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 - detrath

[1] 2 ... 6
1
Metal / Re: Averse Sefira denounces part-time metallers
« on: April 30, 2009, 03:56:35 AM »
Metal's heart, when it was honest, was anti-fashion and nomadic, not an entrenched culture with a fashion. You're not supposed to come at it from the outside. You ought to find yourself in it. Honesty is never fashionable.

Long hair and tattoos will never really be fashionable, even if some people see it as a fashionable ideal in their own little sub-cultural corner. If they're in it for the fashion, they might end up looking the same as a Hessian but they will be living their lives in a peculiar middle ground between an ideal they want to live and the normal life they should be living if they weren't being pretentious as fuck but are instead failing at due to interference from their fashion pretense. The honest Hessian has no such problem. When an honest genre is new, the pretentious doppelgangers don't exist, so there's no chance of being fooled and optimism runs rampant across all circles. When the genre gets old, the imitators appear. The honest folk wont be fooled. The imitators don't mean much to them. However, the public wont be able to tell the difference between truth and lies. They aren't the artists, they don't have access to the generation side of things, only to what things look like coming from the other side. They get all the representation, but might be lacking in apprehension of the nature of the will behind it. That was of course already a problem anyway, already something to thematize and express in art. Even for those that do feel the force behind the music, all new music will be automatically accompanied by doubt. Our present condition: we love the old classics, but we are presently sick of metal. Anything within its confines seems superfluous and capable of being an aspect of corruption. The truths must be kept healthy, they must be dressed anew, a new work must be written. Why write Hamlet over and over, find a new vessel for truth. The genre is a collected work, there is no point repeating it over and over once it's finished.

Since the existence of imitators fucks public perception generally, it fucks over the audience for the music. Suddenly you can't reach your audience with your art anymore by playing the same style. No matter how honest you are, there is doubt and confusion on the other end. The representations are fucked. Any form of recognition is warped. The need to effectively reach an audience will also push metal beyond its old masks. Averse Sefira are correct about honesty, but it's over for black metal. An honest creative calling shouldn't tell one to repeat the style of black metal to deliver artistic truths. There's no point saying the same thing the same way. Say the same thing in a new way.

If we're talking about individual-focused expression, then who fuckin' cares of course. Do what you want. Do what makes you happy.

2
Interzone / Re: A new school shooting in Finland
« on: September 26, 2008, 11:20:50 PM »
http://www.corrupt.org/news/the_psychology_behind_school_shootings_protests_against_and_reflections_of_a_system_that_fails

New article. Read a little more carefully?

The new article is much better and it was written after my comment. Don't be a twat.

3
Interzone / Re: A new school shooting in Finland
« on: September 25, 2008, 05:14:55 PM »
It bears repeating:

Even though the public's response is typically one of denial, and their reaction is not one that attempts to understand deeper causes, it is equally unsound to go too far in the other direction that corrupt is intent on doing by distorting the facts about the shooter himself, as if he were secretly somehow ideologically in league with the corrupt ideology, just nobody knew about it. Where is the evidence for the bold claims on the front page? Where is the evidence that he had all the thoughts he is portrayed to have? It is bold speculation, and nothing better than that.

The more reasonable thing to say about this is less focused on the shooter himself. The evidence says he is someone that has grown up without any value for human life. The better question to ask is: how is this possible, and what is within our power to improve any conditions that may have contributed to his creation? Then, you give your story about the degradation of values in modern society, that in our alienated lives we no longer share in any sense of community and so have lost our values, right down to the value of human life. There are no inherent values to appeal to - in our corrupt way of living, we have undermined a foundation that goes very deep, to the value of humanity itself.

If you have not been lost in the modern machine yourself, you would say no more about the shooter than what I have said, for I am not interested in raising up the mental state of someone that sees it fit to shoot students at a catering school. He is to be condemned regardless of the apathy and fear around you; however, the background story is importantly different, for it is correct to say we should try to look deeper into the general conditions that effect all of us, including these shooters.

Corrupt's distortion is just as unstomachable as the major news media's, and will alienate the reasonable minds corrupt hopes to attract.

In short: the shooter did not want to communicate anything to anybody. He didn't care. If you think he wanted to, then he would care about his audience, which would contradict his obvious total misanthropy, his hatred of everyone and himself. The whole world can go to shit for all he cares.  It is more important to focus on what WE learn from events like this.

4
Interzone / Re: Metal today SUCKS, kids
« on: August 13, 2008, 06:52:16 AM »
Eventually you reach a point in life where you realize youth has expired. The things that once seemed exciting no longer are and there is a change in life direction. Anyway, I look here and hear people talk about how great this new crop of blackened death or deathened black metal bands are. I've heard samples from this generation of dark and evil metal and I just don't get it. It's mostly derivative to my ears and ergo fundamentally boring. I started listening to dark-sided metal in the early nineties and I remember hearing the previous generation of metal listeners making similar accusations about "my" metal. Back then, for example, the old farts thought the early Norwegian black metal sound was indistinguishable from old Bathory. In other words, current metal was dismissed by the old farts as extrapolation, natural consequence, obvious development, or second-rate in other words. Now I'm a pretty studious guy generally and I have a developed rationale for why I think those old farts were ignorant mainstreamers or otherwise illiterate slobs. However, I recognize that historically a self-conscious break from the past signals a decline in culture. I look at metal musicians past and present; and when I see them or hear them talk, I honestly think "what a bunch of inconsequential losers" or "what a bunch of marginally articulate dirtbags." What does this mean? My thought is incomplete here so I plant an ellipsis in its place ...

Your post seems to be a bit ambivalent. You criticize the new derivative crop of metal that relies on the previous generation of metal (death and black metal), but then criticize that criticism by pointing out that the previous generation said the same thing about death and black metal when they were emerging. You feel their criticism is illegitimate (but then why couldn't your criticism of the new crop be just as illegitimate? More must be said, as you allude to). The situation is made worse by pointing out that self-conscious breaks from the past signal declines in culture, so if we were to self-consciously try to break away from what has come before (death and black metal)  because all the new bands are derivative, we would be even more lost (and I think it further implies we are already culturally lost if we are reaching like this). You then seem to express the gloomy nature of this situation by your feeling that so many musicians sound inconsequential and marginally articulate. Your overall opinion seems to be that you think the genre is at a hopeless point - it is cursed to continually produce derivative extrapolations on previous works, and if the artists were to become aware of this depressing situation and try to break free, they are bringing decline to the culture.

I think the solution is this: not all extrapolations are merely derivative, merely extrapolations. Creative insights are required in the song writing process and breathe life into previously stated ideas. This forces the genre to go in a new direction but not in a self-conscious way for the sake of going in a new direction. The genre goes in a new direction because it has to, because that is what it does if it is still alive. From the outside, it can be called merely derivative, merely an extrapolation if the person judging does not also have a feel for the culture, if the culture is not alive within them. They will quickly become pessimistic. All music really can be seen as derivative or as an extraploation in this most general way. All the music we hear nowadays is in some way an extrapolation on or derivation of something before. If artists simply sat around judging what came before them in their tradition, then they are the last men of it - there is only the past, and slowly they let the genre die. If they all judge that the genre has died, it is dead.

If there really is some great eternal cultural component to metal, it can be lived, and those who live it will continue to produce great works in its honor and to preserve the culture. They contribute the extra component that escapes extrapolation and derivation, that instead motivates and lets the music blossom forth alive. We must be careful not to become mere analysts in our judgments, for if we do, the culture has died within us and is weaker for it. Any genre will seem dead from your perspective if you only analyze it. We must NOT only be cultural scientists or tourists! A Muslim is not a Muslim because he loves Islam and finds it fascinating; he is only truly a Muslim because it lives in him and so he lives it in one way or another; the label only genuinely applies after that fact. This is just as true of metalheads.

Genres go extinct like animal species, with something (or more often, many things) causing all members to go extinct, particularly something systematically unhealthy in the environment. A culture's environment is the people who compose it. This is where it lives. All members of a given species are dead when no one feels the vitality of the genre in them anymore; this can happen easily when everyone feels disenchanted by thousands of terrible amateur bands that don't understand shit (a cultural environmental catastrophe). The culture's air has become polluted and confusing, and no longer can it flourish. It's then quite easy for the genres to slip as fossils into the confines of museums where they are merely studied. I really hope this doesn't happen with metal, because its vitality is so engaging and beautiful! If some metal species do die out,  though, we shouldn't feel so bad that we fall into despair and eternal mourning. It means their time is over, and their niche is gone. So long as the world helps nurture certain lively impulses in human beings, something like metal will always be reborn and people will live it out anew. Just don't forget to live - don't spend all your time around tombs!

5
Interzone / Re: How to reform metal?
« on: July 17, 2008, 08:30:08 PM »
The goal is to create a genre title that applies retroactively and inherits the qualities of metal that we want to see in future acts, then? Sorry if this is obvious - I just wanted to ask and give a statement to be clear.

I like Bagel's suggestion alot - in the most general sense, metal should be referred to as cultural music. Instead of a genre heading we get a valuable way of talking about the relevant music and it should indeed start interesting discussions as he pointed out. It doesn't need to be opposed to compositional music. It can often involve complex composition, but it doesn't have to. The important distinction to be made is to oppose it to the general mass of cultureless pop music. It is then our job to discuss this culture.

As summoned said, genre titles apply retroactively, so my anxiety was then: what good does it do to create one now when we don't even know what lies on the horizon yet? Well if we want a general heading, referring to it as cultural music will work. Whatever direction the next great surge is in, we will find it by seeing it as a movement in Hessian cultural music and shared world view. hi.arc.tow is valuable to this end, for it can consolidate potential candidates.

Do we really need a genre heading, though? Death and black metal have important historical ties. There is a certain tradition that is followed, a way of playing that is passed down, inspires, and then is worked on further. This musical side is important to the genre distinction.  What seems to get lost is the culture and world view side of the genres. Are we not simply interested in music that has not lost its culture, regardless of what kind of metal it fits into? I think the fact that there are these two sides to a genre distinction makes creating one retroactively that will also apply to all great things on the horizon incredibly difficult. New stuff will probably take from death and black, but also from who knows what else. We are simply interested in hessian metal, in metal that does not stray from its own culture.

There have been some good suggestions, so I don't see why this discussion reeks of fail... unless the it was wrong-headed from the start, in which case it would be helpful to flesh out the reasons why this is not worth talking about. I think it's pretty damn interesting to think about.

6
Interzone / Re: How to reform metal?
« on: July 10, 2008, 07:56:03 AM »
Nothing we do insofar as we are commentators on the genre will matter. If a revival is going to happen, it will happen because a group of musicians get inspired and write inspiring work, and it will probably alienate the old crowd as black metal did when death metal became bloated. Metal will reform itself when people are sick of metal as a whole as we are. AIDS is right, the scenes are broken and full of social retardation in every sense of the term with social drive retarding creative impulse and insight. There is too much of a pre-existing sense of what metal should and must be, what it must sound like and look like, and people are hasty to judge what's good and what sucks, what's metal and what's not, and amplifying this wont improve anything as far as genre health is concerned. When a new song is ready to be born, it will rise out of the beer bloated STD ridden carcasses of those who heralded metal's death. We can re-categorize all we like, but it is clear that the reality of the situation is a disgusting corpse. We may as well dance on its grave and let a new song come to us... it is exciting and hilarious that things are so fucked.

7
Interzone / Re: ANUS = faggot emo movement?
« on: June 09, 2008, 05:42:08 AM »
Probably a shitty choice, pick some niche of jazz that really does like to rely on those, or whatever other genre, it really doesn't fuckin matter for the argument. I was imagining a band with jazz guitar, drums, etc at the time, it wasn't a careful decision on my part with respect to possibilities of instrumentation.

8
Interzone / Re: ANUS = faggot emo movement?
« on: June 09, 2008, 05:16:34 AM »
If all that holds all of metal together as a genre is the agreement on using guitar, bass, and drums, then what makes it metal and not just jazz or rock or any other genre that likes to depend on those instruments?

To me, the most important, basic thing going on with Hessian.org and the DLA and the kind of metal analysis that goes on around here is the attempt to look for that something else that is often very difficult to articulate that is behind why these bands seem to us to hang together so well in this broad category "metal". The more you start to try to differentiate the genre and decide what makes metal metal, the more you find yourself building into it and before long you're talking about alot of things you might not have thought would go into it at first glance like attitude and values.

The more features that are drawn out in this manner, the more discerning the eye for genre distinction and genre quality. Is this worth doing or is it just a bunch of wasted breath and overanalysis? Undoubtedly it can be taken too far, but at the same time, I think issues of genre quality are important. For example, we want to be able to say more about why 1,385,238 bedroom black metal bands are so awful than merely that we dislike them or think they suck. It would be nice to be able to articulate some reasons that are justified by some more in-depth standardized categories.

9
Interzone / Re: ANUS = faggot emo movement?
« on: June 08, 2008, 04:51:13 PM »
If your opinion disagrees with theirs, you're being too subjective. Everything they think becomes objective. Forget about competing interpretations and arguing for the best one. How can one so absolutely fail to be self aware? To be so absolutely ungracious to competing interpretations? They refuse to even attempt to engage the DLA interpretation. ANUS absolutely accepts the task of engaging their interpretation, but they can't see that there's a battle going on. No one is trying to claim the DLA is infallible; if they're going to bitch and moan, they should engage with it.

Shit, man... I needed to see this, I forgot how bad it gets out there.

10
Interzone / Re: the relation of age to composing
« on: March 13, 2008, 05:24:31 AM »
I've wondered about this too. It seems to me that much of the aesthetic of black metal and the concepts behind it are born in the rebellious youthful mindset. If notions of these aspects are at the root of creating the music, then perhaps an aesthetic and conceptual maturation is required if we are to expect consistent contributions instead of musicians constantly burning out on the genre and producing tainted works.

One of the defining features of black metal is its vicious nihilistic edge. This, as anus espouses, cannot sustain itself (unless it becomes fatalism); it is transitional in nature. Perhaps the maturation is rather open; whatever will follow the nihilistic clearing away that has influenced many young Hessians will be what a more enduring form of music can be based on, one that is beyond the need for nihilistic states of mind. However, nihilistic themes are so central that it's not clear if we could even call something that went beyond them black metal or an extension of black metal.

However, the frenzied states of mind and activity that musicians and listeners alike enter into do not seem so easily seperable as merely temporary features, and such states require alot of energy. Perhaps they do require youth, but maybe not. Perhaps they just require a new inspiration. Black metal is simply a dying star, as far as inspiration is currently concerned. Something longer burning would allow for more extended contributions through time, and maybe this can arise as the genre and its adherents mature if they don't succumb to the chaos they've wrapped around themselves.

11
Metal / Re: Suspiciously similar riffs in metal music.
« on: February 20, 2008, 04:14:15 AM »
Bathory - Born for Burning opening riff and Gorgoroth - (Under) the Pagan Monolith at around 1:30, in particular the way both riffs really get going after the build-up with a gong/gong-like noise. Bathory is everywhere in black metal, but these are suspiciously similar...

12
Interzone / Re: "US shoppers killed in gun rampage "
« on: February 16, 2008, 05:54:52 AM »
Quote
There are two questions you should ponder because you've made assumptions.

1. Is killing innocent people without declaring war at the very least the intention of a nihilist?

2. Do the majority of moderns want to be challenged at all? I'm not speaking in physical terms, but ideological which threaten their absurd conception of reality.

You say these victims weren't useless. Warrior tribes would say otherwise.


The answer to 1 is "not necessarily, depends on your nihilist" and to 2 is of course "no". I don't see what those have to do with Ruben's point, which is generally not in contention - the fact that someone is gunned down randomly does not imply that that person is useless. A random act of shooting does not make distinctions amongst targets. Anyone could be a victim of such violence, nihilist or average American. We can all find ourselves in any situation. It is presumptuous to make such an assumption about real people. The fact that it is being assumed that the people were useless is independent from the fact that they were gunned down and rather stems from the belief that the vast majority of people are useless and so these people probably were too.

However, I don't think letting disgruntled young men that have withdrawn from reality due to mental illness or radical mistrust of the world or whatever their symptom of withdrawl loose on society with weapons is anyone's idea of a good challenge, either, nor does it seem to line up with anyone's notion of what a good warrior would be. There tend to be honor codes amongst warriors. They do not want to be mechanical killing machines that serve out their function and then suicide. They want to fight for the highest ideals of their people, whatever those may be. These shooters are just as much products of a corrupt system as the crowd watching television. The two groups are just as withdrawn from reality. Within the act of violence, both the victim and the shooter are getting a heavy dose of reality slammed in their face (quite literally). Maybe this is the only positive realization that comes out of it, but it of course never lasts in our times. Death isn't something anyone is comfortable pondering for any reason, even when it is presented as so close to themselves when they consider a random-target act of violence such as these.

13
Interzone / Re: other metal sites
« on: February 02, 2008, 04:46:24 PM »
Quote

I'm getting it from the way people often act around here, as well as the above.

There is always under the surface or outright an insinuation by some users that everybody else here is completely beholden to ANUS unquestionably, and that when things strike at this perceived infallibility it is a personal victory of overcoming.  Instead of talking about ideas, we get distracted by the people clutching their thoughts before all else when they act this way.



I think I agree with you here, and perhaps I ran with the vitriolic aspect of Moses post, and if I did I apologize. My point was not to make a claim about ANUS members (what the hell do I know what anyone here reads or listens to; onan could have an opeth fetish, it really doesn't matter). I was trying to make a point that was a little more general. I think what I wanted to express is that seeing a site like this that holds views very similar to ANUS views, and yet that diverges in some ways from ANUS views, can be valuable for someone relatively new to these ways of thinking. Seeing recurring themes and contemplating where and why ideas are diverging is a valuable exercise.

You are also of course right in mentioning that we should get back to those ideas.

14
Interzone / Re: other metal sites
« on: February 02, 2008, 04:11:48 PM »
Quote
All I read from it is "Site B is ANUS-like site praising albums ANUS does not.  The reviews are equally valid ["intelligent"] and thus there should be some syncretism of 'worthwhile albums' because I like some of those praised on Site B that ANUS ignores."

Why is everyone always so hung up on "personal taste"?  Even in a place where there is purportedly some level of agreement about these ideas, there is the constant defensive ego-sniping of the underconfident.

No, ANUS reviews are not dogma, but that does not support the notion that there NEEDS to be some other site out there with the "legitimacy" to "overturn" them.


I don't see where you're getting any of what you just said from the posts above.

I do not see anyone defending personal taste, and I do not see anyone saying this other site needs to exist. The Opeth albums he gives aesthetic praise to I think are boring, if you want to bring personal taste into this, but it doesn't matter. The only point was that it is often helpful to see the opinions of others, especially when they mesh in most ways with our own (the Opeth album reviews are bad cases generally), in order to draw out what is important to us and what we will make more concrete. It can be blinding to only have one view phrased one way before the eyes. This is not a strike against the truth or legitimacy of the DLA reviews, either.

15
Interzone / Re: other metal sites
« on: February 02, 2008, 04:03:57 PM »
Quote

Somehow the site legitimizes the praise of substandard work?  By what virtue?  Using your ridiculously open-ended logic, all sites containing all opinions are somehow helpful in constant re-valuation of all standards by their very existence.


Albums are not absolutely good or bad. Mentioning a few positive aspects of a substandard work does not entail some revaluation of our higher standards for quality. It's simply saying "hey, this has some redeeming qualities if we're using a different standard." The reviewer of this site, although a little more liberal in his willingness to praise than this site, is still sensitive to bands losing their spirits and inspiration and producing substandard works, such as his negative review of Morbid Angel's "Domination" and the fact that most of his Opeth reviews are negative (the only praise he will yield is that some of the riffs are interesting. One could be of the opinion that this is a fairer review than someone saying nothing is praiseworthy whatsoever.)

[1] 2 ... 6