In the Defense of Criticism Towards Metal

Too many digressions from the subject matter - a good debate in places, but I think exhausted now.

Thread closed.

^You don't have to live with the accusation. You can just stop doing what you did in my example. When I wrote that "riddle", it was just as much (or more) aimed at angelmk, but you asked.

The Pessimist wrote: Couldn't you see you were attacking him? Accusing him of twisting what people say? That's why I said chill.

Are you serious? Is that an attack? I call it an observation. Most people do this to some extent, and some more than others. Go through this thread (and many others) and and look how Trademark has to defend stuff he didn't write.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: I don't know Coelho, but I like Saturnus. How can you be so sure that they're trying to impress or that they even pretend to be something they're not ... did you conduct an interview with them, or at least read one? I doubt that very much ... I rather think that you listened to them for a minute or less and then simply "put them in a box".

I don't have to interview someone to state my impression or have an opinion. The whole album was on youtube. I didn't listen to the all tracks in full, but more than enough. And actually checked out all the lyrics.

And the warm wind caressed me deeply
Gently touched my soul
Made me forget all dark thoughts
Sadness on its way
Sorrow nevermore to stay

This is nothing new to me. Its the same qothic "darkness inside" cliches over and over and over, which is typical from this ambitious style of metal. Both in the lyrics and in the music. They have to do a lot better to get my respect (I'm not saying that they are interested in getting it). I'd be surprised if you dont' see and hear the same as I do, but it just doesn't bother you like it does to me? For me this is the perfect example of  the "comedy" part of metal. And there's nothing wrong with comedy, but its a lot more impressive when its meant to be laughed at from the ones you find laughable.

^^^

Mr ProgFreak wrote: But can the point of making music really be to excel all other musicians, or can the point of being a music fan be to only care for the very best music ever conceived and to ignore everything else - to stop listening to music you used to like just because you found something which appears to be even better? Well, at least to some extent we are all doing that, but I think that especially as a critic we need to lower our expectations, or at least adapt them to the circumstances of the band/album we're reviewing or commenting on. Which doesn't mean that we should give everything 4 or 5 stars, but we should not punish bands for not meeting unrealistic expectations.

The Pessimist wrote: Whoa, whoa, whoa... Chill dude. He was only playing around.

What's up with you? I'm calm. I only explained the "riddle", with a fitting example he provided. I don't know what you read into it.

BaldJean wrote: there are, however, some efforts by prog rock artists that do reach the quality of the literary source they are based upon. Peter Hammill's opera "The Fall of the House of Usher" is an example of that. it is a very complex musical work too, using some very highly advanced compositional techniques. granted that it took Hammill almost 30 years to complete it, so he is a bit slower than most classical composers. but the end result does not have to hide from what some of the greatest composers achieved; it is a highly complex work; the way that many of the themes used throughout the opera finally meet in the last act is definitely a huge compositional achievement. these comments refer to the 1999 version of the opera; the 1990 version is flawed still, though also already very very advanced

Yeah, but efforts to reach the quality of the literary source they are based upon is a lot easier than composing some ultra advanced piece of music.
Throw in some snazzy lyrics and a bunch of big words that people without a degree in linguistics can't understand chances are it'll probably impress a whole lot of people

Don't expect me to respond to a reply to this post unless you actually make it relevant to the topic.
I couldn't give a rats ass about Peter Hamill or his "Opera" in a thread about metal.

Toaster Mantis wrote: debrewguy wrote: Some bands seem to think that using some esoteric piece of literature as the basis or starting point of their musical work is enough to give it some "artistic" merit. And too often, they come up short on matching the quality of their source of inspiration. If you're able to base a concept album on Kierkeregard, great. But only if you can make it come out as good as the author. Otherwise, you might as well write about the similarities  shared by oranges & orangutans. The end result is what's important, not the high minded concept, or inspiration. I'm still waiting for someone to make a concept album about Buckaroo Banzai.

Well the RPI band Murple made an album about a penguin. Named Murple ... so you never know

^There is a huge difference between trying to impress and not care at all about about how one is recieved, and what fans and critics think about it.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Always telling people what's better than their favorites, aren't you?

Ha.ha. I'm doing them a favour. Saturnus is embarrassing because they pretend to be something they are not, and Coelho is awful enough as it is.



BTW

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Rocktopus wrote: Its it more meaningful than deliberately "misunderstand" what someone is writing, and add opinions that wasn't originally there? Speaking in riddles doesn't help in serious discussions. What (and whom) are you referring to?

Here's the answer to my riddle: I meant you "misunderstand", add, or twist what other writes every time you reply. Like you just did in your comment over mine. 

Rocktopus wrote: Reign in Blood isn't only artistially more successful, its intellectually superiour to both Saturnus and Coelho without even trying. (I've started to think of that album as a 30 min. long, extremely intense suite more than ten seperate songs. That's how they perform it the two times I've seen them live, you know like Suppers Ready)

Always telling people what's better than their favorites, aren't you?

Kidding aside: I doubt that Saturnus or any of the other bands made their albums with the intent of competing with bands like Slayer or Metallica. But can the point of making music really be to excel all other musicians, or can the point of being a music fan be to only care for the very best music ever conceived and to ignore everything else - to stop listening to music you used to like just because you found something which appears to be even better?

Well, at least to some extent we are all doing that, but I think that especially as a critic we need to lower our expectations, or at least adapt them to the circumstances of the band/album we're reviewing or commenting on. Which doesn't mean that we should give everything 4 or 5 stars, but we should not punish bands for not meeting unrealistic expectations.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - March 11 2009 at 14:17

there are, however, some efforts by prog rock artists that do reach the quality of the literary source they are based upon. Peter Hammill's opera "The Fall of the House of Usher" is an example of that. it is a very complex musical work too, using some very highly advanced compositional techniques. granted that it took Hammill almost 30 years to complete it, so he is a bit slower than most classical composers. but the end result does not have to hide from what some of the greatest composers achieved; it is a highly complex work; the way that many of the themes used throughout the opera finally meet in the last act is definitely a huge compositional achievement.
these comments refer to the 1999 version of the opera; the 1990 version is flawed still, though also already very very advanced