Steve08

My opinion is based on objective facts garnered from observing the past, because... wait for it... those ideals were used to create the genre... and modern bands have lost sight of those ideals (now, you have bands forming "to be brutal" or "heavy" or "to sound like X, Y and Z"... not "to write music which rewards the listener on an objective level by providing insight towards some abstract idea or concept through musical expression") so for the genre to continue, rather than stagnate and die... that must happen again, only now, as I said before, it's impossible to "out-do" other bands by trying to achieve aesthetic unfamiliarity, because there's already been 40 years of that. Hence, musical literacy (so as to be able to perceive music on a level other than aeshetics) is needed, so that aspiring musicians can write, and conceive of music on a level that is not strictly aesthetic.

Again, you seem to have no perspective of Metal's history. Heavy metal started when Black Sabbath merged heavy guitar rock (Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Cream) with the soundtracks from horror films (Wikipedia's article on Sabbath will corroborate this with numerous citations, if you care that much). They did this by exclusively using power chords, which, because they do not contain the notes that mark them as major or minor chords, lend themselves to moving in streams, like a melody played in chords. The result is that Black Sabbath structured their songs around the interplay and variation of these melodies, instead of focusing on transitions between points of fixed harmony (static, repeating verses/choruses) like rock/pop music, and subsequently invented a new style of music that took nearly thirty years to grow into the musical ideal first suggested back in 1970.I'm not so much caught up in "trying to prove music as scientifically good/bad", but rather, I believe that one should base their opinion of art in objective logic and reasoning as opposed to the situation which you describe (something that I know is what forms the "evaluation" process of 99% of music listeners). For example, I can listen to a song and note (for example) that there is little consideration to having the individual phrases contain references to previous phrases in the forms of motifs, and hence, understand that that music is not as structurally coherent as, say, Bach, and thusly, I can decide that I don't like that, and not listen to it.

Of course, expecting everyone interpret music that way is quite unrealistic, but I do think that using that sort of process is far more intellectually gratifying, and beneficial compared to the opposite. And while engaging in public dissemination of the ideas of which I speak, it's my hope that at least some of the people who read arguments/debates as opposed to participating in them will find them to be sensible, at the least, though I will confess that trying to be civil towards the other person is certainly ideal for appealing to said observers.This is reasonable.I have to confess that since this is the internet, I don't really give a shit if I hurt someone's feelings or not, but I also understand your point here.What do you believe to be the most recent outbreak of a new subgenre, then?

__________________

ChemicalFire

Have you ever read Ozzy's autobiography?

He explains Sabbaths early writing process as a him singing over a bunch of riffs that Iommi had written.

You're giving FAR too much credit to a bunch of uneducated Brummies. Sure that may of been the outcome of their music but I doubt it was their intention to do what you seem to imply was some kind of musical genius.



It's still just your opinion man. No matter what you think, all things in music are subjective. As this argument has proved. Sure I may not have an opinion you value because I've not spent years looking at guitar tabs... I've had other things I'd rather be doing... like listening to an enjoying music for the sounds it makes in ma ear holes, but in the end my opinion is JUST as valid as yours about what I THINK should/can/will happen in metal. You can't change that no matter how many long fancy paragraphs you write about what you've discovered by staring at guitar pro; basically implying that you are the one tr00 saviour of the realm that is metal. You gotta have a conversation bro. You write to convince as well as a hammer cements bricks together.

The sooner you understand that the sooner you'll chill out.

__________________

Morphogenesis26

I understand what you're saying here, but I think a lot of people read this part and think to themselves, "I highly doubt Sabbath were thinking about variation and interplay! They just let the music flow, man!". So, they take it as any Metal band that is worth their load must be musical messiahs and gods at their instruments to be in the Metal community. I imagine that's the problem a lot of people had, hell, even I had this problem and for two years I was stressing over never being good enough at anything because of it. I kind of moved myself into other genres because of how suffocating that felt, which may be what people mean by "growing out of" Metal as well.

^The first sentence of Chemicals post is a perfect example of what I just said.

__________________
Click this whenever you see my posts.
Click this whenever you make a racist, sexist, homophobic, or just generally unpleasant post.

ChemicalFire

I'd still argue that they weren't fully aware of what they were doing. They were the poorest of the poor in Brum and didn't have a musical education worth a damn if any at all. I'd bet they said "hey this sounds good lets play that". Instead of the stuff Steve has been saying.

__________________

Steve08

No.Like 99% of Metal bands, yes.The end result is the only thing that really matters, now isn't it? Regardless, it's commonly said that the band sought to create the musical equivalent to a horror film.Yes, but would you not agree that one opinion can be based in an objective standard?This makes no sense. Are you trying to make the implication that all occurrences in music are something that we imagine?I haven't even thought this way for as much as a year, and I don't listen to music that doesn't appeal to me emotionally, either, even if I can respect the technical designs that are responsible for creating that music.You are correct in presuming that almost all Metal bands are musically illiterate, however, my whole thing, really, is that by encouraging musical literacy and other such shit, we can have Metal which is CONSCIOUSLY written in the way that I describe. Does that make sense?

__________________

ChemicalFire

I wouldn't say that at all, it would be against everything I've been saying. What I WOULD say that it doesn't make your opinion any greater than any other opinions. If it what makes you happy then I'm all for it, it's cool. It doesn't however make you "right" in any way, shape or form



Okay so perhaps not everything, but it all boils down to opinion. There are lots of bands considered good by people other than you that probably don't like, that don't share the characteristics of metal bands you like. Which again is fine, but again what it doesn't do is mean that these bands are intrinsically bad or not metal as it is all based on what you think is good and what you think is metal, you have objective information to back up your opinion, you know why you like things and why you don't, but you've not stumbled upon some great intrinsic law of the universe which indicates this is what metal is, and always HAS to be.



But would you listen to a band that appeals to you emotionally to start with, but then once they don't fit in with "Steve's Laws of Metal" would you stop?



You can encourage musical literacy without saying that IT HAS TO BE THIS BECAUSE IT'S WHAT I THINK.

Because that's incredibly closed minded.

__________________

eazy-c

Beyond the physical structure of the sounds waves involved, pretty much everything in music is open to at least some degree of subjective interpretation.

And simply giving people an education in music theory is useless without them having some sort of creative spark or something worthwhile to say. That's why you get people with music degrees who'll never write an interesting piece and people like Black Sabbath revolutionisng music from a council flat in the middle of a shithole like Birmingham.

__________________

Steve08

So, do you believe that objective reality, in fact, does not exist at all, but is rather a solipsistic dream invented by each human on an individual basis?I'm curious. Do you think that biology is all a matter of conjecture? Interpret that question as literally as possible.No, because I can very quickly ascertain whether or not something meets my standards while I'm in the process of listening to it.So, by this logic, I could read a piece of music and see that the tones A, C and E are written on that sheet, and someone with an equivalent knowledge/understanding would possibly interpret that as, uh, something else?

Hence why I think art is essentially a method of expressing the human condition (which you allude to in mentioning "something worthwhile to say"), and if that expression is not technically sound (which is why I advocate musical literacy; to determine whether or not something is written haphazardly in regards to what that artist is trying to "say"), it's compromised in some objective way (obviously, the average listener could hear it and decide whether or not they like it, but that's not based in any objective reason to begin with).

__________________

eazy-c

People assumed Newton had gravity sewn up for hundered of years. Any good scientist will tell you the models we use are by no means objectively right, they're simply practical.

EDIT: What do you make of this Steve?

__________________

ChemicalFire

Reality is open to personal interpretation, which is why we have several religions and philosophies which no one can agree on. You yourself subscribe to one of them which seems to leave no scope for the possibility of others.

No but that is a science, not an art.

You're treating art like a science which is the crux of the issue I have with your arguments. It's YOUR way of looking at music, doesn't mean it's everyone's, again. OPINION.

__________________

Steve08

OK. So, how does that not utterly corroborate my thought that there is a way to evaluate music which is literally just more logical than listening to something and seeing how that makes you feel?

edit: I'll listen to that song in a moment.
edit2: That song strikes me primarily as sonic wallpaper, in that "something happens" in the form of vocals, but the musical accompaniment just... doesn't... change (other than the introduction of basslines, at times... while the underlying piano progression remains the same). Shit's boring, IMO.Yes, but when you see something happening, you can observe facts about what is happening. If you see a clown on a bike crashing into a schoolbus, how can you interpret that in ANY other way than a factual one? Maybe he could have actually been riding a moped or something!!!... even though, in fact, said clown was riding a bicycle.But the process of noting how a life-form exists, and establishing the notion that there is a quantifiable idea of "life" in general, is EXACTLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT, guy.

__________________

eazy-c

I don't see how anything could be more logical than listening to music to evaluate it...

__________________

Steve08

Which is exactly what I'm doing, except in a more defined, articulated way. Huh.

__________________

ChemicalFire

Analysis of musical structure =/= just listening to it.



Way to miss the point bro, waaaay to miss the point.

If you've not got it yet, I'm not saying you can't believe what you believe about music. I'm saying it's not any more right than anyone else's view point, because it just isn't.

__________________

Steve08

You can analyze it... by listening to it... are you kidding me?What the fuck are you talking about? That is literally central to the crux of this entire debate.It has more evidence behind it, which, again, ties in with my overall stance that people should judge music based on objective standards... not subjective ones.

__________________

eazy-c

You're evaluating music based purely on it's compositional merit, I imagine in an attempt to make yourself feel intellectually superior because everyone in real life thinks the music you listen is unstructured noise.

I've seen you make no comments regarding without a doubt the most important aspect of music; performance. You've rubbished the idea the production and aesthetic choices are an part of an artist's music (hint; it's 2012, what you choose to do with regards to recording, production and packaging are integral parts of the creative process). Having worked with professional musicians on a regular basis, I can tell you they'd probably just laugh at your ability to wildly miss the point when listening to a piece of music.

Have you ever read any Descartes? You could learn a lot from Meditations on First Philosophy.

__________________

ChemicalFire

It isn't, at least it hasn't been for a while. The last few pages have been me trying to explain that while you think what you think you think it doesn't make you "right" in any way beyond me looking at a painting and saying "yup, he used blue in this painting".

__________________

Steve08

No, I have a lot of friends who listen to the same kind of music that I do, actually.Aesthetics only matter in the PRESENTATION of music, not how that music exists on its own right (compositional merits, as you described). If the aesthetics aren't wildly contradictory to the point of the music itself then what reason is there to talk about as if it actually, like, matters in determining the quality of the music as it exists purely as a collection of tones? A band like The Acacia Strain writes music based around the premise of "being heavy" but the problem with their "heaviness" is that it's an illusion that is completely created by their guitar tone and tuning; if they played the same songs in E standard on 6 string guitars with a clean tone, nobody would give a shit, and yet Mayhem's Freezing Moon sounds like pure sepulchral coldness even if you play it in a different tuning, or a different instrument entirely, such as a violin, piano, bassoon, etc. because the writing is sound.No. I'll make a note of it.

__________________

ChemicalFire

But they don't do that and it sounds heavy. So what's the problem?

Why does it matter if it can be converted as such or doesn't it.

Other than the fact that you say so of course, because all those people who LIKE that band are ALL wrong and all have INVALID opinions.

__________________