Following in the footsteps of Sarcófago without becoming their clone, Goat Semen play a form of primitive black metal with riffs bordering on grind death. The music here is of consistent style, but its coherence is more metaphorical than literal, advancing more through sequences of sections that make sense together in mood but not necessarily in theme or other basic music element. Good variety while keeping a clear concept and a traditional sense of beginning and ending to the songs balance the previously described loose musical coherence.
While fans of this particular style, such as myself, will enjoy this album thoroughly and will play it on repeat for hours, the loose kinks in its armor will be apparent to the discerning listener. For a more exemplary release in this vein the listener looking for musical excellence is encouraged to take a serious look into Exhumantion’s Opus Death. While Goat Semen’s music is exciting in its juvenile chaos barely harnessed by recognizable traditional gestures of music, Exhumantion’s is a study in solid musical composition with an enviable rigor propelling it to much higher levels of refinement, offering a more layered experience than Ego Sum Satana.
Tags: 2015, Black Metal, Ego Sum Satana, Ego Svm Satana, goat semen, sarcofago
David Rosales is a jew.
David. You wrote:
“As has been explained more than once, music lies somewhere in the middle between subjective and objective. The same is true of natural human languages. That is NOT to say that music is like a natural human language. Only a line of comparison on this characteristic is been drawn.”
This is a useful comparison.
Let’s say that language is *inter-subjective*. Whether a sentence is a well-formed, grammatical, sentence depends not on anything ‘outside’ of humans. So it’s not an ‘objective’ matter. However, whether a sentence is grammatical cannot change depending on whether you or I (as speakers of the same language) think about it. That is, it’s not a ‘subjective’ matter either.
Take 10 linguists at random from the universities. Give them a sentence, say: ‘The grass is green this spring’. I bet all will agree that it is grammatically well-formed. Give them a second sentence, say: ‘the green in spring grass’. All will agree, I bet, that there is something wrong with it.
Now, take 10 musicologists at random. Play them a song from Legion. I should bet that there is significant disagreement about whether the song is ‘well-formed’, according to the ‘rules’ of ‘musical syntax’. If there isn’t significant disagreement, it will probably be because they agree that it *isn’t* well formed.
Conclusion (if indeed my ‘premises’ are correct): Comparing the ‘grammar’ of music with the grammar of language is useful because it shows that music is LESS inter-subjective (less ‘objective’) than grammar.
You then gave me a bunch of general and I must say rather vague statements on Mysticism, followed by the Stanford encyclopedia article on beauty.
What you did do is give me any objective (or ‘inter-subjective’) basis upon which readers, like me, Ara, and others, can take you to be judging music from.
I think there is one, but I don’t know how to flesh it out. What I DON’T believe is that any such inter-subjective basis can vindicate extremely fine-grained judgements about Covenant vs Legion, for example.
Hence, I come back to the suggestion to be more general in your approach and less fine-grained.
Don’t argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, in other words :)
“Whether a sentence is a well-formed, grammatical, sentence depends not on anything ‘outside’ of humans.”
Wrong.
Grammar cannot be subjective. Grammar is part of the conventions to communicate something on the “objective” side.
It is created by humans, different.
What do you mean “wrong”??
I wasn’t saying grammar is subjective. I was saying it is INTER-SUBJECTIVE. That means it is not relative to one individual in a population, BUT IT IS RELATIVE TO THE ENTIRE POPULATION!
Example: different linguistic populations (nations) have different grammars! (Pinker not-withstanding – or if you buy pinker’s ‘universal grammar’ – then extend the ‘linguistic population’ to all of human kind! It is surely possible that some alien race has a vastly different grammar!)
Because you didnt say that in the first sentence. That’s all.
After that you developed a different thought. Now, let’s move on. You say music is still more subjective? I’m not sure I am interested in evaluating “degrees of subjectiveness” yet, seems like pretty murky territory.
Well, it is something that I think you ought to do. This “murky territory” is that which you reside in many of your articles.
Philosophers always check their epistemology before engaging in their wider projects.
I’m not a philosophy teacher on a philosophy blog.
I give references, you can check the epistemology on those references.
That’s why I give them to you, for us to be on the same level of information.
Unlikely, because grammar reflects the logical demands of communication. Language reflects its uses which are remarkably similar across cultures, and they tend to have parallel structures even if those use different methods grammatically despite serving similar communicative purposes.
Exactly!
And this is rooted in genetics — innate human nature.
I believe that music perception, and beauty is rooted in this, which is why the post-modern view is bullshit.
But only time and research will give 100% objective and direct answers.
They’re actually making progress in that direction.
Fuck post-modernist ego-full intellectuals.
This is the classic correspondence/coherence problem. I can also write you computer code all day long that will compile just fine and do absolutely nothing. It can even be highly destructive.
In the same way, it is easy to arrange tokens to fit grammar and mood requirements without having them communicate anything. That is because the communication is formed of the interpretation of the tokens in reference to experience and logic, not the tokens themselves.
I think Schopenhauer went down an intelligent path by saying that music bypassed language to emulate nerve impulses, or our responses to reality on a level below consciousness. That is why it is so effective: it “sounds like” things we have experienced, and by removing them from context, creates a clarity through broader application.
I don’t find these appeals to populism, even “gated populism,” to be effective arguments. People are fallible; musicology is just one interpretation of music. We can point to mathematical reasons for the musical rules but as Goedel would remind us, no set of rules can describe the entire system, and sometimes wrong things sound good in the right sequences.
*didn’t do
David:
What is your take on death metal band Inernal Dominion reviewed on DMU a few months ago?
https://www.deathmetal.org/news/infernal-dominion-salvation-through-infinite-suffering/
Nothing like you heard before, reviving the underground with savage war metal, grind and a few nice touches of old school punk – catchy, yet complex songs – this is definitely the best fuckking album in 10 years! Crawling from the depths of New Zeeland these insane warriors will fill you with virgin-raping hate! 9/10
MENSTRUAL GOAT – POTENS DAEMONIUM (2016)
1 Intro (Sanctus Latrina)
2 Supreme defecation and cosmic death
3 Dismal gender abolishment
4 Hologasmic Goatwar
5 Storm of Belial’s magical tragedies
6 Nuclear Cumvomit 666
7 Fisting the black past
9 Nix rex Zazzuzu Pax (XII XVI)
9 Welcome to Costco, I love you (outro)