Metal Reviews

boring thread.

I’m honestly not sure if you people are feigning ignorance for kicks or if this is genuine.



If you’d actually read Tyrion’s post you might notice that the argument is not simply “It sucks, I’m right, that’s it”. Instead of making childish little sarcastic remarks why not address points such as:

“It could be argued that that the song does finish on a strong, even passionate note (starting at around 10:00), but unfortunately, there really wasn’t much there worth actually listening to until that point in the song let alone something that really builds into something worthy of a dramatic climax. Worse still, they clearly didn’t know how or when to end the song as everything after about 14:05 should have been cut.”

There is an argument here that the album as a whole is quite directionless, that it attempted to copy and paste the basic elements of black metal but had very little of an idea of what it was aiming for. If you wanted to prove Tyrion wrong you might attempt to counter his argument by trying to indicate the direction and purpose of the album beyond what he has outlined. What makes this album “great” or “good” according to you?

As for the point on the climax without an ascent toward it, it could be viewed in the same way as one might view a solo that is simply plugged into a song with no rhyme or reason, that has come from nowhere and leads nowhere. For example, if you look at Det som en gang var (song). The song begins to ascend toward a preliminary head until 2:48 where the pace picks up, the main riff setting the stage for the rest of the song but it doesn’t hit that peak yet. While acting as a sort of mini climax it continues to ascend upward, then inserting the phrase from earlier back into the song, which continues to lend a feeling of progression or building toward something greater. The soon after inclusion of vocals then begins to lend to an increased urgency in the song, which basically all keeps building until 8:58 when it all slows back down again for a few seconds until about 9:19 when you get the climax. Personally, I consider it to be spine-tingling, but if I had just started listening to the song at 9:19 without ever knowing what came before, or if Varg had taken the song up to 2:48 and cut out the rest and just kept playing that original phrase throughout the entirety of the song until 9:19, the power of the climax would have been diminished because it would be stripped entirely of what it is that made it so powerful to begin with; the anticipation, the build up.

Weakling seems to try to mimic the atmosphere created by bands like Burzum or Emperor, but are completely oblivious to what it is that creates that atmosphere or what lends power to those climaxes. While some songs lack a climax or much of a structure while still maintaining atmosphere, often the appeal of that atmosphere is subjective since there is nothing particularly tangible that can lend credence for its atmospheric significance. Weakling’s songs progress toward nothing and attempt to manufacture atmosphere, if that makes sense. Its like powder milk in a can vs. real milk. They seem to think that one riff alone without anything else has the power to create the amazing atmosphere many of the early bands produced, when simply making atmospheric riffs was far from the case, whether we’re talking Burzum, Emperor or so on. So instead of saying “no you’re wrong”, why not try to explain why you think so?

“That seems to be the argument. They can see how bad this is, the rest of us are obviously ignorant.”

When it comes down to its not about whether the music is inherently bad, since establishing a piece of art as bad must often rely on a popularly agreed upon structure that is either followed or improvised upon or that a band failed to utilize properly. This moreso about recognizing what’s actually going on in the music and how arrangements in musical composition can be made as such that they project something more than reality of it technicality “progressiveness” and so on. I’ll try to draw some parallels. If we think of isometric projection, every elementary school kid at one point figures out how to draw an isometric cube but they don’t mistaken it for a real cube, furthermore, their cube is only a child’s imitation of the extensiveness of blueprint drawn by a trained engineer, which is still only meant to lend an indication of what the final, concrete product will look like. In that case, the illusion’s purpose is to be suggestive enough of the real thing but does not require the same skill to create. In a similar fashion, Impressionists sought to create paintings that mimicked reality to a greater degree than previous artistic traditions by blurring or eliminating lines through more evident brush strokes among other techniques. While a person can both appreciate the art as its own kind of reality or dissect a work and see through the “fantasy” created by the artist to the techniques necessary for creating such an effect.

In music we can look at something as basic as a military march and ask which elements of the music cause us to link a particular style of march to warfare. Often it superficially mimics sounds or resonates emotions humanly associated with combative maneuvers or warfare. We can also look at the presence of keyboards in metal. Many bands using keyboards often have the term “symphonic” tagged onto their sub-genre. Though we all know a keyboard and not a symphony orchestra is creating the sound, many listeners still seem to draw close parallels between their respective arrangements, giving undue praise of “genius” where it is not deserved, and when in fact the musician in the first case is only mimicking the basic process behind arranging a symphonic composition. The process is nowhere near as complex nor does it take anywhere near as much skill, but relies on the suggestive nature of the sample sounds and basic arrangements that will likely lead the average human mind to naturally associate it with a symphony at least to some extent. The musician may not be attempting to maliciously “trick” the listener, but relies on the human mind’s natural tendency to seek out patterns and to draw comparisons between two variables that share, at least superficially, certain defining aspects in order to produce a certain effect.

Similarly, a musician might take a chromatic phrase, a scale, or chord progression that in and of itself could be the beginning of an interesting technical piece or improvisation, but then he repeats it incessantly at high speeds, with the added distortion inherent to metal and “appropriate” production and mixing, a band can easily be considered “technical” or “complex” to the casual listener and by vague association. Not only this, but even when a musician crosses into the realm of technicality, what does he bring to the table? Does he shape or mould a piece toward an end or desired effect? If so, what is it? Additionally, a band might similarly take certain aspects occasionally associated with “progressiveness” such as lengthy ambient songs, vaguely straying from conventional song structures by breaking it down to a minimal or alluding to a freer structure without doing much at all, musically speaking.

We might then feasibly enter the realm of post-modernism and post-structuralism. F.ex., if we look at Jacques Derrida or his earlier forebears like Nietzsche, they presented a challenge toward accepted societal norms and the popular notion of absolute morality and truth, but Derrida himself, as much as he challenged societal structures and urged his peers to recognize the human fabricated nature of structure and morality, still recognized that structure was needed for society to function. When we look at the destruction or challenging of structure in art it has historically had a purpose, often aiming to expand a movement or genre outside the traditional box, however, what we start to see with many of these “progressive” or “alternative” metal bands is a non-purposive disregard for structure, or a superficial “disregard” for structure. An individual can seek to deconstruct their own personality or ideology by recognizing the discourses that make them up, but often the purpose then becomes to deconstruct for the purpose of reconstructing the self in a new, possibly enlightening way, or to the end of understanding the fabrications of human ideology. It also serves to understand that “meaning” is often subjective in the grand scheme of human life. This may seem like a “random” interlude on the subject, however, post-modernism and its purpose echoes throughout every aspect of contemporary human life, and so we can draw lines between post-modern thought and the current subject. So what then is the purpose of these bands that allude to minimal or superficial elements of musical “progressiveness”? Often it appears to only be for appearances’ sake, “progressiveness” by association, and more often than not their raving fans follow along and reaffirm the delusion. But progressive towards what, when often this “progressive” nature is just a vague allusion to previous movements or genres, or an attempt to mimic and “develop” superficially rather than purposively? And at what point does mimicking progressive elements established by early musicians enter the realm of a new tradition?

What, exactly, was Weakling attempting to achieve with Dead As Dreams? Did they really produce anything particularly groundbreaking in black metal or metal as a whole that you can legitimately claim makes this release the best black metal album of all time? That makes it even an outstanding release? I think not. All they did was cut and paste ideas from founding black metal bands while attempting to eliminate the structure present within the music of those founders in order to seem as though they’re building upon those foundations. Not only that but they attempt to fabricate atmosphere by copying and pasting then altering slightly certain riffs previously deemed “atmospheric”.

It doesn’t come down to who likes them and who doesn’t. If you like them go ahead and do so, it doesn’t mean shit to me. But liking an album is far different than claiming it’s the best black metal album of all time or even an outstanding album. I personally like plenty of bands that are not legitimately “outstanding” but I like them anyways. I might as well just go listen to Darkthrone but I still somehow enjoy listening to Godless North or Flagellum Dei alongside Darkthrone; that doesn’t make Godless North or Flagellum Dei the best raw black metal since sliced bread. Decent Darkthrone clones, arguably, but nothing more. I wouldn’t make a thread about them, that’s for sure.

There also seems to be a general view among the same individuals that weak vocals are “emotional” that I really fail to understand. If sounding like a mewing newborn kitten is “emotional” then you must all be right and I have no fucking clue what emotion or sounding “emotional” is…in fact if that were true I’m not even sure I’d want to know.

[/rant]

Indeed. I think that emotion and emotional impact of music depends on the listener, so arguing about whether or not something is emotional is pointless. You can describe it as 'sounding' emotional, but whether or not someone will be able to engage with that feeling is another matter. Sticking Dead As Dreams on whilst reading all that's been written, I think that you and Tyrion are looking at individual aspects of it without realising the overall impact; can't see the wood for the trees, if you like. All very well dissecting the moment that this part dissolves into that part, but for me and (I assume) a lot of others, I react to music differently. It's the overall picture, and the overall picture is a complex set of songs that take time to draw you in. The elements may not stand up to the prolonged gaze of someone trying to dissect it, and yes, at times Weakling does sound rather ill-put together and unsure of itself, but I'd suggest that this is deliberate and part of the band's atmosphere - I think Tyrion mentioned before that you get a hint of this 'imitation' from the band's name, Weakling, which amazingly no-one picked up on. You're genuinely criticising a band for taking a name that suggests inferiority? What, in Black Metal, if you're not supermen you're useless?

Let's say that Weakling wanted to put over this atmosphere of weakness and inferiority. Doesn't that make them special? Listening to the title track, I'd describe it as someone coming to after being wounded on a battlefield, and trying desperately to get away. That you guys don't get it that doesn't mean that my attitude is wrong.



Criticising long songs, eh? I hope you skip Rundgang Um Die Transzendentale Säule Der Singularität, then.

Referencing deconstructionism just to tell me that Weakling is poorly arranged is a little excessive. And I addressed this when I said that it's not my fault that you can't see the merit or as Zad said you can't see the wood for the trees. I feel like we have a general disagreement towards vocals, ex: this and PTH.

it sounds good and it kicks my ass for 75 minutes every time i listen to it. i haven't though much about its direction and purpose beyond that. i could sit down and analyze the album in the same way that Tyrion did, but i don't think it would accomplish much. it would probably convince him to like the album as much as his post did to convince me to dislike it (not at all), and i wouldn't enjoy listening to Dead as Dreams, or any other album, very much if i approached it with that mindset.



i guess it does. i definitely hear climaxes in their songs though


i've always felt that progressive a genre name just like any other. imo it means part of or influenced by the 70s prog rock scene. more loosely, it would be sharing certain aspects with that scene like longer and more dramatic songs, more complex music, jazz/classical influences, etc. i wouldn't consider Weakling progressive since long songs are fairly typical in black metal. a lot of people (usually prog rock fans) take it as some kind of stamp of quality or artistic merit, which makes the term confusing.



i don't think the best album in a genre needs to be particularily groundbreaking (although sheer quality could be considered groundbreaking, i guess). or maybe it's the long songs; i'm partial towards long songs. they just keep flowing and flowing without ever releasing their tension or hold on my mind and it's just wonderful.



yeah, i like squeaky singers, especially when the music is frantic. stronger, manlier singers work better with more sedate music imo. on a related note, my cat, who normally can only croak, has this terrifying meow she unleashes when she wants into my room. it scares the hell out of me when she wakes me up.

Your cat should be in a Black Metal band.

To a degree I both agree and disagree here. I think that arguing whether or not a vocalist sounds “emotional” is rather pointless because generally stating that music or vocals sound “emotional” doesn’t actually say much about what the intended impact or nature is. To me its “sounding emotional” vs. portraying anger, hatred, despair, loneliness, pride, desperation, madness, or a combination thereof, which would be infinitely more descriptive than simply “emotional”. So what emotions is Weakling trying to invoke or portray? You wrote:



Alright, so weakness, inferiority, and desperation. Do Weakling accurately portray weakness and inferiority? I think they do and apparently you do as well. Good on them. But in my last post I wrote: “When it comes down to its not about whether the music is inherently bad, since establishing a piece of art as bad must often rely on a popularly agreed upon structure that is either followed or improvised upon or that a band failed to utilize properly.” If we judge Weakling by black metal standards, how do they fit? What is black metal, and how do Weakling, weakness and inferiority fit into the genre? Even though black metal is a genre that often shows interest in Nietzschean philosophy, the legacy of which is associated with the shunning of concrete morality or absolute truths, black metal still possesses a structure in its own right as all forms of music, even if loosely, do. By trying to portray a sense of weakness and inferiority, Weakling crosses back over the line into the realm of what black metal was, in part, originally reacting to. Black metal has, since its inception, been concerned with self-actualization, the sovereignty of the self, if you will, and even though those original sentiments have been cheapened particularly in the 00s, it is still one of the genre’s defining elements. While it is not necessarily about being Nietzschean “supermen”, it does, additionally, promote striving towards something greater and reacting to or overcoming human fears, and insecurities that are already portrayed thoroughly in countless other popular musical traditions. Even when subjects like suicide and depression are considered, it isn’t from the same “woe is me” perspective that tends to dominate elsewhere.

On a side not, while Weakling portray weakness and inferiority, I’m not sure I get the desperation part. If someone was driven to maddened desperation on a battlefield vocals conveying that would be unrestrained and crazed. Desperation implies recklessness and near madness. A desperate individual is not timid, and Weakling’s vocals portray timidity and…well…weakness ;)

Roll your eyes if you’d like, but black metal, while describing musical elements, began and essentially still is a reactionary entity in its relationship with certain ideological values. Does Weakling fit that tradition? Can Weakling be called black metal at all, or, if so, “good” black metal? Perhaps they are “good” by standards that exist outside of black metal? I, for the reasons highlighted in both this post and my previous post, do not define them as black metal. When a piece of music has strayed from one of its original influences, can one not argue that it has crossed over into another, or perhaps even newer, tradition?

The only response, and correct me if I’m wrong, that I’ve seen so far from you guys is that Tyrion and I don’t “get it”. Get what exactly? You’ve all been quite vague about what “it” is.

tl;dr: If we judge Weakling as black metal, they are bad black metal by black metal standards (explained in above posts). If we judge them by other standards or structures then by all means go ahead and claim they're good, still curious about how, though. Either way, the best black metal they are not.



There are many albums that I believe can’t be judged for specific songs or parts, but as a whole. That doesn’t mean that what makes it aesthetically attractive can’t be described or analyzed. Your replies seem to imply that a person somehow must intuitively “get” Weakling through some kind of sixth sense that can’t be pinpointed or discussed. At least that’s what I taking away from this.

@ noodles



Fair enough.



I agree that no one is likely to be convinced by the other here, but I’d argue that Tyrion’s goal wasn’t to make you hate them, but to contest your original claim, to state that there is a difference between opinion and what is “good”. Either way I find it fun to discuss it anyway.



That’s actually partially what I was trying to address. If a genre becomes forever known as “progressive” because of what was an initial progression from an earlier musical tradition, then what happens when newer bands start to progress beyond the newly established traditions of prog.? In a way, a genre label with such implications contradicts itself since at one point what was once progressive ceases to be so and passes over into the realm of the traditional. That said, I assumed you all believed Weakling to be “progressive” in the sense that many fans believe it to be indicative, as you said, of quality and innovation. If not, then we don’t have much more to discuss on that matter. But I was also partially responding to comments like these: “They can see how bad this is, the rest of us are obviously ignorant.” “Damn, there are a bunch of tricky musicians out there, fooling people into liking them.”



On a side note, I initially read this a “squeaky sneakers”. Momentary dyslexia ftw. Anyways, I wouldn’t say that my argument is with the lack of “manly” vocals. If you look at Burzum, Silencer or other similar vocal styles I wouldn’t describe them as “manly”, just unhinged as opposed to Weakling’s strained and timid sound.

So you can discard Weakling as black metal because of their subject matter? We can slant that in so many ways and say that the fact that they are escaping from the battlefield despite their wounds and the gore around them, that they are elevating themselves beyond their pain and disgust to get away. Why is only writing about the first half of battle empowering and not the second half? Good ol' desconstruction. And on a sidenote, Weakling is named after a Swans song, I believe.

Your ideas on progressive as a genre are cool, though.

Well, that's what I was trying to get at. Emotion in music is such a personal thing that one man's misery can be another's joyous rage, and it is rather hard to tell what Weakling are going for, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing.



Must often, but not always. Often, the best way to view art (and here I'm speaking of paintings art, but it applies to music as well) is to step away from genre boundaries and view it in its own right. Clearly, BM has a strength that other genres lack, but then does it follow that removing that strength means it is no longer Black Metal? I get what you and Tyrion are saying, that Weakling lack that strength and so aren't 'Black Metal', but from a superficial, outsider viewpoint, that's the genre they fit in best and it's what I'd tag them as.



You could argue, then, that Weakling's rejection of this philosophy is the most revolutionary event ever to happen to the genre! Perhaps it was the first step on a voyage towards true enlightenment, that the dreams truly were dead and it's going to take a long, hefty trawl before transcendence is achieved. I think, however, that the band never thought that deeply about it, DAD was their go at Black Metal, and that we're reading too much into their band name.



Well, maybe his arms and legs were blown off and he knew how futile it all was?



Bringing these outer standards into Black Metal is partly what helped the genre adapt to the post-nineties... I'd be willing to call bands that aren't pure, philosophical Black Metal, Black Metal, and I take it that you won't, and I think that's the sticking point. Musical genre boundaries aren't set in stone.



Hm, well, it's hard to explain. Get that Black Metal sans Black Metal philosophy can still be Black Metal, perhaps, and still have value? I'm not arguing with your main point; Weakling are not the best Black Metal band around.

First of all, you might note that I was addressing what Goat suggested and responded according to his suggestion. He suggested that Weakling deliberately attempted to portray weakness and insecurity and so I responded within that framework, while still maintaining that if that isn't the case and they are, therefore, "black metal" then they don't, if we look at black metal standards (musically, speaking), fall into the realm of what can be argued as "the best" black metal band/album. Whether or not your or anyone else enjoys them is a separate issue.

You'll also note I never stated that the second half of the battle was not "empowering", but that, historically speaking, black metal has been focused upon overcoming. If the case is as you suggest, then that's all fine and dandy. We then draw back into the realm of musical quality according to a certain framework.







Indeed, I've read that as well.

Is it really so personal, though. Humans, whether examining an anthropomorphic face or the voice of another human being, generally associate certain expressions and sounds with certain emotions. Am I correct in assuming that most here have acknowledged the more "timid" or "weak" nature of the vocals in question? If so, could their restraint or timidity be interpreted any other way than "weak"? If we look at more aggressive, "stronger" vocals, whether a person enjoys metal or not emotions such as anger, aggression, hatred, pride are still recognizable to the average person, are they not?



To view something in its own right one must come to understand what an artist tried to achieve and how well they achieved it. If we look at Impressionism and what the Impressionist movement as a whole tried to achieve, then removed ourselves from the movement whilst viewing one of Monet's painting most of what we would notice would still be compatible with Impressionist aims and defining traits whether we recognized them as such or not.

I think when it comes to a genre and marking where the boundaries of a genre like black metal lie it becomes necessary to pinpoint what defines the genre, and to what point those boundaries are blurred, and at what point they become, to a degree, concrete. At some point, a band passes beyond the boundaries of a genre no matter how blurred the lines.



But who defines a genre? Many outsiders to metal likely would not initially understand what differentiates Show No Mercy from Deathcrush. Additionally, should superficial elements construed by those with little experience in a genre or sub-genre define said genre?



I agree. I just don't think it was a very successful attempt



There are many bands that don't necessarily spend much time on ideology, but I think there is a difference between not addressing it versus supporting something that opposes the genre's foundations entirely.

*I wrote this before Iron Duchess made her most recent posts, and I haven't read those yet, so please bear that in mind*

Up until a certain point, I was tempted to come back and say that I was appalled with the reading comprehension “skills” on display here.

I guess I still am to an extent since I’m talking about it now. Goat, your [/rant] reply very much illustrates this (but it’s far from the only example). I don’t know if you really, at that time, put much thought into what you were saying or if you were just making it up on the fly. But you either got the “forest for the trees” reference completely wrong or botched it on purpose. Additionally, I never said or suggested I had a problem with long songs. These kinds of errors lead me to seriously question whether you even read your own posts, let alone mine. I’m not trying to be an ass, but it becomes very tiresome to have to defend myself from things I never even said.

Another example, the biggest example perhaps, is the idea that apparently I have a problem with, or my statements are connected with, people for liking Weakling. I really don’t care whether anyone likes them or not; that clearly has never been the point. Again, reading comprehension.

But onto other avenues, because I am going to address a couple later comments and some things that Iron Duchess didn’t cover already (but she has covered most of it).

…Going back to the forest for the trees comments earlier (which by saying “wood” earlier you managed to get completely backwards), I think this is a fair thing to consider. The issue here is that you can fly a few thousand feet overhead and look down and see a lush beautiful forest, and you can imagine, almost see, all the interactions going on down there. It’s full of life. Perhaps it gives you certain other thoughts or emotions, etc.

But let’s say you fly much lower, or even better, you land and get out of your plane or balloon or whatever, and you walk into the area you just flew over and observe the forest more closely. …Or rather, what you thought was a forest. Turns out the entire thing is nothing more than a bunch of plastic models that look only like trees from far overhead. Now, you can say that this is okay, that this is an achievement in itself. Similarly, you can simply prefer your original images and thoughts you had when flying high overhead. But that doesn’t negate reality, the fact that it isn’t really a forest at all.

The designer may or may not have had the idea to trick overhead passers into thinking it was something it was not. In this instance, we’ll say that doesn’t really matter (it can, but that’s another topic). What does matter is both the truth and what you get out of it. You, by embracing the “forest for the trees” in the manner you have described here, are saying you’d prefer to be lied to and believe the lie. Believing the lie is one thing, rationalizing your belief against reality is something else entirely. It’s not a big surprise in my opinion, as most people prefer to cling to their beliefs rather than embrace truth even after they’ve been made plainly aware of the truth. Most people are stuck in, or prefer to stay in, Plato’s cave in one sense or another. Maybe not all the time, but when it suits or pleases them to certainly.

Other notes…

Emotion in music is independent of an observer’s response. Neither is in any way necessarily tied to the other, even if there tends to be a correlation.

I don’t know if there is a “best” way to view art… That to me suggests right away that someone is deciding to view art in such a way that will give it the highest possible rating imaginable – which I wouldn’t view as being a healthy approach (though the artists probably won’t complain).

It is most correct to view art, as with anything else, in as entire a way as is possible. That is, to consider ALL the different viewpoints one might have (high above the forest, low above the forest, in the forest, below the forest looking through the dirt and roots, in the forest as its constructed…). Since it’s incredibly rare that all of these options are available to us as observers, especially the last one I listed, we still do what we can. And of course, we should also try to see the work as the artist intended too. …However, if you want to look through a blue lens only, then you should at least acknowledge that you are only seeing through a blue lens and your means of observation carries inherent limitations.

That brings me to, “’from a superficial, outsider viewpoint, black metal is the genre they best fit in.’ It should be clearly obvious at this point that this is an example of attempting to bend reality to fit one’s desires, need for convenience, or some other limitation or objective. This is like taking a science fiction book and trying to classify it on a shelf that has only biographies and other non-fiction. “Well, it’s not a biography so I guess I should put it in non-fiction. After all, it could be real in some kind of other universe or something…” Clearly the best option would be to leave it off the shelf or try to find a new shelf for it.

The comments about the biggest revolution in black metal, one seeking a path towards new enlightenment are just more bad attempts at rationalizing. What you are describing would be a revolt against black metal, because if the fundamental components of something break down, it ceases to be its former self. Or in this case, with Weakling, think of it as a war between two nations that both use horses and bows and arrows. The weapons are the same (ie - certain elements in the musical approach), but there are clearly two very different factions on opposing sides. And whatever side represents Weakling, we can also expect to find cheap, knockoffs of the weapons and armor the other side has, as well as borrowed and poorly executed military tactics.

Weakling is either making a very bad, poorly thought out effort here, or they’re trying to make some kind of ultimate parody of it. If it’s the latter, they’ve probably been laughing ever since at anyone who took them seriously. …Personally, I think it’s mostly just aimlessness and poor imitation, but the intentions that remain hidden to us can’t hide the other aspects already discussed at length.

Musical boundaries, while not set in stone per se, tend to be quite rigid. So too are pieces of music. Peoples’ beliefs are as well. …Music itself isn’t, however.

…Iron Duchess already commented on most of what noodles most recently said, including aspects of “progressive music” which I completely agree with her on. Anyway, I’m not denying or arguing with the way that “Dead As Dreams” can be said to make a person feel , the one can get enjoyment out of it, etc.

What? You're just applying your view of the album to what I said and then criticising me for not agreeing! You did mention a list of things wrong with the album, the single release, the unreadable logo, chief amongst them being the long songs, no? The forest for the trees/wood for the trees ('wood' = 'forest' in case there's some confusion here) thing was exactly as I meant it; you're so caught up in the details - band name, 'weak' vocals etc - that you miss the overall picture. YOU find the elements false, fine, but when you put everything together it works fine; why look at it as if you're being fooled? According to you, it's a lie, and your belief is the 'truth' - others don't see it that way. It's music, ffs, there is more than one way of interpreting it, and individual interpretations rely on the individual partaking of the art - countless universes, all branching out, if you want a flowery way of describing it. Why are we looking through 'blue lenses'?

And let's be clear. Weakling play Black Metal; it may not be true to you, it may not be strong, proud, self-help BM like the best bands play, but it's not Melodeath, Death Metal, Power Metal, etc. It's Metal of a Black variety. This isn't bending reality at all; Weakling play Black Metal. Maybe not good Black Metal according to you, but according to the name of the genre it's Black Metal.

I wasn't totally serious about the 'revolution in BM' bit, as I thought was clear. Again, you're painting the comparison with your view of the band, not of an overall view.



I think if you played your average radio-friendly pop-listener Weakling and, say, Mayhem, it'd all be horrible shrieking to them. It depends; you can't really say that anyone would listen to average BM shrieks and go 'ah yes, he's angry there' as opposed to 'he's really miserable there'. As I keep saying, a lot depends on personal interpretation.

And finally:



Why on earth would anyone want to do that?

well i don't think he was so much listing things wrong with the album so much as trying to show how they were capturing all the surface elements of being a kvlt or troo black metal band without having any of the actual quality.

i'll try to reply to the other stuff later when i'm done schoolwork.

Yeah, but again, that's just his opinion.

Ah yes, the classic postmodern response, "...that's just his opinion." I'm surprised it took so long to see that one here.

In fact, when I apparently didn't express enough opinions for you in my posts, you resorted to making them up yourself (as noodles seems to have noticed in at least one instance) and then argued against your own fabrications. But it doesn't stop there, facts ceased to be facts, were altogether ignored, or suddenly became beliefs and opinions instead. ...Or we're treated to: "wood" = "forest" (bwahahaha!) and whatever else it takes for you to remind us all that one opinion is just as good as another (in your opinion, of course).

Think I'm exaggerating? Let's look at the second paragraph of your reply a couple of posts previously: Suddenly, you shift into assuring us that Weakling play black metal because... well because what? Because they don't play music that falls into the other genres you listed? Umm... But then you go on and it becomes metal of a Black variety... Wait... Then they're back to playing black metal again, and it is black metal because the name of the genre is black metal.

Let's be clear indeed...

Should I just give you my account password so that you can log in and make posts under my name so that you can at least make your replies look a little bit convincing and less intellectually retarded?

R-e-a-d-i-n-g _ c-o-m-p-r-e-h-e-n-s-i-o-n

Learn it. Know it. Live it.

That's a rude response to what, I admit, was a mistake of mine in assuming that you were against long songs as created by Weakling (it's not like you'd be singing their praises if they had short songs, a readable logo and a ten-strong back catalogue, is it?). What're your issues, that in England 'wood' can often mean 'forest'? That I'm not as... let's say anal as deciding whether Weakling are Black Metal or not as you? Metal of a Black variety doesn't mean Black Metal, you say? What the heck are you on about, yourself? You said they play 'imitation Black Metal' - ie, Black Metal, but Black Metal that's a copy of other Black Metal... so they're not good enough at it for you, by a set of criteria which you have created out of thin air. And now people are retarded for arguing back, apparently.

By the by, I don't need your password to edit your posts, as you obviously never noticed. If you're resorting to hamfistedly attacking every little word I say, why would I need to?

It’s a rude response because it’s rude to constantly build straw man arguments out of someone’s comments instead of 1) responding to the actual comments themselves, and/or 2) simply asking for clarification about whether I meant what you assumed I did or not. I really don’t take any pleasure in making those kinds of responses. …It is not one mistake with regards to long songs. It is time and time and time again of you either assuming I meant something I didn’t actually say or taking my statements completely out of context while seemingly ignoring others that should have answered any questions you may have had in the first place. Many of your replies or parts of your replies have been to nothing in particular other than what you made up or assumed and those instances and my correcting them has only cluttered up the topic. I don’t enjoy having to go back and restate or reassert what I actually said in the first place because someone else is failing to read and understand but feels the need to click reply anyway. …Well, I really don’t have to and I probably won’t continue to do so much beyond what I’ve already said and will say below.

If “wood” equals “forest” in your neck of the… err… woods, we have a language breakdown. The problem with “wood for the trees” then is that it can very obviously mean two entirely different things, as looking at the wood itself can mean to take an even more finely detailed view than just the trees themselves. “Forest for the trees” doesn’t have that problem, though I’m sure pointing that out won’t change other incarnations of the saying either, and it wouldn’t be reasonable for me to expect it to anyway. My apologies for my part in any confusion or unnecessary smartassery here. That is certainly an area where I could have and apparently should have asked you for clarification.

…The breakdown on that saying is bigger than that here though because you cannot adequately conclude that a “forest/wood for the trees” viewpoint of an object is as sound, let alone more sound, than a more encompassing point(s) of view that holds greater accuracy. It is a valid observation, yes, depending on how you word it and the true identity of the object (in other words, it can really look like a forest from certain points of view even though it really isn’t one… and we start getting into validity versus soundness here). You may choose to pay more attention to, or even totally ignore, other aspects than those that suit your desires, but that doesn’t change the true nature of the object itself. I don’t see anything wrong with looking at the view from afar, I am simply saying there is more to it than that and your point of view may have more in common with deception or illusion or personal desire than anything else. Quite honestly, I think you’ve basically admitted as much even though you may not have intended to (I think noodles pretty much did and, well, hey, I’m cool with that). Get far enough away and a fake forest could look just like a real one, just like a dashed line can eventually look like a solid line. I don’t deny that nor do I deny the impact that can have on the observer, especially when someone likes forests more than plastic models or solid lines more than dashed ones. This also ties in with reasons people listen to music in the first place as, for example, some people listen because they want the music to make them feel a certain way while others listen to certain music because they already feel a certain way (or it can be both, situational, other reasons, etc.)

“Metal of a Black variety doesn't mean Black Metal, you say?”

Well, at least you’re sort of asking a question this time instead of just assuming I was saying that. Earlier you responded to Iron Duchess and her comments on defining black metal as a genre with, “Why would anyone do that?” Yet you clearly want some definition for it because you keep referring to it and you keep trying to point out that Weakling really is black metal, yet the "evidence" you provided (and that which I was citing) is hardly sufficient to even show that Burzum (or any band) is black metal. Additionally, you flipped between saying black metal and metal of a black variety. Why is that? Why would I take your word on black metal, which from what you've provided here is pretty much nonsensical? Why wouldn't anyone interested in accurately and completely defining black metal or any genre take that kind of approach that Iron Duchess mentioned (as well as explore other areas of it)?

Even if I assumed there was such a thing as metal of a black variety and black metal, it would be incorrect to phrase the sentence you did above as some kind of truth. No, metal of a black variety would not have to be black metal. Black metal would have to be metal of a black variety. But that is just silly and unnecessary to even consider in this instance. If you really want to get into whether or not Weakling is black metal, a question I admit to having intentionally avoided, we’re going to have to go down all these (and more) avenues. If you don’t want to go there, then don’t. (Please don’t assume I’m saying black metal or metal of a black metal variety doesn’t actually exist here, okay?)

“…so they're not good enough at it for you, by a set of criteria which you have created out of thin air. And now people are retarded for arguing back, apparently.”

No, but once again, you are creating points out of thin air. Why would be it be retarded at all that someone would argue back? Here is what I have said: Weakling is imitating, even directly copying, other black metal musicians and doing so without any apparent understanding for the why and how of what the original bands were doing and for (probably) no other purpose than to hop on board or to be a piece of the pie. There is nothing new or interesting being presented here, just a hodgepodge and directionless rehash of other, earlier (and better) works. These and other issues with the band have already been addressed at length by me and Iron Duchess. If you agree with this analysis, then it seems unreasonable to conclude that it’s a particularly good band and album, regardless of how much you might like it anyway. It would not be retarded for someone to argue against that, there simply hasn’t been much arguing against those points. I really haven’t seen you disagreeing with any of that so much as you have been trying to assert that, ‘it still looks good from a distance so why does any of that other stuff really have to matter?’ This is a totally different argument, and it’s a point I already addressed above and before.

Again, I’m not trying to criticize anyone’s taste in music or the way a piece of music may make you or anyone else feel. But come on, I’m pulling arguments out of thin air? I’m not the one referring to their music as conjuring up ancient battlefields with limbless bodies crying out in hopeless resignation. I didn’t come into this thread to validate yours or anyone else’s opinion, but to point out issues with “Dead As Dreams that, while maybe not mattering to everyone, should realistically prevent it from even being in a discussion of great or greatest black metal albums. I've done that and backed up my points and Iron Duchess has done the same and backed up her points. About the only other thing I've done is attempt to provide additional illustrations of these points and the logic behind them, and also point out why I'm not saying some of what other people seem to think I'm saying.

(And yes, I’m aware you don’t need my password to edit my posts, though I don’t believe you can actually log in and create new posts with my account without it – although I could be mistaken on that).

I'm really confused why we should believe your opinion, and that is what it is, as to why this album sucks. We obviously disagree, some to a lesser extent than others, Zad for example. The album is black metal, according to us and metalarchives. The album is good according to us, many others and the reviewers at metalarchives. You're the dissenting opinion yet you expect your conclusion to be common-sensical to us.

We say that we like it because we do; you say it sucks because it's imitative and forced. This is a retarded debate.

From the best black metal album ever.