Does lyrical content worry you?

But the question remains:  is it true that people are so easily influenced?  To be honest, I'm not sure that any of us can provide a definitive answer.  However, I do think that there might be some truth to the adage that people believe what they want to believe.  To say it differently, people seek out in whatever work what they most desire, and inevitably they find it.  A familiar example from "satanic" metal music:  the person who committed suicide after finding a pro-suicide message in Ozzy Osbourne's "Suicide Solution".  Of course, the lyrics make it clear to the meanest intelligence that the song is a warning about alcohol abuse ("solution" as in mixture, not answer).  But he found, quite unfortunately, that which he sought.  Not unlike the phenomenon of facial recognition on the Martian surface.

Dean wrote: Could it simply be a convenient excuse? Where people would rather blame anyone other than themselves - scapegoating Ozzy and Rob Halford (in the infamous "do it" case) rather than accepting the obvious answer, that their son was suicidal and needed professional help.

Sure, that's another possibility.  Families won't likely admit that their dysfunction is what led a relative to suicide: it simply must be someone else's fault.

As an aside, I think metal's poor reputation to be quite unfounded.  Of course, certain elements of the scene well fit the puerile stereotypes, but that's not exactly a distinction from the rest of pop culture (a generally youth-oriented culture).  Leaving commentary about musicianship to another thread, I think that many metal bands promote an overalll positive viewpoint:  think for yourself, stand by your principles, weed out hypocrisy and injustice, etc.  I don't see how these ideas can influence anyone in a negative.  Still, if unfocused rebellion is what one seeks, then that is what one will find.

As Dean mentioned LaVey, I'd like to point out that the notorious Norwegians had really very little to do with Satanism as professed by the Church of Satan. Their hatred of Christianity was founded on the rejection of the values of equality between human beings, solidarity, loving your neighbour, and such - a rejection essential to anyone who wants to embrace any ideals of racial superiority and hate-mongering.

And with this remark I'll bow out of the conversation, apologising for having anyone think I am in favour of thought control. Unfortunately, my experiences of the past year - both with the spread of racism and intolerance in my own country of Italy, and with immigration in the USA - have made me particularly sensitive to any issues related to fear and hostility towards other people.

Personally, I don't see any reason for shunning away certain bands just for the lyrical content. They aren;t my views, and I feel secure enough in my own ambitions and moral outlooks to where lyrics that give opposing opinions to my own don't influence me in the slightest. In my opinion the only reason why one wouldn't listen to certain lyrics is if they somehow felt threatened or swayed by what they heard. In that case, yes, it makes perfect sense to stay away. Would want metal bands telling kids to kill themselves, or anything . . . . oh, wait.

At this stage it gets difficult to analysis what can influence who.But i think from Ozzy Osbourne to Hitler it's starts to get out of context,though i know what people are trying to say.I think there's no doubt that people can and will be influnced by people and bands,wether that was there objective or not.But for people who carry out acts of violence etc there's already something much deeper within that person and to blame a lyric is absurd and if it isnt music promoting violence or anti-social behaviour it will soon be newspapers,films,bill boards,sandwhich boards and a overhearing at a bus stop.Musicians shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of people who are already unstable.

^ this.

DavetheSlave wrote: People mainly believe what they want to believe!! Does anyone have any idea of how many so called dangerous cults are operating in the US today??? I'm sure that there are not a few cults in the US and elsewhere.  I don't see how this is inconsistent with my previous remark.  Indeed, cult leaders are essentially the most unctuous of salesmen: they tell their audience the message that they want to hear. The Beatles proclaimed that they were more popular than God?? Not sure what this has to do with anything, but in any case you ostensibly have taken this out of its context.  Lennon, I believe, cynically remarked that his group was "more popular than Jesus."  Quite simply, he was commenting on his observation that religion had diminishing influence on society.  Whether his observation is true is, of course, irrelevant here; the important point is that the remark is not necessarily an endorsement of the fact.  This should be transparent. The Doobie Brothers proclaimed that they could get US Presidents elected once. Maybe they thought they had greater influence than they really did.  But it's not uncommon for campaigning politicians to seek out celebrity endorsements.  Unfortunately, it appears that the icons of pop culture do, in fact, have significant influence, perhaps less than the traditional sectors, over the formation of social opinion.  This fact does not go unrecognized by marketing and advertising.   And, by the way, what do you guys think Richard Ramirez listened to - it definately wasn't Genesis or Bach!!!  True Ramirez was warped anyway but why did he listen to Hardcore Metal type stuff??? The press did make quite the brouhaha over Ramirez' AC/DC baseball cap.  Don't see how that's significant in any sense.  I could be wrong, but I doubt that in profiling serial killers the FBI checks to see if the prospective madman has a preference for "Highway to Hell" over "Firth of Fifth."  Again, modern Satanists tend to disdain popular culture, and I think that not a few of them would be more likely to listen to Bach over AC/DC.  In any case, don't confuse correlation (which isn't even established) with causation.

WinterLight wrote: Again, modern Satanists tend to disdain popular culture, and I think that not a few of them would be more likely to listen to Bach over AC/DC.  In any case, don't confuse correlation (which isn't even established) with causation.

Returning to Mr LaVey for a moment - he had a very bizarre and eclectic taste in music if his recorded works are anything to go by.... aside from a scary cover (if you are younger than five or six perhaps), and with songs like "Golden Earrings", "If You Were the Only Girl in the World" and "The More I See You" the only thing it is likely to incite is tossing the CD itself on a burning fire.

Lyrical content doesn't worry me at all. I don't listen to bands that are rabidly anti-Christian either but that has a lot more to do with the type of music the lyrics are accompanying. I can't imagine happy-sounding bands such as Yes or The Flower Kings singing about obscenely evil things. Although if they did I sure wouldn't stop listening to them. Lyrics are the most unimportant part of a song to me and I don't really listen to them unless I get a little taste of the poetry then I'll look more into the words. Peter Sinfield, Neal Peart and Peter Hammill are the only people I've noticed that can make me actually take heed of the lyrics. Jon Anderson could be reciting the Necronomicron for all I care during Close To The Edge as long as the notes he sang were still the same.

DavetheSlave wrote: Anyway Lyrics worry me and that is the one reason that I stay away from a great deal of the Death Metal and Black Metal bands. Some stereotyping here.  Of course, there are some bands in those genres that write on the occult or the macabre.  Still, there are many bands that select topics different than these.  Enslaved comes to mind immediately: they write mostly about their Norse heritage.  Cattle Decapitation promotes vegetarianism through their music.  And let's not forget about Napalm Death (okay, they're grind, but they've blended death metal in their sound, for example, on Harmony Corruption) who focus on leftist politics.  Others like Arch Enemy, Opeth, and Agalloch tend to write personal, reflective lyrics.  One can continue with such examples indefinitely. Swearing doesn't worry me unless it is overt and out of context. So, if the swearing is covert and in context then it doesn't bother you?  Not sure how to interpret this.  In any case, so-called vulgarities are indistinguishable from their socially accepted counterparts. People who like Marilyn Manson are people that I generally try to avoid because I enjoy clean spiritual space. It's not possible that decent person (perhaps endowed with poor taste in music) likes an act like Marilyn Manson? The very hardcore Metal bands all seem to have taken on a Satanic image - for what?? I really don't think you mean "hardcore metal" as that usually denotes crossover bands like DRI or Suicidal Tendencies.  Ignoring this technicality, though, I still don't believe that your claim has any credibility: it's easy to cite numerous metal bands that don't conform to what you call a "Satanic" image (and those that do generally take it to a cartoonish level).