"Metal is a world of its own and even listeners who grew

I mean this sincerely:

What did he mean by this?

>>68567882
metal is gay

>>68567932
oh, thanks I agree a little

He's saying in essence that metal is just cheesy sci fi/Tolkien crap that doesn't actually say anything or have an actual "message".

>>68567961
kind of a bold statement considering the vast amounts of metal out there

>>68568065
A vast amount of shit is still shit.

>>68568184
ok

anyone who disregards a whole genre is dumb

>>68568698
anyone who is you is dumb

>>68567882
He claims that metal music, as a music scene and as a culture, is very defined and closed within itself, unlike other developments of rock music, which were accepted as parts of the big chain of the genre by the rock community. This distance he attributes to the very things metal music strives to achieve: technical complexity, accurate instrumental performances, detailed and carefully structured compositions and so forth - emotional and musical grandeur. For true rockists, introducing the genre to all these elements is basically forcing a classicist approach to music and its values on a genre which's entire essence is to break those down. Rock is by definition a space which is less full of itself, a lot more free and natural, and metal takes that away from it.

Notice that he doesn't claim metal is bad, he just explains why people who like rock usually don't like metal.

>>68567785
what year did he say this?

>>68570078
1994

>>68568809
Yup. This is also why he dislikes progressive rock as well

>>68568698
yeah nobody should disregard crunkcore it has artistic merit for sure

>>68570474
not a real genre, it's just really shitty metalcore

>>68568809

>technical complexity, accurate instrumental performances, detailed and carefully structured compositions

A large percentage of metal has none of this.

>>68570474
artistic merit a meme
>>68570499
no, it's really shitty crunk. i don't think any of the bands ever used anything but fl studio for their tracks

>>68568809
>technical complexity, accurate instrumental performances, detailed and carefully structured compositions and so fort
This isn't even correct tho
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I82l1t5v72Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWqhN5I_5wM

>>68570474
Just because you haven't heard good crunkcore, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or can't be made. Therefore you can't assume something is bad until you heard it and judge for yourself, which is why disregarding genre's is retarded.

So he essentially just hates originality? Anything outside the familiar he shuns?

>>68568698
>dude everything is good lmao
You have no taste.

>>68570627
Have you ever actually read his reviews or looked at his ratings?

I bet you think that metal is the most "innovative" genre of rock

>>68567785
I understand that Christgau likes simple unpretentious rock and pop, which I can't really fault him for, but what I don't understand is why he continues to review Prog and Metal albums that he basically knows he won't like.

>>68570647

No, I'm basing that wholly on what I've read in this thread.

And no. Nice projection though.

>>68570754
He doesn't really. He just reviews the so-called "classics" of the genre like Yes and Sabbath and leaves it at that. He never bothered with much else unless he felt the need to counteract popularity or hype.

He hasn't reviewed much recent nu-prog and metal either

>>68570634
Do you have a model for determining what is objectively good music, that is provable and is consistent throughout all persons? If not shut the fuck up.

Scaruffi is much more openminded

>>68570634


0/10 strawman. Not even close to what he said.

>thinking he knows what rock and roll was meant to 'save us from'
wtf is he even talking about, patronising dickhead

And yet it's all trash compared to Classical and Jazz. Get good and get an ear.

>>68570614
this is your music taste on leftism folks

Christgau knows virtually zero theory, cannot play a single instrument, has never written a song, and listens almost exclusively to pop music.

He is not a serious music critic. He is not even a serious journalist. He is incapable of producing any worthwhile analyses of music because he doesn't know anything about music besides his immediate emotional reactions to the cliches he vaguely recognizes. He is a talking head who writes quick, easy, and fashionable opinions for pseuds that need a Daddy-figure to guide them through what media is cool to like and what music isn't.

He embodies everything I hate about music fans. All image, all posturing, all obsession with celebrity, all treating media like Pokemon to be collected and then using it to compensate for a personality, and not a single speck of substance in those idiotic one line reviews. Pitchfork, TMT, Spin, every self-proclaimed avant-teen on RYM, these are his mongoloid children. Fuck him, fuck indie music, and fuck you for reading this on /mu/ you rancid piece of dogshit

>>68571765
/thread

>>68571377
Create an objective scientific theory in which to determine what music is objectively good or not. Oh wait that's impossible and you're full of shit.

>>68571876
Inb4 he arbitrarily links complexity with quality

File: image.jpg (2KB, 91x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 91x125px

>>68571237

>>68570521
That can be said of any genre

>>68571922
but like the majority of metal is not technically complex, I'd even say large majority.

>>68571935
I wouldn't. For every doom band (which have to be complex in their own right to be good) there's a tech-death group.

How are you defining "majority?"

>>68572113
black metal, death metal, and doom metal all have mostly non technical approaches, and those are the biggest subgenre's of metal.

>>68572271
What do you mean by non-technical? Slow? I'm not trying to be an ass, I just don't understand.

I've played guitar for six years, and every genre has its own nuances to be aware of. Sure, not every area has blindingly fast appregios and the like, but that makes melodic considerations even more important.

>>68572271
You'd be surprised. You can really dissect a lot of doom and black riffs and songs.

>>68571935
>>68572113
>>68572271
>>68572353
it's not just the technicality, its the environment in which a genre defines the band, and not the other way around. metal has become overly defined as a form and has no progressive thought, however radical. it's a stagnated culture and has only seen progress by cutting itself into smaller niche audiences.

>>68572484
What you just said is the antithesis of progressive thought.

>>68572526
The progressive thought is that people stop trying to write metal and start writing something else.

Much like any other genre that's greyed, it serves no purpose in saving beyond nostalgia's sake. Cut away old things, lest we be buried by them, ya dig?

>>68572484
Annnnd there's the prententious self masturbatory load of shite that inevitably shows up, in lieu of actual musical discussion. Just talk about genres and pop psychology.

>>68572353
>what do you mean non technical
Having structure, melody, and riffs does not make something technical, technical implies a heavy emphasis on technicality in terms complex structure and (more frequently) technical skill.

this is what i would consider technical
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muS9r3FhDOA

this is not
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsdWLtPAVqM

>>68572571
Metal is general enough that you can set out to write "metal" and come out with something unique. It's just a label that usually implies some sort of "extremeness" for lack of a better word.

File: 1425496802216.jpg (40KB, 374x386px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 374x386px

>>68567785
>"For many of us, metal's classical affinities are the very thing that renders it unlistenable--that as far as we're concerned, the instrumentally dexterous, rhetoric-drenched, and often melodramatic approach to meaning the two musics share is what rock and roll was put on earth to save us from."

>shitting on classical
Why do people listen to this intellectual midget again?

>>68572605
In my opinion, while the first is definitely more so, both of these can be considered technical. Although where style ends and complexity begins is inherently subjective, and I tend asess the latter heavily in the context of the former.

>>68571765
well put.

/thread

>>68572703
So that they feel special because the don't like [genre x]

Not liking something is fine, but people try to twist their SUBJECTIVE preference to be some sort of marker for "good taste" or other such wankery.

>>68567785
is this the "villains" that did nothing wrong thread?

>>68572727
>both of these can be considered technical
Again, having riffs and melody does not make something technical, technical as a description requires the music to have an emphasis on that fact. Otherwise pretty much anything with a song structure is technical and the word is meaningless.

>>68572897
>meaningless

Read: subjective

>>68572919

subjective

read: meaningless

>>68572958
And at that moment he realized: opinions are meaningless

>>68572919
It is subjective, but it's not very useful to call anything technical that displays any kind of riffing, that's my point. I listen to a fuck ton of metal, there is a distinct difference between metal that does, and does not focus on the technical aspects of it's music.

>>68572958
>x is y
>no, y is x

Nice

>>68573020
Perhaps "relative" is closer to what I'm trying to say. As in, it can be assessed objectively only with context. Would you agree with that?

>>68573060
Yeah I guess so, though I really don't see how under your definition this wouldn't be technical.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wabrnt1MVVQ