concentrated form without pretext.
I saw this and didn't find it helpful, so I didn't comment on it. Doesn't talk about the structure, if I wanted to hear about how brutal it was I'd go read the reviews at RYM or Metal-for-dummies.

Have some humble pie, you're just like me, you can't write a review with any depth. Your review barely brushed over the composition of the album and spoke mostly of aesthetics, then you had the arrogance to say that the album is all aesthetics.
There is a problem with this comment; negative reviews do not require any depth because the flaws in the music are generally shared universally (ie. the music has no melody, no binding constituents in its compositional elements).

What more needs to be said than something like "the album fails on any compositional level because it is basically just a bunch of chromatic riffs played as pure rhythm, without a sense of underlying melody or any preconceived order of arrangement." Why is there any need to expand on such a statement? The meaning is self-evident and tells a perspective listener all that they need to know. There is no composition or structure on that album. You could play the riffs in any order and it would have the same effect. You cannot write about something in depth that has no depth in the first place. Yes, it's brutal. Yes, it's aggressive. Yes, it's angry. It's the result of barbarians making music. I would rather listen to the Norse any day. They're all of those things, but they provide compositional depth.

I'm going to add to my brief review of the album that the reason Blasphemy seems random to the average loser suburban kid is that it is supposed to aurally emulate fighting and violence, which can definitely seem random to someone who has never experienced it. Of course I have no fucking clue why it produces this effect, which is why I redirected you to Prozaks in-depth review before you decided that you wanted my personal thoughts and not just a reason Blasphemy kills.
So it's "Fight Club" for neanderthals? Seriously, if you like that sort of thing, and don't require any depth then knock yourself it.

I suppose it doesn't surprise me that getting my opinion is more important to you than getting a good reason that Fallen Angel is a sick album, you must hold my opinion in pretty high regard to have fallen for that bait I laid so I can make fun of you some more.
Actually some variety would have been welcome. I think we're all sick of hearing what Prozak thinks. Anyone who has been here for as long as I have already knows what he thinks. This thread is about active involvement of the community, isn't it?

Thanks again for the thoughts that you actually did provide in between insults.

Metal / Re: User reviews
« on: June 04, 2011, 09:36:09 PM »
I love it how people on here get really angry and irrational when asked to talk about their favourite albums. Man, it's only music. You were asked a simple question and didn't want to answer it, so I pressed you for more information. So very defensive. There was never any need to write an essay, or some brilliant review of the album; just some thoughts of your own would have been appreciated. You can obviously write to some degree. You've made plenty of posts on here without being criticised. Don't be a wimp with sensitive nipples.

BTW, I'm not English. Not even close. Nice try though, holmes.

This isn't relevant to the conversation; but I don't read Julius Evola, nor do I use him to describe tradition to people. I don't use Prozak's reviews to justify why I enjoy certain albums either. Reading old texts is also fine, but not being able to a) put them in different contexts  or b) put them in a personally relevant perspective or c) being able to explain when and why they apply is usually a sign that something has not been fully understood. Not saying that this is you, just replying to your misrepresentation of my comment.

Metal / Re: User reviews
« on: June 03, 2011, 05:19:43 PM »
I'm sorry, but I didn't make myself clear enough obviously. I would like to hear your thoughts.

I am sure that since this band is "your Burzum" you would have some original thoughts that don't just parrot those that someone else wrote more than a decade ago. That'd be pretty sad really.

Metal / Re: User reviews
« on: June 03, 2011, 01:31:14 AM »
Care to suggest some reasons that make this album compositionally worthwhile? There's so many of these "war metal" bands these days that you could take your pick and get the same neatly wrapped product without any distinction. What do you think severs Blasphemy from this field?

[1] 2 ... 8