My answer: No, it's Romantic, in the same way Keats, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Byron, Blake and Milton were. Thus there's a tendency toward morbid, naturalistic, occult and bizarre imagery. They were fascinated by imagination, and by life's similarity to the mind....

BUT if you did want to hear some top-notch death metal:

1. Massacra - Final Holocaust
2. Deicide - Legion
3. Morbid Angel - Blessed Are the Sick
4. Therion - Beyond Sanctorum
5. Sepultura - Morbid Visions
6. Incantation - Onward to Golgotha
7. Morpheus Descends - Ritual of Infinity
8. Necrophobic - The Nocturnal Silence
9. Obituary - Cause of Death
10. Suffocation - Effigy of the Forgotten
11. Atheist - Unquestionable Presence
12. Dismember - Like an Ever-Flowing Stream
13. Amorphis - The Karelian Isthmus
14. At the Gates - The Red in the Sky is Ours
15. Demilich - Nespithe
16. Asphyx - The Rack

Yes.

No. Rebut that.

Sepultura sure as hell wasn't satanic.
Slayer is.
Now. Does Slayer worship Satan? I don't think so. I think they're atheists. The whole thing is a joke to them. But, I'm sure there are bands that would call themselves satanists.
Why not?

Is the genre of 'death metal' Satanic as a whole?
Well. I don't think that the categories of metal or that cut and dry. I don't think there is such a thing as 'death metal'. It's all rock'n'roll to me, baby!

when bands like metallica and korn started claiming they were metal, it became necessary for good bands to branch off into categories like black metal, death metal, thrash metal, goth metal and black metal.

detha metal is a cross between speed metal and black metal, there is nothing satanic implied. any relation between satanism and forms of metal are exaggerated from the denounciation of religion by these bands. most are atheist.

Metallica claiming to be metal?
Uhh.
I still say it's all rock'n'roll but Metallica was metal.
I suspect that your problem with this fact is that to you Metallica is post-Black Album. While to anybody who is actually a fan of the genre (which doesn't really exist) knows that you should only refer to pre-Black Album albums.
Metallica ceased to exist in 90 whatever when the Black Album came out. More properly, the became deathly ill with popularity and it wasn't until the next album was released that the death certificate was signed.

Anyway.
If you want to talk about Heavy Metal, I believe the term was coined for Deep Purple. Might be wrong about that though. And Led Zeppelin is often hailed as the true harbingers of heavy metal.

But. As to the branchings of categories. People have been doing that shit for far longer than Korn ever came into existence.

Regardless. It's all rock'n'roll, baby.
If I'd say that any of the categories is valid then thrash would be. Because thrash is about the heavy muted power chords that what is now thought of as heavy metal consists of. The rest is all variations on thrash but only in topic matter. Not musical content.

(And. By the way. You've listed black metal twice.)

I am getting tired of these threads. we don't know if there is a Satan, nor what Satan would be like if he existed, so this whole thread (and the other ones like it) are pointless speculation with no possible definitive conclusions. they are a waste of time, and frankly I am getting tired of the non-science discussion on SCIforums, it attracts people with no interest in science. I would not care about the non-science threads if it were just science minded people entertaining themselves while waiting for a good science elated thread to pop up (which is what many people here do) but it is slipping away from that.

Invert,

i have all of the metallica albums(i stole them during a LAN swap a year ago) however i could hae jsut as easily downloaded one song and listened to that 100 times over, that is metallica, they have 2 songs, which they tweak the lyrics and music slightly, alternating between track 1 and track 2 on the album so people without a short torm memory think it is a new album, and all of the tarcks are different.

and deep purple?? they are not death metal, not even close. they sound more like a jazz band with electric guitars.

listen to a track like opus relinque by tristania, and you will know what goth/balck metal is. metallica doesnt even make the metal genre. they are half way between hick and hard rock

death metal.. it's just a way to reach the top.. it's only music.. :lol: about worshipin satan.. it's only business..

Is death metal Satanic?

Does it matter?

thanks for the rationalism harps. I was beginning to think everyone has lost their mind.

Because it's important that all you bright and shiny people learn the sacred words of Praise Hell, Satan!!

Kill your mother.

Then eat her!!!!!!

Screw you,all of you who say Metallica is not Metal?!
I am presuming Elvis was a pop star and Michael jackson a pianist?

Metallica was the one of the better metal bands out there, they produced some other cool stuff too... i'd say they had really nice stuff...I mean even in the softer songs, i used to love them all, Turn the page,Nothing else matters etc...

But yeah AC/DC has its own charm that no one can take away....

INvert,

Led Zepplin as harbinger of heavy metal? what?.... you consider Black dog, kashmir, stairway to heaven as heavy metal?...hehe...
black sabbath...now thats something...

I'm talking about accepted definition.
The term 'heavy metal' has been along far longer than 20 years which is how long ago what is now commonly thought of as 'heavy metal' was making it's first baby steps.

As I've said (here or in one of the other million metal and satan threads) the term was originally coined for Deep Purple.

Compare Deep Purple and Sepultura and tell me what they have in common.

And. Led Zeppelin is considered by many to be one of the true fathers of heavy metal music.

absolutely nothing. the definition has obviously changed if deep purple was heavy metal

The 'definition' doesn't exist.
That's my point.
It's all rock'n'roll.

You call one thing heavy metal.
Someone else calls something heavy metal.
A third calls something else entirely heavy metal.

There is no such thing as heavy metal.
But. There is a thing called rock'n'roll.

Here.
Read what wikipedia has to say about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music

The term Heavy Rock first reared its head in 1969 in England.. it was a British invention and it was applied to bands such as Led Zep, Deep Purple, Free and others who have seeped out of my memory. Later, they coined the term Heavy Metal for bands like Black Sabbath and Uriah Heep. After that, the term beacame simply Metal as the genre gained popularity in the US and from then on we've had all kinds of ***Metal. I still prefer Pat Metheny!

Sepultura sure as hell wasn't satanic.

The band that did songs like Antichrist, War, Troops of Doom, Bestial Devastation etc. is NOT Satanic?

You think strange ways.

You call one thing heavy metal.
Someone else calls something heavy metal.
A third calls something else entirely heavy metal.


Someone else might call it a UFO. That doesn't make their opinion important.

And death metal is not heavy metal!

LOL

That doesn't make their opinion important.

So. All the heavy metal bands that existed in the late 60's and 70's and which have virtually nothing in common with what you call heavy metal are misnomers as heavy metal does not cover their genre, despite the fact that the term was in use and was used to label their music...?
Oh?

Ever consider that your simplistic opinion is the one that's not important?
Or. Did you ever consider that the simplistic labeling is what's not important?

Did you happen to peruse the wikipedia link I gave? It gives an excellent description of what the term 'heavy metal' encompasses. The old style rock and roll was blues based. Heavily based on the 'blues shuffle'.

Heavy metal was a moving away from the blues and moving more into mode of music dependent upon power chords and a more complex rhythm.

So. Just because your mind is unable to view bands such as Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple and other old school bands as 'heavy metal' doesn't mean that your opinion changes the fact that they were and are viewed as heavy metal.

The english changes constantly. And, so, your confusion is warranted. I must admit that there was a time when I was younger that I objected to labeling the older bands as heavy metal myself. But, as I progressed in understanding, I came to realize that there should be no objection it. Especially as the term was coined for them.

I suppose you think that Steppenwolf singing about "Heavy metal thunder" was a form of prophecy?

Open up your musical horizons, man.

The use of such labels is idiotic anyway. Everyone and their dog is trying to label this, that, and the other. Jazz Fusion is the most oft-repeated parody of this trend. But, I think that all the terms, black metal, death metal, speed metal, what the fuck ever metal, are fucking stupid, limiting, and lame.

I do see that a few broad categories of labels can be somewhat useful.

For instance, heavy metal as a move away from the blues I can see as useful.

Also, thrash metal as being heavily dependent upon muted power chords I also see as useful.

But, all the stupid subdivisions based solely on topic rather than musical form is unnecessary and only serves to further a form of elitism. Think about it. All the little minds sitting around memorizing music 'statistics' as if they were baseball cards. And then they come on internet forums to show off their musical 'skill' in that they have this whole elaborate system of labels constructed in their own mind. And they show such arrogance, disbelief, astonishment, when they find that their system of labels isn't shared by the world at large. And, in fact, is viewed disdainfully by many if not most.


What, then, is the difference between thrash metal and death metal?
Tell me, O Great Musical Connoisseur. I already know the answer. But I want to hear you say it so that maybe you'll realize how stupid it is.


And death metal is not heavy metal!

What , then, O Mighty Labeller, is heavy metal? And what, then, is death metal?
Outline the elaborateness of your great system.
Let's see your wondrous human ability of categorization.

So. All the heavy metal bands that existed in the late 60's and 70's and which have virtually nothing in common with what you call heavy metal are misnomers as heavy metal does not cover their genre, despite the fact that the term was in use and was used to label their music...?

You might find this useful:

http://www.anus.com/metal/about/styles

Now you can return to your irrelevant blather.

Useful?
Por que?
Doesn't seem useful at all.
I don't care what anus.com has to say, I asked YOU about your definitions.
All that anus.com link shows is that there are many who love to talk 'stats'. Might as well break out your pokemon cards and tell me the powers that Pikachu gets at his second molting or whatever the fuck.

Tell me.
It's a simple question, O Great One.
How does death metal differ from thrash metal?

You're obviously going to avoid the point by labelling it (ha!) irrelevant. So. I'll simply tell you.

Death metal differs from thrash because the singer (oh, isn't he cute) sings about death.
Oooh.

Look at that. A musical genre based on the topic not the music itself.

I suppose that if you sang about flowers you could start a new genre of metal called flower metal.

Or tomato metal?

Or UFO metal?

All these are categorizations which might allow some people to judge a band without the hassle of actually listening to the band, but it does not define the music.

I object to any classification that does not specifically detail the musical structure.

All these divisions which you are so proud of is just a way for people who have no clue about music to feel knowledgeable in their ability to 'appreciate' the music. And what is the simplest thing for these simpletons to latch onto?
The vocals.

So. If you disagree, then explain to me how death metal differs from thrash metal in a manner that is sufficiently related to the musical structure as opposed to the musical content. The content which a trained monkey could 'appreciate'.

You're very knowledgeable about musical genres, aren't you?
You're very 'relevant', aren't you?

Now. If you had accused me of being off-topic, then I'd say you have some small point. There exists another thread where this conversation would fit better, but this discussion began in here before that thread began. So. I think I'll be able to forgive myself.

And. It is on topic in regards to the fact that in order to decide whether death metal is satanic, we need to define our terms.

Now. Do you have something to say? Or is the extent of your ability to have a discussion limited to "blah blah blah. You're stupid." Hmm?


Edit:
You know. I've just realized that I don't know your stance on the definition of heavy metal. You butted into a discussion I was having with vslayer on the definition of heavy metal in connection with bands such as Led Zeppelin in a manner that suggests you disagree with me. But, you've never stated so explicitly.
In fact. You really haven't said anything.

So.
What is your stance, exactly?


Crap.
Missed this post.

The band that did songs like Antichrist, War, Troops of Doom, Bestial Devastation etc. is NOT Satanic?

Sepultura is more about political issues than anything else. Yes. They have some songs that have a supernatural edge to them, but I do not view the band to be Satanic...
Nor do I view them as 'death metal' for that matter.

So. Sepultura. Neither death metal nor satanic.

Oh, sorry, I should have told you. I WROTE THAT PORTION OF THE SITE.

Sepultura is not death metal, nor Satanic?

Here are some Sepultura lyrics:

1. The Curse

The curse is launched, beware
The Lord of Death declared the war
Satanas is invoked to destroy
And to command the bestial
Devastation


2. Bestial Devastation

A legion of demons
Born from boundaries of death
Like a onslaught of evil
To destroy this Earth

Covering the morbid skies
Like a mist of sulphur
I can see Satanas
The cursed of death
Terminate masses and reigns
With blood axes of hate
The beasts of son of devil
Tormenting the preachers of Christ

The humans try to react
To this nuclear war
Which is like a endless pain
Burning in the fire of Hell

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/sepultura/bestialdevastation.html#1

As far as their not being death metal, I submit that musically, they're closest to Possessed, Massacra, Morbid Angel, Kreator and Slayer, all of which are either death metal or proto-death (as in the case of Slayer) and all were active in 1985.

Later Sepultura is probably of what you speak and that, (shudder) - well, I would take Max's comment seriously and call it a form of nu-punk.

To clarify one of your later questions:

Heavy metal to me is not worth arguing over. I see it as a certain form of rock which emphasized phrasal composition more than anything else, thus went prog-neoclassical, although there are plenty of counterexamples because any genre is rapidly infested with losers and morons and followers.

My own specialty is underground metal, or death/black. I don't really like much heavy metal. If you asked for examples, I'd say Iron Maiden, Mercyful Fate, Black Sabbath, Judas Priest and Angel Witch. Then there's Motorhead, which is a metal/punk hybrid, and Budgie, which is a prog/blues/metal hybrid.

1969 is the year to study. Led Zep and Black Sabbath both created their first albums, but King Crimson had been active for some time. Prog is as much a part of heavy metal as anything else, and prog went postpunk after some time. That might explain death metal, in a roundabout way.

But I ramble on, and doubtless few care. HAIL SATAN

So. You're an anus?
Heh.

Anyway. Ok. So you basically agree with me on the older bands being heavy metal. Good.

Really, my main point in this whole damn thing is that labels are lame. I kinda browsed a bit of that page, but it was a pain in the ass to read and I'm not really motivated to see these complex classifications which I view to be completely arbitrary. But, I did see that some of the classifications were on musical style rather than vocal content, but even so was arbitrary and I contend that there are no cut and dry categories such as are displayed.

Again. I say. It's all rock and roll.

I'll agree with a few (a FEW) very general categories. Heavy Metal as a move away from the blues is ok. And thrash as being the chunky palm muted power chords also. But, you get to intricate with your classification system and you're just building a neat little cage for yourself.


And. As to Sepultura.
Most of the Sepultura I've listened much to is the later day stuff. Beneath the Remains. Chaos AD. Etc.

I still contend that they aren't death metal. Yes. They have songs based on supernaturalism, but more based on politics. Bands that I would call death metal are more like... well. Death. You know the song. "Diiiieeeee! DDiiIIIIIiIIIIEEEEEEEE!!! DiiiIIIiIEEIIIEEEEE!!!!! DDIIIIIEEIIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEIEEE!!!!!" Death metal (which doesn't really exist as a genre in my mind. Rather just denotes the content of the lyrics.) is VERY limited in content. In fact, many seem to have no lyrics. Just guttural moans, gurgles, screams. They don't really say anything. But, give them a different singer and different lyrics and you've got an ordinary thrash band.

You've obviously spent far more time obsessing over categorization than I've ever even thought about. (But, I guess that's why you're an anus. A little bit anal? Do you like your shoes to touch when they're in the closet?) And quite possibly have sampled a larger assortment of music than I have and actually sat there listening to it to try to label this this and that that. So, perhaps you have some points. But. I will maintain my contentions that such precise labels are unnecessary. Limiting. And lame.

As to Satanism.
Look at those songs you label as Satanic.
If they're Satanic. Then so is the Revelation of John and therefore the Holy Bible.
They're singing about Satan. But are they singing about worshipping him/it? Or more like a warning of a tough road ahead? Which would segue nicely into their more political works.

HAIL SATAN

See you in Hell.

It's also fun to note that your generalization of all this classification as arbitrary is in itself arbitrary to those who have been active in the genre of death metal itself. Your insistence on all forms of metal being one amorphous blob of relative non-distinction with the lyrical content being the sole element of difference? Who in their right mind would take you seriously? Aesthetic/intent does play a part in the composition, and it also illuminates the differences between separate artforms that may share commonalities (e.g. distorted guitars), differences which aren't apparent to a casual observer, in this case, you.

If you've only heard the later material of Sepultura, who are you to comment on their origins, and label them as something else? You're guilty of your own charge.

Are the other 4,050 posts you've made as contentless as yours above?

Blaphbee,

Are the other 4,050 posts you've made as contentless as yours above?

Oooh.
What a witty line.
You've wounded me to the quick.
Next you'll be getting me on my spelling or how lame I am to be posting on an internet forum at all.

I think my point stands.
I think that my 'content' is quite plain.
The problem, Herr Blaphbee, that this is a topic that is based solely on opinion.
Repeat after me... opinion.
Everyone's got one. Some just think their's are fact rather than opinion.

It's also fun to note that your generalization of all this classification as arbitrary is in itself arbitrary to those who have been active in the genre of death metal itself.

Why yes it is. Have I ever once said otherwise? However, my arbitrary classification is one in which their is a vast freedom of movement. Where one needn't break out his stamp to stamp this as 'death metal' and this as 'black metal' and this as 'tomato metal'.
Where one doesn't need to go and examine the charts in order to decide how one is to write one's music.

"Hmm. Am I death metal? Black metal? Thrash metal? Let's see. I do sing about death. But, I also sing about girls. Hmm. I use palm muting, but I also have some very melodic tunes. What scales do I use most? What tunings do I generally use on my guitars? How prevalent is the bassist? Does the drummer mirror the bass or the guitar? Does the singer sing or grunt or howl or talk or whisper? What color eye shadow do I use? How do I grow my hair? Am I circumsized? Do my feet stink? Do I use a rubber or do I have a vasectomy? Do we have cover art or use photography? How old are our fans? What working class and fiscal class are they in? What cars do they drive. What cars do we drive? What city did we all move to after we ran away from home? Did we run away from home or do we operate out of our parents' basement? Blah blah blah blah. Oh. What the hell am I? I guess I'll just have to stick with Jazz Fusion. That'll settle it. Now that I've settled the important issues, maybe I'll finally get around to writing some music. I suppose that some might actually expect some music to accompany the label."

Your insistence on all forms of metal being one amorphous blob of relative non-distinction with the lyrical content being the sole element of difference?

One 'amorphous' blob? No. Just free. I see no reason why you should put the music behind bars. I have no objection to you doing so. But, I will debate it with you as I don't agree with it. Just as you would apparently not disagree with me on the subect. And you sure as hell better not expect to find wide agreement on your schema. Because you won't find it. Anywhere.

I've never said that differences don't exist. I merely say that the differences are not so stylized and dogmatic as would be the case if their were these genres which you apparently believe in.

Who in their right mind would take you seriously?

Whoever.
Not you, I guess. Poor me. I did so hope to gather you into my flock.

Aesthetic/intent does play a part in the composition,

Somewhat, but so what? One band sings about death. Another band sings about girls. Another band sings about partying. Another band sings about motorcycles. Another band sings about political activism.

Is each of these bands a seperate 'genre'?

...and it also illuminates the differences between separate artforms that may share commonalities (e.g. distorted guitars),

It's all the same 'artform'. Music.

...differences which aren't apparent to a casual observer, in this case, you.

Actually, I've only beome 'casual' in recent years. There was a time when I was quite fanatical about music. I had my own rather elaborate system of classification built up. Although I've never been so arrogant as to actually think that mine was the end-all and be-all and to try to push it as such. I always knew that it was arbitrary and personal. As it should be.

You do realize that all these systems are built up on a personal level, right? No two systems are the same. There is no 'official genre chart'. No 'classification of metal sub-genre' that you can check out at your local library. You can find lovely little charts such as the one that Android obviously spent so much time creating on the internet and in other places, but these are their own personal feelings and have no real bearing on the world at large. There's no reason why anyone should take his chart to be some kind of holy writ. Or even close to their own.

Like I said, there was a time that I used to do just like he did. Building elaborate systems out of nothing. (It's actually an inherent part of what makes us human. Seeking patterns where none exist. It was and is a survival benefit.) But, then I grew up and realized that it's all bullshit. The labels don't exist. One 'genre' blends softly into the next and all boundaries are illusory.

If you've only heard the later material of Sepultura, who are you to comment on their origins, and label them as something else? You're guilty of your own charge.

I never said I've only heard the later material. I said that those are the albums I listen to most. I happen to have their complete discography which contains a large number of bootlegs from concerts and whatnot. I'm not 'unfamiliar' with them. However, I will admit that it is the later music I heard first and it is this music which sort of set the 'standard' for how I view them.

But. I'm not labeling them. I label them as Rock and Roll. I also label them as Thrash. And that's it.
I'm not labelling them. You are.
So push your 'guilt' elsewhere.

As to origins.
What to say on the topic of origins?
Let's say that Sepultura formed with the specific intent of being both a 'death metal' band and also 'satanic'.
Let's assume this. Shall we?
Now. Let's say that Sepultura goes along and they're 'death metal' and they're 'satanic' and... they find that these classifications which their younger selves so blithely slipped on like some protective cloak have become confining and that they're sick of singing about 'death' and 'satan'.
Let's assume this, ok?
Now. What are they supposed to do?
They're 'death metal' and they're 'satanic'. This is assumption 1, remember?
Is there anyway out of this confinement to which they've subjected themselves?
They've begun to become more aware of the problems in their society. They've become aware of the corruption and actually have a desire to fix it rather than just succumb to the gloom and depression and hopelessness. The raw rebelliousness. Of their earlier stylings.
What are they to do?

What did they do?
They started singing songs about how shitty and corrupt Brazil is. They sang about prison riots and jungle tribes being murdered. They sang about corporate greed and biogenetic engineering done without moral guidance.

They did do these things.
Do I need to go dig up lyrics of my own or will you take me on my word?

So.
What now?
Are they 'death metal'?
Are they 'satanic'?
Are they 'political metal'?
Are they 'jungle metal'?
Are they 'biogenetic engineering metal'?
What the fuck are they?
Nu-punk?

Shit.

They're rock and roll, man.
They are what they fucking are.
Simple as that.



Android,

Uhhhh.
Wow.
You just, uh, blew my mind.
That site you linked to...
It's a joke site right?
I was going to actually attempt a critique of your classification of death metal and came across this:
At this point death metal was more like ambient or folk/country music, and not surprisingly, it was to these genres most death metal musicians went after their bands had run their course.
After the death metal bands ran their course they... went country?
I'm just completely... shocked by this and I... well.... don't really know what to say right now.
You HAVE to be fucking joking.

Hell. You're saying that Sepultura is death metal... so after they split up they all went and joined folk bands?
What the fuck?

I'll wait for your response before I even think about commenting on anything else you have to say.

Country.
That's some freaky shit you said.


Edit:
Heh.
I've seen links to various anus.com pages but never really went to the main page.
It's a 'nihilist' site.
That's so funny.
Nihilists take such care in classifying their nihilism, don't they?
That's so incredibly funny.
Muaha!!

It's not a surprise, though. After all, nihilism is as much a cloak as 'death metal' is.
You're all so pretty in black.

Another amusement I couldn't help but be bludgeoned with is your derision heaped upon the classification of music as being "arrogant, man...I just want everything to be free, dude...", while at the same time arrogantly championing your own opinion as sacrosanct objective fact that's smarter than a rigid definition (which isn't actually all that rigid, if you took the time to "open your mind", and read the site in question further), not to mention the blantant arrogant pomposity which closes your last reply.

Don't be surprised when your precious "freedom" doesn't set you free like you thought.

There's a difference between being flexible and being intellectually dishonest and sloppy. Without a common parlance, nobody makes any sense anymore, but we're all still "free"?

Sepultura simply evolved within their sound. The lyrical content doesn't make the band. They started with a basic occult framework of death metal, and as their experience with the world grew, so too did the lyrical content which they address - their sound did not change from the death metal aesthetic, it only matured to incorporate increased instrumental prowess. As time wore on, and it became a job, their output began to become a product, as opposed to art, and what we saw happen was a simplification so that they could appeal to a broader mass of undermen. It became a commodity to profit from, once populism took hold of their direction.

while at the same time arrogantly championing your own opinion as sacrosanct objective fact that's smarter than a rigid definition

Uh.
Do.You.Know.How.To.Read?
It doesn't seem that you can.
I've said that this is about opinion and nothing more.
And that I don't hold my opinion to be 'fact'.
So. Go ahead and be 'amused'.
Try reading though. I'm sure your levels of amusement and the scorn you drip on the 'undermen' will only rise with comprehension.

(which isn't actually all that rigid, if you took the time to "open your mind", and read the site in question further)

Actually. I did poke around here and there and see that the site pretty much contradicts itself left and right. So. Yeah. It's not so rigid.
And. I saw some discussion on people talking about having an 'open mind' (I think it was in a FAQ or something...). I suspect that you're trying to pigeonhole me as one of 'them' or something.
Labelers and their labels.
And yet nihilistic.
Muaha!

not to mention the blantant pomposity which closes your last reply.

What? You mean about all the pretty nihilists in their pretty black cloaks?
They are so pretty though. So heavy and so deep.
Very, very pretty. But they don't care about any of that, of course.

Your own pomposity is rather amusing as well. Thank you. You're very amusing. It's a shame that I don't seek amusement.
But. Really. You have no idea how much your saying 'undermen' is giving me unsought amusement. Really. Ha! Fucking. Hilarious. And oh so 'pompous'.
I'm sure I'm not alone in this if anyone has noticed your use of the term.
Muahahahaa!!

Anyway. I've been feeling somewhat... guilty about my initial replies to Android in here. I was feeling a little grumpy when I replied to him with my "O great one" and whatever else I said. I do find the labelers annoying though. Trading stats like pokemon cards.
But. I will tender an apology for the tone of my responses to him.
I think I wouldn't have been so 'pompous' if I hadn't missed his first post to me. It seemed that all he had to say when I first responded was to say that my opinion wasn't important and blah blah. Which, it's true, it isn't. But in a thread on opinions, my opinion is just as valid as anyone else's. Do you agree or disagree?

Don't be surprised when your precious "freedom" doesn't set you free like you thought.

Who said anything about setting myself free?
What the hell are you talking about?
You are having real comprehension problems.
You are talking to me, right?

There's a difference between being flexible and being intellectually dishonest and sloppy. Without a common parlance, nobody makes any sense anymore, but we're all still "free"?

So. You think that there is a 'common parlance'?
Why do you feel this way?
Who dictates the parlance? Anus.com? Was there a metal convention that I missed where these terms were defined?

And as to being 'intellectually dishonest and sloppy'. How about 'intellectually dishonest and... anal'? And not only that, but arrogantly assuming that your artificial schema relates in any way, shape, or form to the world at large.
(And you call yourself a nihilist... Well. Ok. You never did. But Android writes for their site. So he must consider himself one. But. You do use... that word. *snicker*)

...simply evolved within their sound. The lyrical content doesn't make the band. They started with a basic occult framework of death metal, and as their experience with the world grew, so too did the lyrical content which they address - their sound did not change from the death metal aesthetic, it only matured to incorporate increased instrumental prowess. As time wore on, and it became a job, their output began to become a product, as opposed to art, and what we saw happen was a simplification so that they could appeal to a broader mass of undermen. It became a commodity to profit from, once populism took hold of their direction.

So. They sold out?
But, did they go country?
Are they death metal?
Are they satanic?
What is your stance?

...a broader mass of undermen.

Muahahahaa!!!
I see you now.
Untermenschen.
Funnier and funnier.
Ha.
Tell me more.

All music is music (tautology) but somehow, classical is different from rap. At least, it provokes a different listening experience.

I would suggest that Mr. Invert Nexus (invert nexus = SF gay slang for anus, actually) check out some death metal contemporary to Sepultura: Morbid Angel, Bathory, Sodom, Possessed and Celtic Frost.

This will enlighten him a lot as to the question of what is death metal.

I would argue that "Beneath the Remains" and "Arise" belong in the death/speed hybrid camp where Kreator, Destruction and early Pestilence go.

My.
I must have hurt the nihilist's feelings. Look at him talking about me rather than to me. He's probably just pissy because he poked himself in the eye with his mascara brush again.
Aww.
But him sure is pretty.
Look at that pretty black cloak him's wearing. It sure is cute. I wonder if he'll let me get a photo of myself standing next to him for all the folks at home.
That'd be swell.

All music is music (tautology)

Are you suggesting that I've said this somewhere in my writing? If so, your comprehension skills are as lacking as Blaphbee's.

but somehow, classical is different from rap. At least, it provokes a different listening experience.

Please tell me more. You sound so wise.

(invert nexus = SF gay slang for anus, actually)

Ordinarily, I would think that you were either a.) insulting me or b.) hitting on me. But, when I consider that you're a pretty-boy nihilist and write for a site called anus. Well... Dunno. Are you trying to make me an honory nihilist? Can I expect a black cloak in the mail sometime soon? What color eye shadow should I wear to the biweekly metal subgenre definition discussion group? Is the anal sex before or after the discussion?

I would suggest that Mr. Invert Nexus (invert nexus = SF gay slang for anus, actually) check out some death metal contemporary to Sepultura: Morbid Angel, Bathory, Sodom, Possessed and Celtic Frost.

This will enlighten him a lot as to the question of what is death metal.

Oh. Thank you, Mr. Nihilist.
I've never heard any of these bands before. I usually just listen to the chipmunks as I'm sure you're well aware.
You're obviously so worldly and wise.
Please. Educate me more on the intricacies of your oh so wonderfully thought out system.
Your writings about it are so clear and concise and noncontradictory.
You explain yourself so well.

I would argue that "Beneath the Remains" and "Arise" belong in the death/speed hybrid camp where Kreator, Destruction and early Pestilence go.

Do it then. I'm not stopping you.
You've done no arguing that I've seen. All I've seen is a few "you're stupid" and a few dictates as if you were in a position to peremptorily declare anything on the various subgenres.

And. What about this country/folk music bullshit you spewed on that page?

I had more questions to ask you about your 'definition', but you seem to be more intent on being an anus (no compliment intended) than actually having a discussion. So. Fuck it. You're full of shit anyway. And are either unwilling or incapable of discussing your schema.

So it would only be a waste of time.
Just like you.
Thread's dead.



Blaphbee,

Open your mind (http://skepdic.com/trepanation.html).

I must have hurt the nihilist's feelings. Dude? You got something against nihilists?

Android wrote:All music is music (tautology)I.N. wrote:Are you suggesting that I've said this somewhere in my writing?

Yes: proof is about halfway down your reply. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=843749#post843749)
The labels don't exist. One 'genre' blends softly into the next and all boundaries are illusory.This is just one instance.

There's a difference between saying that 'music is music' and saying that the fine distinctions which are being demonstrated in Android's schema are illusory.

You'll note that I'm talking about fine distinctions. Between genres (subgenres... sounds... whatever you wish to call them semantically.) It is these fine distinctions which don't exist. One blends softly into another.

And. Yes. These fine blendings go the whole spectrum. From classical to rap. If you went from one to the other while passing through all the variations that lie in between, you might well make the journey without ever noticing any difference between one area and the next. It's only when you jump large distances that the differences become so noticeable and jagged.

It is for this reason that I hold my view on only general labels being useful. Well. Not useful. I can see your systems of classification as being useful even if illusory... (especially in regards to marketing) So. Only the general categories are real. As real as it gets when dealing with an abstraction like music, anyway.


I figured you'd jump on my saying that we're dealing with one artform: music. At least you're smart enough to steer clear of that.


Cottontop,

As to nihilism.
This isn't the place to debate the matter, but yeah. I do have a problem with nihilists... Well. Not really a problem. They're their own problem.
I'll just keep it simple.
Nihilism purports to be a philosophy which throws off the shackles of dogma. But, it's an ism and is its own form of dogma. And, as shown by Android's lovely chart, those who call themselves nihilists are all too willing to create elaborate systems of dogmatic lore in which to enfold themselves. Nihilism and the labeling instinct. Hmm.

There are many other problems with the philosophy and its practitioners, but the above reason is the one that usually makes me laugh the hardest.

I know this is not the place for this, but:

Webster's - Nihilsim - 1a: a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is SENSELESS AND USELESS.

What's so bad about that?

Websters is retarded.

Let's look at the definition. It shows clearly a problem in dealing with nihilism in a clear-cut manner. There is no such thing as 'nihilism' just as there is no such thing as 'death metal' (although for different reasons.)

I agree with one of the interpretations of nihilism. The revaluation of values. Or in Websterspeak: "a viewpoint that tradition values and beliefs are unfounded..."
Although. Come to think of it, no. That's not even right.
According to websters, nihilism is an automatic rejection of all values and beliefs. It's a saying of NO. It's a negation and a will towards nothingness (and, yes, I'm slipping into Nietschean speak. How could I not in this subject?)

True nihilism, the form of nihilism that I would subscribe to (without subscribing, without calling myself a nihilist, without submitting to an ism) is that the traditional values and morals are not necessarily valid just because they're traditional.

True nihilism is about looking at the values and morals and at the world and choosing. It's not about negation (despite it's emphasis on nihil) it's about saying YES to the world. It's about choosing a valid path. A valid moral. A valid purpose. It's not about inscribing these morals and purposes and interpretations in stone, but rather about the method of discerning them.

In the same way that Science isn't the result of the scientific method but rather the method itself, nihilism is (or should be) about the judgement that one must make in one's life. Throughout one's life.

To say that say that existence is senseless and useless is only going halfway. It's taking the easy route. It denies the value of choice and judgement and mind.

It's easy to say no.
It's hard to choose yes or no.

And so many of these nihilists are the type that subscribe to the Webster's definition. Life is nothing. Doom, gloom, despair. But isn't my eye shadow pretty? Light that black candle, Azrael. How do you like my coffin?

There are so many different types of nihilist that perhaps we fall prey to the same syndrome of difficulty in taxonomy that we run into when attempting to define music. But, clearly we can see that there are general groups which we can define.

The flirters. The negators. The choosers.

I don't doubt there are more that could be conjured up with some added thought, but these three, I think, should fit the highest level of classification in a satisfactory manner.

The first two, to me, are the type that would call themselves nihilists. Like a badge of honor. The last group would realize that they must even choose their nihilism rather than merely accept it. Therefore, they can never truly claim the title of nihilist lest they fall prey to hypocrisy... Of course, many don't mind hypocrisy. They've either automatically negated the negative connotations of the value or they've chosen to negate it (or at least devalue it...)

Dude, I'll read it tomorrow. Got to go. Peace.