At 5/13/09 05:05 PM, Nev wrote:

At 5/13/09 04:53 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: So Origin is better than Sonata Arctica cause it's way more complex and technical...

I said better music you fucking moron!
MUSIC! Not technicality or whatever. MUSIC!

God, you're really stupid.

I'm just playing with you. I just consider that your not adding anything to the discussion. How do you define better music? You are just acting like if there was a definition of "better music" that I would be the only one to missunderstand. There is only one definition for "better music" and it's talent, creativity, originality and hard work. That's fucking IT!

At 5/13/09 05:00 PM, TakeNoPrisoners wrote:

At 5/13/09 04:10 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: fucking dumbass

sigh...

I know... I know.

No, you do not know. We had a discussion via PM system. So you really don't know, but keep acting like you do, you are really good at that.

At 5/13/09 04:58 PM, batman64 wrote: 100 pages to go.
Fuck yeah.

and I'm helping.

Oh yeah, finals are done and I'm done with college for the rest of the year.

SHYEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

At 5/13/09 05:13 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: I'm just playing with you. I just consider that your not adding anything to the discussion. How do you define better music?

I define it as anything I like more than something else.
Music is subjective.

No, you do not know. We had a discussion via PM system. So you really don't know, but keep acting like you do, you are really good at that.

You are really stupid though.

At 5/13/09 05:13 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: No, you do not know.

Yeah he does. While he doesn't know about our PM discussion he obviously still shares the same sense of annoyance every time you decide act like this.

At 5/13/09 05:16 PM, Nev wrote:

At 5/13/09 05:13 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: I'm just playing with you. I just consider that your not adding anything to the discussion. How do you define better music?

I define it as anything I like more than something else.
Music is subjective.

To a certain extent, yes. But arts are not all about subjectivity. There is just a lof of shit being made in the music industry. Crap like G-Unit or fucking Lady Gaga and there is simply no arguments that could possibly make me believe this music is good. It lacks everything art is about... no creativity, no originality, no work, no talent. I agree that music is subjective, but you just said "better music". What does that mean? Clearly nothing... other than I like Pink Floyd better than AC/DC. Sorry, maybe I did missunderstand you, but I really thought you were saying that it was an undeniable fact, that Pink Floyd was better. IMO Pink Floyd really is better than AC/DC but not for the reasons listed earlier.

And please, stop saying I'm stupid. You missunderstood me. I won't blame you for it, it's my English that's not that good. Let's just say that I didn't make my point clear.

You are really stupid though.

And what' the argument here? Stupididyt is objective two?

At 5/13/09 05:27 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: To a certain extent, yes. But arts are not all about subjectivity. There is just a lof of shit being made in the music industry. Crap like G-Unit or fucking Lady Gaga and there is simply no arguments that could possibly make me believe this music is good.

I disagree.
Its all art. I'm not personally a fan but people do like it.

They put effort in, its unfair to say they're not proper music.

And I enjoy stuff like Taylor Swift and Miley Cyrus :P.

I agree that music is subjective, but you just said "better music". What does that mean? Clearly nothing... other than I like Pink Floyd better than AC/DC.

It means what it means to me. Thats part of the subjectivity. It applies to me. Its better to me. Thats all that matters in my opinion. I can bond with people who have similar views, but their all seperate in the whole of things.

And what' the argument here? Stupididyt is objective two?

Too* ;).

At 5/13/09 05:34 PM, Nev wrote:

At 5/13/09 05:27 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: To a certain extent, yes. But arts are not all about subjectivity. There is just a lof of shit being made in the music industry. Crap like G-Unit or fucking Lady Gaga and there is simply no arguments that could possibly make me believe this music is good.

I disagree.
Its all art. I'm not personally a fan but people do like it.

People do like it because they do not search for any deepness into music, they just consume it like any good that you buy at the mall. It's cheap entertainement. In our world today, there is not a lof of people who take the time to listen to music like if it was art. To judge of the quality of an artist, you have to listen to it very well, understand the artistic intention of the musician. People today cannot really judge of what is good in music, because they don't know anything about music, but what they ear on the radio. And without asking any question, they just take the shit that radio stations feed them with and accept it as the greatest art form in the world.

They put effort in, its unfair to say they're not proper music.

They only put effort into trying to find the best way to sell more records. They shouldn't work in arts, they should work in marketing.

And I enjoy stuff like Taylor Swift and Miley Cyrus :P.

You could say sucking is subjective... but boy... you suck...

At 5/13/09 04:10 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Sigh... You can't compare apples to fucking bananas, because they simply are not the same. But you can say I like apples better than bananas.

Oh my fucking god, Duff. Eat my ass with salt and pepper. I don't give a flying fuck.

And yes, I can compare apples to bananas. And I can compare apples to oranges if I want, too. Go ahead and try to stop me.

clementines > apples > bananas > oranges

And I can compare you to a big bleeding vagina, too.

There, you wanna keep bleeding all over us, or will you shut up already? No, of course not. You're just gonna keep bleeding.

At 5/13/09 04:10 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:

awesome music.

NO! NO! It's awesome music IN YOUR OPINION. or YOU LIKE Ulver alot. You cannot say Ulver is awesome because you didn't make it clear enough that it's your opinion and not a matter of fact like we don't know that already. You must explain to me your reasons for saying that Ulver is awesome because you owe me an explanation for your personal taste.

BLOOD GUSHING

And yes, Ulver is awesome.

Thank ya for the welcome:P

At 5/13/09 06:31 PM, bananoverde wrote: Thank ya for the welcome:P

Please list your ten favorite metal bands if you wish to join. It looks like you'll be fine, but it's what we do here.

I saw that we just mentioned jazz.

I love jazz. Jazz is an art form elevated above others.* Currently listening to Coltrane's "My Favorite Things" right now, it's a fucking great album.* I love Coltrane,* even his ridiculous free jazz era.* I think "Ascension" is my favorite free jazz album, actually.*

At 5/13/09 05:49 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: People do like it because they do not search for any deepness into music... You could say sucking is subjective... but boy... you suck...

This entire post completely negates your rant about subjectivity and opinions and whatnot.* Lady Gaga has no musical merit TO YOU. It does not sound good TO YOU. You go on these long-winded, stupid-ass rants about subjectivity and how opinions are not some universal truth, and you go pull this stupid shit. You're a hypocrite.*

At 5/13/09 06:31 PM, bananoverde wrote: Thank ya for the welcome:P

nice sig, i'm seeing them in a couple of months. judas are fucking awesome, i don't care what anyone says.*

yeah i like bragging about seeing judas.

*IN MY OPINION OF COURSE HURF DURF DURF

Careful, D3nt. He might not know what asterisks are seeing as how he doesn't know what quotes are. Oh right, they're different where he is. He's totally not stupid.

At 5/13/09 06:26 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:
stupid retarded shit

If your post was not 90% of insults and 10% of stupid fucking OPINIONS, maybe you could make sense. One fucking thing you'll have to realise someday kid, is that you cannot make an intelligent comment based only on OPINIONS. Yes opinions are important, they are what's making you different from Nev, and opinions are making Nev different from me. But OPINIONS are fucking subjective, so whenever you try to base an argument on your OPINIONS, you are failling, badly, because your OPINIONS cannot applo to my understanding of the named art we are discussing. So when you say "Pink Floyd is better than AC/DC" I assume that you are stating what you think would be "a fact" and not just your opinion. Cause who the fuck cares about an opinion like this? No one, or maybe retarded monkeys do.

See, I like to argue cause I consider that in our world there is "facts" and "opinions"
Fact = Opeth is a very nice band, because they are very original, very talented and they bring metal to an higher level
Opinion = I do not like Opeth, cause it's simply not my type of music.

So yes, this way you compared Bananas to Apples, but you compared them with your OPINIONS.

And I'm not stating that you guys should clearly say "this is my opinion" in your post. I'm just questionning the need that you guys feel to say "this band sucks", when you really are not going to say anything constructive. If you want to state and opinion, make it useful at least.
Fucking example = I think Opeth is not good cause the progression is too slow and their songs are always sounding the same.

Fucking example of an useless post = CoB sucks.

Thanks a lot. And I don't give a fuck about your insults.
IMO to judge of art you need to do it a very structured way.

But again, that's just my OPINION.

At 5/13/09 07:06 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:

At 5/13/09 06:26 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:
stupid retarded shit

If your post was not 90% of insults and 10% of stupid fucking OPINIONS

don't care.

not reading the rest of your useless long winded post.

You're a cunt.

Go ahead and keep crying about it.

At 5/13/09 06:57 PM, D3NTATUS wrote:

At 5/13/09 05:49 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: People do like it because they do not search for any deepness into music... You could say sucking is subjective... but boy... you suck...

This entire post completely negates your rant about subjectivity and opinions and whatnot.* Lady Gaga has no musical merit TO YOU. It does not sound good TO YOU. You go on these long-winded, stupid-ass rants about subjectivity and how opinions are not some universal truth, and you go pull this stupid shit. You're a hypocrite.*

What I meant is that to a certain extent, music tastes are subjective. But I do consider that some music really isn't worth anything. But that's only like 2% of what is made in the world of music. I really do not mind Pop, Rap, Hip-Hop, Country or anything. But some music really is just made for commercial purposes. Can it be considered art?

At 5/13/09 07:01 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: Careful, D3nt. He might not know what asterisks are seeing as how he doesn't know what quotes are. Oh right, they're different where he is. He's totally not stupid.

« »
àààààà
èèèèèè
éééééé
ôôôôôô
êêêêêê
çççççç

do you know what these are?
Of yourse you don't. So you are stupid for not knowing every little thing about the french language.

At 5/13/09 07:06 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Fact = Opeth is a very nice band, because they are very original, very talented and they bring metal to an higher level

That's actually an opinion. "Nice," "original," "talented," and "higher level" are all subjective.

This is a fact: "Opeth is a musical group from Europe who are considered to be musicians of the metal style."

Opinion = I do not like Opeth, cause it's simply not my type of music.

Which is a nice way of saying "opeth sucks"

So yes, this way you compared Bananas to Apples, but you compared them with your OPINIONS.

That's the only way you're going to reach a conclusion. Look man, you don't need facts to support why you like one fruit over the other. I like bananas more than apples because apples require more work. That's an opinion. It's also a valid reason for eating bananas more than apples.

Fucking example = I think Opeth is not good cause the progression is too slow and their songs are always sounding the same.

That's not constructive, for the simple reason that it's not going to change anything. It's a reason to dislike Opeth, but it's not going to make them change. "Constructive criticism" means "criticism with the intention to change."

At 5/13/09 07:14 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Of yourse you don't. So you are stupid for not knowing every little thing about the french language.

I don't speak French or care to.

And how long have you been speaking English and reading English text? And you don't know...

"
It's basic writing.

Commence eating my ass.

At 5/13/09 07:19 PM, D3NTATUS wrote:

At 5/13/09 07:06 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Fact = Opeth is a very nice band, because they are very original, very talented and they bring metal to an higher level

That's actually an opinion. "Nice," "original," "talented," and "higher level" are all subjective.

You think it is? maybe for talented, yes. But original? What defines originality? It's the fact that no one ever did it this way before, or no one ever did this at all before you did. And being talented, I'm talking about skills. Example: If you see to guys doing Kung Fu and that one of them as mastered the techniques better than the other one, he is more talented. Right?

This is a fact: "Opeth is a musical group from Europe who are considered to be musicians of the metal style."

That is a fact ... another fact is that I really ain't making my point clear...
How do you judge of what is Metal or not? You can only judge this if you have a kind of definition of what Metal is. But you are not giving an opinion when you say Opeth is Metal, you are stating a fact.

If I'd take a bucket filled with red paint and just throw it on the floor, would it be considered art? If I consider that it is art... you may say that it's my right to have this opinion... but it really isn't art...
what do you think?

Opinion = I do not like Opeth, cause it's simply not my type of music.

Which is a nice way of saying "opeth sucks"

Hahaha! No I don't think Opeth sucks, in fact I see them as great artists, but I don't like their music.

So yes, this way you compared Bananas to Apples, but you compared them with your OPINIONS.

That's the only way you're going to reach a conclusion. Look man, you don't need facts to support why you like one fruit over the other. I like bananas more than apples because apples require more work. That's an opinion. It's also a valid reason for eating bananas more than apples.

I know what you mean and you are right. You don't need facts to support your opinions. I was just questionning the reasons to why you would like to post an opinion without explainning why you wish to share this opinion with us. I like oranges better than apples, but it's useless to make a post about it.
So when a new member joins and say: "Hey guys, I like Children Of Bodom and Cradle Of Filth."
Why do you have to destroy him with "CoB sucks!" or "CoF sucks balls!"... or even worst "CoB sucks, therefore you suck for liking them."
Most of the new members leave because of this behavior that we have. The only thing I'm asking you guys is not to make hateful posts for not reason. If you want to keep doing so, I'm not going to try to stop you. It's your choice. But I think that it's a lot easier to be nice to fellow metalheads.

Fucking example = I think Opeth is not good cause the progression is too slow and their songs are always sounding the same.

That's not constructive, for the simple reason that it's not going to change anything. It's a reason to dislike Opeth, but it's not going to make them change. "Constructive criticism" means "criticism with the intention to change."

I was talking more about a criticism that would help us have a good discussion. Like "I don't like CoB cause I think they sound to poppy" or "I don't like CoB because they sold out and started to make commercial shit"

You can hate CoB all you want anyway :P

At 5/13/09 07:23 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:

And how long have you been speaking English and reading English text? And you don't know...

I have been speaking English for 11 or 12 years. But only as a second language.
It's not that I don't know, it's that I can still make mistakes. Sometimes I notice the quotation marks... sometimes I don't...

"
It's basic writing.

It is basic writting. But if you speak two different languages, especially two languages that have a lot of similarities, you can make mistakes like these. Sometimes I write these " " quotation marks in a French text, because I read and write too much English.

And if you really feel the need to keep flamming on my, do it via PM system.

At 5/13/09 07:37 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: You think it is? maybe for talented, yes. But original? What defines originality? It's the fact that no one ever did it this way before, or no one ever did this at all before you did.

Nothing is new under the sun. I could argue that Coltrane's album "Ascension" is original in that it is a large-scale collective improvisation, but Ornette Coleman did the same thing, but in a different way. In this way, Ascension could either be considered original, because it wasn't done like that before, or it could be called a copy of Ornette Coleman because they are similar. Originality is based one what you believe to be new and what you believe to be old, as well as what you believe is a significant change.

And being talented, I'm talking about skills. Example: If you see to guys doing Kung Fu and that one of them as mastered the techniques better than the other one, he is more talented. Right?

But how do you know if he's more talented, huh? Nobody fights the same. Nobody plays music the same. Haven't you seen people argue over who is the better player?

Another jazz example: Sonny Rollins vs. John Coltrane. Both played tenor saxophone. Both were active in the bop and post-bop scenes. Who is better?

Vocalists. How about this one: Edu Falaschi of Angra vs. Hansi Kursch. Both are power metal vocalists, with similar styles. Who is better?

There's no universal rubric for talent, either. Some say that talent is defined by technical ability, range, proficiency, etc, while others say that it's the ability to play beautifully and construct appealing melodies.

How do you judge of what is Metal or not? You can only judge this if you have a kind of definition of what Metal is. But you are not giving an opinion when you say Opeth is Metal, you are stating a fact.

I said that they are CONSIDERED to be metal, not that I, the speaker, considered them metal. I intentionally avoided stating an opinion.

If I'd take a bucket filled with red paint and just throw it on the floor, would it be considered art? If I consider that it is art... you may say that it's my right to have this opinion... but it really isn't art...
what do you think?

Art isn't just content, it's also execution. If you accidentally spilled the paint, it'd be a mess. If you said "today, I will create a radical style of painting, in which i leave the creative process up to the force of the Earth and its gravitational pull" and tossed the paint out, certain schools would consider it art because of the process and creative ideas.

Hahaha! No I don't think Opeth sucks, in fact I see them as great artists, but I don't like their music.

Are you dumb? I'm not putting words in your mouth, I was just clarifying that the example statement you gave was just a nice way of saying "Opeth sucks." it's just as useless.

I like oranges better than apples, but it's useless to make a post about it.

Unless, for example, we were discussing our favorite fruits.

So when a new member joins and say: "Hey guys, I like Children Of Bodom and Cradle Of Filth."
Why do you have to destroy him with "CoB sucks!" or "CoF sucks balls!"... or even worst "CoB sucks, therefore you suck for liking them."

Because we have a right to say what we want. We don't need a reason to state an opinion. Also, we hardly ever do that.

Most of the new members leave because of this behavior that we have. The only thing I'm asking you guys is not to make hateful posts for not reason. If you want to keep doing so, I'm not going to try to stop you. It's your choice. But I think that it's a lot easier to be nice to fellow metalheads.

I don't remember you ever saying this.

I was talking more about a criticism that would help us have a good discussion. Like "I don't like CoB cause I think they sound to poppy" or "I don't like CoB because they sold out and started to make commercial shit"

I understand.

Also, Hawkwind.

You Shouldn't Do That - Hawkwind

At 5/13/09 07:55 PM, batman64 wrote: Hawkwind.
40 years and still flying.
Hell yeah.

So far I've got In Search of Space and Palace Springs (Live in London). What albums would you recommend getting?

At 5/13/09 07:37 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: You think it is? maybe for talented, yes. But original? What defines originality? It's the fact that no one ever did it this way before, or no one ever did this at all before you did. And being talented, I'm talking about skills. Example: If you see to guys doing Kung Fu and that one of them as mastered the techniques better than the other one, he is more talented. Right?

This is a fact: "Opeth is a musical group from Europe who are considered to be musicians of the metal style."

That is a fact ... another fact is that I really ain't making my point clear...
How do you judge of what is Metal or not? You can only judge this if you have a kind of definition of what Metal is. But you are not giving an opinion when you say Opeth is Metal, you are stating a fact.

He said CONSIDERED metal. Which is a fact. Who do you know who doesn't think Opeth is metal? And besides, metal has certain characteristics, such as these. Does Opeth conform to these standards, at least more so than to any other genre of music? I think most people would agree that they do have "loud distorted guitars, emphatic rhythms, dense bass-and-drum sound, and vigorous vocals". And, "Metal subgenres variously emphasize, alter, or omit one or more of these attributes." Are these opinions as well?

If I'd take a bucket filled with red paint and just throw it on the floor, would it be considered art? If I consider that it is art... you may say that it's my right to have this opinion... but it really isn't art...
what do you think?

If someone says it's art, then it's art. While other people may disagree. Do you think this is art? No one can strictly define art, because art is merely creativity made in such a way as to be seen.

Hahaha! No I don't think Opeth sucks, in fact I see them as great artists, but I don't like their music.

So yes, this way you compared Bananas to Apples, but you compared them with your OPINIONS.

That's the only way you're going to reach a conclusion. Look man, you don't need facts to support why you like one fruit over the other. I like bananas more than apples because apples require more work. That's an opinion. It's also a valid reason for eating bananas more than apples.

I know what you mean and you are right. You don't need facts to support your opinions. I was just questioning the reasons to why you would like to post an opinion without explaining why you wish to share this opinion with us. I like oranges better than apples, but it's useless to make a post about it.

While this is true, if no one said their opinions, then this wouldn't be a forum. We talk about which bands we like, and if I were to say, "I like Morbid Angel," then someone else could say, "Oh? You should check out Bloodbath." By stating our opinions while we're in here, we can expand our taste of music by letting others know what we like and letting them recommend a band we've never heard of but might like. Even if you say "I don't like black metal" someone could say "well, you should check out Behemoth." And they might get started that way. Opinions define us, as without opinions what would there be to talk about?

Most of the new members leave because of this behavior that we have. The only thing I'm asking you guys is not to make hateful posts for not reason. If you want to keep doing so, I'm not going to try to stop you. It's your choice. But I think that it's a lot easier to be nice to fellow metalheads.

But by saying "I hate CoB" people learn not to ask them about something about them, like an upcoming album or concert. And If someone leaves because someone else says they suck, then they obviously don't have the balls to stay here anyway.

And on a side note, read this. Obviously you don't understand what an opinion is, because you don't think Lady Gaga is art at all. While I do not like that kind of music, it's still a form of art. Not one that I like, but art no matter how much you don't like it.

At 5/13/09 07:49 PM, D3NTATUS wrote:

Nothing is new under the sun. I could argue that Coltrane's album "Ascension" is original in that it is a large-scale collective improvisation, but Ornette Coleman did the same thing, but in a different way. In this way, Ascension could either be considered original, because it wasn't done like that before, or it could be called a copy of Ornette Coleman because they are similar. Originality is based one what you believe to be new and what you believe to be old, as well as what you believe is a significant change.

But if everything was really just about the opinions we have of it, there wouldn't be any kind of definition to anything. What is the point of using a word if no one understands this word the same way? We have to give a "kind of definition" to the word. You do not have to stick to the exact words of the definition, but you should stay somewhere around the definition we gave of the word. So again, yes there are opinions involved, but originality still means that we have something new, or that we have something modified or played a different way. This is not THE definition of originality, but it's somewhere close enough to the actual definition.

But how do you know if he's more talented, huh? Nobody fights the same. Nobody plays music the same. Haven't you seen people argue over who is the better player?

I was not talking about two kung-fu fighters compared to each other... but maybe something like a guy who has a red belt... and one who has a black belt. Judging on what they have learned this far and what they can do, the guy with the black belt it "better" than the other one.

Another jazz example: Sonny Rollins vs. John Coltrane. Both played tenor saxophone. Both were active in the bop and post-bop scenes. Who is better?

None is better. This is where I consider opinions to be important. "I like Coltrane better because of the feeling and emotions in his music."

There's no universal rubric for talent, either. Some say that talent is defined by technical ability, range, proficiency, etc, while others say that it's the ability to play beautifully and construct appealing melodies.

And what if the artist we are talking about have none of the above? How is he good? I cannot consider myself to be as good as an Opera vocalist, though I am somewhat talented at singing.
Remember this discussion we had about Varg's vocals? Some of us were saying that his vocals are shit. The guy is not a "talented" vocalist. But he does bring some kind of "creativity" with his vocals. These are facts... now you can give your opinion... "I don't like him, I like vocalists who really have power in their voice." or "I like him, I like the way he makes us feel all the sadness and pain of the lyrics in his agressive vocals"

If I'd take a bucket filled with red paint and just throw it on the floor, would it be considered art? If I consider that it is art... you may say that it's my right to have this opinion... but it really isn't art...
what do you think?

Art isn't just content, it's also execution. If you accidentally spilled the paint, it'd be a mess. If you said "today, I will create a radical style of painting, in which i leave the creative process up to the force of the Earth and its gravitational pull" and tossed the paint out, certain schools would consider it art because of the process and creative ideas.

It's a very important point that you are bringing up here :)
Yes, it can be considered art, but am I as talented as Picasso? I don't think so... Am I as creative as Picasso? Maybe I am.

Are you dumb? I'm not putting words in your mouth, I was just clarifying that the example statement you gave was just a nice way of saying "Opeth sucks." it's just as useless.

I know that it's not what you were doing... but I did answer this way still. But I really do think there is a lot more to say in a discussion started with my sentence... than a sentence started this way: "Opeth sucks"

Because we have a right to say what we want. We don't need a reason to state an opinion. Also, we hardly ever do that.

I did left the Hell for a while in the past, cause I really thought that people were being very agressive and disrespectful. But still, my passion for Metal took over and I came back (I'm expecting answers like "you should have stayed a way". Thanks guys.)

I was talking more about a criticism that would help us have a good discussion. Like "I don't like CoB cause I think they sound to poppy" or "I don't like CoB because they sold out and started to make commercial shit"

I understand.

Awesome :)

At 5/13/09 07:14 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: But some music really is just made for commercial purposes. Can it be considered art?

Yes.
It's still sounds and it inflames peoples interests.

In my opinion.

At 5/13/09 07:19 PM, D3NTATUS wrote: I like bananas more than apples because apples require more work.

Shit mate, get a knife and cut slices off and eat them. Started doing it last week and its revolutionised by apple eating experience.

In my opinion.

At 5/13/09 08:09 PM, jew193 wrote:

While this is true, if no one said their opinions, then this wouldn't be a forum. We talk about which bands we like, and if I were to say, "I like Morbid Angel," then someone else could say, "Oh? You should check out Bloodbath." By stating our opinions while we're in here, we can expand our taste of music by letting others know what we like and letting them recommend a band we've never heard of but might like. Even if you say "I don't like black metal" someone could say "well, you should check out Behemoth." And they might get started that way. Opinions define us, as without opinions what would there be to talk about?

Still, saying you like Morbid Angel could help you find some more people who like them and you could share opinions on other artists and such. But stating that you don't like a band... is useless... isn't it? Except if you are going to say why.
If a guy would say "I don't like CoB because Alexi Laiho doesn't put enough power in his vocals. I like Norther better because of this" than someone else could answer this "I like CoB and I think the vocals are very fitting."
That's a better start than "CoB sucks."

And for a strange reason... saying "I don't like black metal" is still better than saying "Black metal sucks". Cause the second statement is obviously giving a very negative point of view...
And most of the time it's not newest members who make that kind of statement. Just imagine yourself posting for the first time in a Metal forum. You are full of hope and you wish to find some users who share tastes with you.
and first thing you read after posting your favorite bands is that half of the people in here think they suck. We could at least say stuff like this: "CoB isn't very good melodic death metal, you should check out Darkane." (OPINIONS) :O

But by saying "I hate CoB" people learn not to ask them about something about them, like an upcoming album or concert. And If someone leaves because someone else says they suck, then they obviously don't have the balls to stay here anyway.

It's always kind of intimidating to be the new guy... Even if you have good self-esteem.

At 5/13/09 07:49 PM, D3NTATUS wrote: Art isn't just content, it's also execution. If you accidentally spilled the paint, it'd be a mess. If you said "today, I will create a radical style of painting, in which i leave the creative process up to the force of the Earth and its gravitational pull" and tossed the paint out, certain schools would consider it art because of the process and creative ideas.

A great example of this whole 'execution' thing is John Cage's 4'33" listen :).

Normally, just silence, so nothing. But the idea is that the piece is about everyone in the audience listening to the sounds around them and due to the different placements having a unique experience.

At 5/13/09 08:27 PM, Nev wrote:

A great example of this whole 'execution' thing is John Cage's 4'33" listen :).

Normally, just silence, so nothing. But the idea is that the piece is about everyone in the audience listening to the sounds around them and due to the different placements having a unique experience.

I remember reading some stuff about this at the museum. It was for the exposition of Andy Warhol

At 5/13/09 07:43 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: And if you really feel the need to keep flamming on my, do it via PM system.

Okay, I will stop flamming on your.

At 5/13/09 08:35 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:

At 5/13/09 08:27 PM, Nev wrote:

A great example of this whole 'execution' thing is John Cage's 4'33" listen :).

Normally, just silence, so nothing. But the idea is that the piece is about everyone in the audience listening to the sounds around them and due to the different placements having a unique experience.

I remember reading some stuff about this at the museum. It was for the exposition of Andy Warhol

Oh, and I'm listenning to Agalloch's title: Scars Of The Shattered Sky (Our Fortress Has Burned to the Ground). I really like the "ambient sounds in it". The first 4 minutes are just wind sounds. I think that the use of silence and ambient sounds is very important in music... particularly when talking about Ambient Metal :P

At 5/13/09 08:41 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 5/13/09 07:43 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: And if you really feel the need to keep flamming on my, do it via PM system.

Okay, I will stop flamming on your.

Great :)
I really can't see why we should fight over opinions anyway.

At 5/13/09 08:51 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Great :)
I really can't see why we should fight over opinions anyway.

And get you've managed to drag it out for 2 pages.