effect of rock music
ONeill Wrote:No, the definition is flexible because in the beginning it was only a couple of bands and it went from there.
That describes a tradition like the Cubists in painting or the Impressionists.  What is the "it" that went from there.

Quote:Now, there are some bands which are not considered metal although they have metal roots. I do not consider Metallica or Disturbed to be metal for example.

What's the criteria for determining what is "metal'?  And why are they called "Metallica"? if they're not metal? 

Quote: The subsets are created by the fans. Most groups do not hold themselves to a particular label unless they create it.

Then the subsets are meaningless and serve the purpose of protecting a group from being judged by objective standards.

Quote:  The branches get more diverse.

In other words, the genre can't maintain it's integrity because it consistently throws out musical elements and exaggerates what remains.  It's the exact opposite of the growth of traditions in music. 

Quote:Darkthrone is monotonous by design.

And what's the purpose of the monotony?

Quote:They actually got in much trouble with the recording company as they changed their style to that. Much of the second wave black metal is like that.

It has to by definition be like that, because if it is something different it gets a new name. That way, no group can actually be compared and judged objectively to be superior to another.


Reply
Gerard Wrote:That describes a tradition like the Cubists in painting or the Impressionists.  What is the "it" that went from there.
It describes all art. Now artist worth his or her salt stook rigidly to pre-defined forms. Classical progressed, like all music does. All art, good or bad, progresses changes over time.

Quote:What's the criteria for determining what is "metal'?  And why are they called "Metallica"? if they're not metal? 
They are called Metallica because that is what they decides to call themselves. They are not metal because they don't play metal (at least, not for some time). They are "pop rock" what I call.

Quote:Then the subsets are meaningless and serve the purpose of protecting a group from being judged by objective standards.
They are not meaningless. I get it, you don't like rock or metal.

Quote:In other words, the genre can't maintain it's integrity because it consistently throws out musical elements and exaggerates what remains.  It's the exact opposite of the growth of traditions in music. 
You seem to reject metal for having elements all styles have.

Quote:And what's the purpose of the monotony?
For Darkthrone, not so good an intention. That particular form of metal is not good.

Quote:It has to by definition be like that, because if it is something different it gets a new name. That way, no group can actually be compared and judged objectively to be superior to another.

You are the first person to objectively try to compare. The reason why the groups exist is to be descriptive. I can say I like music, but that doesn't really satisfy the question.

I can say I like Indian Classical music, Classical music, metal and country, but that is also pretty vague.

Reply
ONeill Wrote:I've been there and done it deeper. I was once mired in forms of metal which I will not post on this forum, but I recognized it as a problem after a time and stopped listening to any music for a few months.

I believe you.

I played in a thrash metal band once when I was younger. There was a time when I even listened to more extreme genres like black, death and doom metal during my fallen years. Looking back I can see how poisonous it was for my soul even though I didn't believe in Satan or in God for that matter. That music made a huge contribution to prolong my religious indifferentism and my distance from Christ and His Church for all those years.

Quote:I now only listen to non corrupting music. I can tell you, that although you may not like the style, those Twisted Sister songs are quite good. There is nothing bad about them, except the video you could say.

I know Twisted Sister and others of the like quite well. I find your decision to discard the music that you find corrupting quite laudable but it's still a dangerous game to play given the styles we're dealing with. Many rock songs and ballads seem pretty harmless but I'm sure none of them will help you in your spiritual growth. In fact, they can be detrimental to it.

As for Twisted Sister's Adeste Fideles, I've stated my point. Profane versions of traditional music that was made to lift up our hearts to God are completely wrong and a perversion in themselves.  They should have no place in our song lists.
Reply
ONeill Wrote:It describes all art. Now artist worth his or her salt stook rigidly to pre-defined forms. Classical progressed, like all music does. All art, good or bad, progresses changes over time.

That's not true, Brahms, Bach and Mozart contributed virtually nothing to the forms as forms.  They worked in pre-determined ways, but within those forms, the economy of means provided a rich group of expressive pieces. 

Schumann tried to let the idea define the form and he had limited success. 

Quote:They are called Metallica because that is what they decides to call themselves. They are not metal because they don't play metal (at least, not for some time). They are "pop rock" what I call.

Is everything subjective?  This is like trying to nail down jello.  Again, what is the criteria that makes something "metal'?  Is it just because you decide to call it metal?  If you call Air Supply "metal" is it?

Quote:They are not meaningless. I get it, you don't like rock or metal.

Like or dislike is irrelevant.  I like plenty of things that are no good. There's nothing cheesier than Ray Conniff Christmas tunes.  I love them!  I also used to listen to things like Stone Temple Pilots back in the day and Bowie when I was a kid in the early 70s.  But after I studied art and music sufficiently, I learned by objectively studying it,  how little the music I liked actually had to do with music.  I can still sing Bowie songs by heart. But they are musically limited and the lyrics are absurd and Bowie unfortunately was not the genius that people presented him to be.  He's not profound or creative beyond clever marketing. 

It's like eating stale potato chips, a starving man might think they are the greatest, but that's just because he doesn't know how bad they are nor does he know what else is out there.

 
Quote:You seem to reject metal for having elements all styles have.

No. I'm saying it's not a successful artform because it is so limited in its expressive quality.  It doesn't have enough musical elements to make a cohesive expression of anything of significant value. 

I can find more drama in Chopin's 24th prelude because it has power, harmonic tension, it's much more reflective of life in the fact that it goes through significant changes while maintaining unity in various things like Rhythm, melody and tempo.

Quote:For Darkthrone, not so good an intention. That particular form of metal is not good.

I don't mean to keep badgering you on this, but what makes something good or bad? 


Quote:You are the first person to objectively try to compare.

That's because I've been down this road when it comes to paintings and the visual arts.

Quote: The reason why the groups exist is to be descriptive.

The term is "expression" all art has elements expressive of broad human qualities that are universally shared.  Surprise, unity, variety, subtley, power and a few others.

The artist draws on the sense world around him and expresses it out according to a design that is intended to emphasize what that artist has noticed about the world. 

In music it involves a melody that is combined with harmony and rhythm and put through a series of changes that have an effect on the listener, either creating a sense of order or tension and release in varying degrees.  The more sophisticated the composing of those elements the more satisfying the work is. 

Here's a piece Beethoven threw together that he really didn't like. But it is a complete thought based on a famous melody he wrote.



Quote:  I can say I like music, but that doesn't really satisfy the question.

Exactly. We like all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons.  I like LOTS of stuff that is not particularly the best use of my time and if I don't watch myself some of it would be quite sinful. 

But when you explore the "why" of our likes and dislikes, and combine it with studying the foundational principals of WHAT we are looking at or experiencing we become free to know and accept things for what they are and open ourselves up to more and more.  We tend to want our likes and dislikes to be "the best" but good, better and best go by the wayside when you learn, successful, less successful and derivative and not creative at all. 

Any work of art of any sort is a mystery to solve or a hunt for gold.  Sometimes you find it, other times, it isn't there.   

Quote:I can say I like Indian Classical music, Classical music, metal and country, but that is also pretty vague.

Yep.  What we like vs. what is quality is often at odds.  I don't like too much Wagner at this time.  A few things I "like" are  The Overture to Tannhauser, the Ride of the Valkyrie etc.  but I do know that Wagner was a great composer with his use of motifs and how he combined them and built huge structures of sound that were both subtle and powerful.  Maybe I'm not sensitive to it, but I know the fault is mine and not Wagner's because I understand what he did.  So, I'm hoping to enjoy Wagner when the understanding sinks in better and I become sensitive to what he was expressing. 


 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)