Objectively Criticizing Music

Fat Freddy wrote:

I just can't see myself ever saying "Well, y'know, they're Nazis but dude, that guitarist shreds."

This. Absolutely.

Fat Freddy wrote:

Like many here, though, I draw the line at racist stuff. For example, a couple of years ago someone posted a YouTube video here by a white supremacist power metal band called BattleCry. They could play well enough I suppose, but even if they were the most amazing musicians ever to walk the earth, I wouldn't support them due to their outlook. I just can't see myself ever saying "Well, y'know, they're Nazis but dude, that guitarist shreds."

It's where you draw the line that's the hard part, I got recommended an album by Svarga called Spirit of the Land and sure enough it's immense but I did a bit of reading up on them and it appears that they sail way too close to the NSBM scene that it put me right off even though apparently there is no actual racism in their lyrics (they sing in Russian so I have no way of checking this). It's easy to say, oh I throw it away cause I think that they are racists but actually lots of other guys in metal have been accused of being racists too (W.A.S.P spring to mind as do Slayer, Axl & Hetfield) Then there is all of the homophobia and misogyny (Not going to list those bands, I'd be here all day!) Then there is advocating violence against people on grounds of religion, I saw some asshole in a documentary saying that it was hypocritical that his NSBM band that sang songs advocating violence against Jews were shunned by the metal community but bands that advocate violence against Christians were celebrated. You know what he's right! But where I differ is that I don't want to hear songs about killing any groups of people based on who they are (sexuality, race, colour, creed etc) I just don't and you could argue that it has always been a part of metal, but that's just bullshit (well, I suppose that misogyny has always been a part of it) 

I really have been feeling lately that I don't want to financially support people who might use my money for purposes that I feel so strongly repulsed by, but for now I'm limiting it to just avoiding band who actually spew their hatred directly into my ears, or have an image that makes it abundantly clear what they are all about.

There's all kinds of vile stuff in metal that you have to overlook if you want to enjoy it.

Necrophilia in Slayer and King Diamond's lyrics for example.

Temple of Blood wrote:

There's all kinds of vile stuff in metal that you have to overlook if you want to enjoy it.

Necrophilia in Slayer and King Diamond's lyrics for example.

Personally it's part of the package IMHO. Lots of metal is like a b-grade horror-movie slaughterfest. It's meant to be vile and repulsive and loaded with gore. I do not mind this. Slayer would not be Slayer if they sang about puppies, cake and good days at the beach.

I'm going to second the notion that it's hard to be objective when music is art and art is inherently a subjective thing. I mean, I think modern art is a pretentious load of bollocks perpetrated by incredibly untalented hacks who somehow manage to make a living out of sucking (not to denigrate honest, hardworking people who make a living by sucking), BUT I have to admit, if someone looks at paint blobs on a canvas or a sewer pipe jammed through a recliner (saw this once, remarkably unimpressive) and weeps openly at the beauty they perceive in it, I may COMPLETELY fail to get it, but someone's genuinely getting something out of it. So, objectively, it's good. Subjectively, I still think it's @#$# and that's probably as close to genuine objectivity as I'll ever get - "What does the thing DO?"

With music, it's the same thing and, on a personal level, everyone's threshhold for "enough" is going to be different. I can listen to Varg because, in his own weird sort of way, he kind of makes sense and at least seems to be living the - admittedly weird - philosophy he holds. Yes, he's a murderer, but given that so were a lot of other people in that scene and his explanation of "I thought he was going to get me if I didn't get him first," I'm kind of inclined to think that it was just a messed up scene and he acted messed up in kind. Again, I don't pretend to get it and I wouldn't go so far as to say that I respect him as a person, but it doesn't bother me on a personal level to admit that I like his prison albums or whatever.

Where I DO have a hard time with people acting like asses is when they're ripping off other musicians or genuinely hindering someone else's ability to make a living. I've long had an issue with Ozzy/Sharon Osborne for this simply because, hey, kill someone and that's evil - rob someone of their just payment during their most productive years and force them into expensive legal action to get back what's theirs while trashing their legacy? That's hateful on a whole new level. Geoff Tate making things incredibly shitty for the guys in Queensryche while driving the brand into the ground? That's not quite as bad because the other guys were complicit a bit in letting it continue as long as it did, but it's still skeezy.

Now, of those two examples, I can still say I'll probably pick up the next album by Tate just out of curiosity. He's an ass, but not so far down the pike that I won't keep an ear pricked to see if he redeems himself musically. If he fails musically, I'll probably write him off and leave it at that.

Ozzy... That one is a bit harder. It's a bit like the bootleg question - is it worth it to you to have the final product knowing someone who worked to make it happen wasn't getting paid? How much do you want to financially support that kind of person?

This is all kind of an extension of what was brought up earlier with regard to supporting a philosophy or lifestyle. Are you comfortable tossing money towards someone whose ways and means are that beyond the pale for you? I mean, hell, if you were into a band with one major songwriter and it turned out that songwriter was a pedophile or something (yes, hyperbole and an extreme example), would you still be comfortable buying that band's product no matter how good their stuff was?

I just think that, for however objective a view you try to maintain, there will always be a point where you just... feel dirty being into some music if it passes whatever that invisible line is for you and I'm not sure musical or compositional prowess is going to compensate for that. Objectivity doesn't equal enjoyment and that's kind of the issue here.

I don't see why asking the peadophile question is hyperbole, the guy from Lost Prophets is in jail for it, the Judas Priest drummer went to jail for it Bill Wyman somehow escaped prosecution despite admitting to sleeping with Mandy Smith when she was 13, Pete Townshend was busted for child porn, there are unsavory stories about Jimmy Page, Ted Nugent & Steven Tyler. Euronymus from Mayhem was known to watch child porn and snuff movies in the back room at his Helvete shop. It's hardly rare and another question that needs to be asked.

I honestly don't care about the campy horror stuff, in fact i like it and always have done, but there are dark corners of the metal scene where it gets too weird and outright offensive/dangerous for me.

Runicen wrote:

I'm going to second the notion that it's hard to be objective when music is art and art is inherently a subjective thing.  I mean, I think modern art is a pretentious load of bollocks perpetrated by incredibly untalented hacks who somehow manage to make a living out of sucking (not to denigrate honest, hardworking people who make a living by sucking), BUT I have to admit, if someone looks at paint blobs on a canvas or a sewer pipe jammed through a recliner (saw this once, remarkably unimpressive) and weeps openly at the beauty they perceive in it, I may COMPLETELY fail to get it, but someone's genuinely getting something out of it.  So, objectively, it's good.  Subjectively, I still think it's @#$# and that's probably as close to genuine objectivity as I'll ever get - "What does the thing DO?"

Interesting you bring that up. Just recently I found out about a three year old girl whose paintings (paint slapped higgly piggly on canvas) sell for millions of dollars. Baffling! I don't want to insult the kid, but if a three year old can do it, it's not really art.

I think it's ridiculous to say that Ozzy is worse then someone who actually committed murder.

Vexer6 wrote:

I think it's ridiculous to say that Ozzy is worse then someone who actually committed murder.

*shrug*  He's skirting a line, but I think ripping someone off in such a way that their labors get them zero or near to it while you profit is worse than killing someone.  Killing someone is pretty terrible, but it's *bang*, gone.  Ripping someone off over a long period of time essentially denies them a career and the just payout from their work.  That's disgusting on a whole new level and the person is living each day in the shadow of it. That goes double if their productive window has closed.

Think of it this way: how would you feel if you saw someone who'd put in decades of labor for a company was unceremoniously let go and stripped of their pension at a time where finding other work would be impossible - all this because a manager didn't like their face.  Keep in mind, these same managers profited MIGHTILY from the employee's work.  That's pretty parasitic and disgusting and there's not much our employee in this example has by way of recourse.

Specific to the case of Ozzy, I'm going to go out on a limb with what I've read and heard, which basically boil down to him trying to write out of his history (and deny royalties to) the people who gave him a solo career while he was too busy being passed out in the corner of the studio to do much of anything.  Worse than murder?  That's a matter of philosophy (I think it is), but you can't argue that's at best probably as far as you can go before it comes down to, "Dude, you may as well have just killed the guy outright."

We don't hesitate to call it out for what it is when it's a record label or executive, but when it's another musician...

As for the pedophile thing, yeah, there have been some people nailed for it in the rock industry.  Not sure I'd lump all of those names in together though.  It's a weird story, but having read Pete Townshend's autobio, I'm inclined to think it wasn't what the media presented it as.  Likewise, those 70s rockers who were banging younger girls may have been operating in pretty bad taste, but they weren't cruising to sleep with kids.  I think there's a distinguishing line between someone who sleeps with someone they assume to be of age and who shrugs when they find out it wasn't the case (no way of knowing whether they would have cared or not in retrospect) vs. someone who is cruising playgrounds (ugh...  even typing those words just skeezes me out).  I mean, is it COOL that rockers were probably banging high school girls while in their 20s/30s?  No.  But intention counts for a lot there, even if it was "UGH nasty wrong" either way.

That makes no sense to me at all,  murder is far worse then ripping someone off, there's usually ways to correct ripping someone off, but there's no way to undo a murder, this is honestly one of the most insane things i've ever heard, and saying I "can't argue" that's it's almost as bad as murder is a false dichotomy.

Runicen wrote:

As for the pedophile thing, yeah, there have been some people nailed for it in the rock industry.  Not sure I'd lump all of those names in together though.  It's a weird story, but having read Pete Townshend's autobio, I'm inclined to think it wasn't what the media presented it as.  Likewise, those 70s rockers who were banging younger girls may have been operating in pretty bad taste, but they weren't cruising to sleep with kids.  I think there's a distinguishing line between someone who sleeps with someone they assume to be of age and who shrugs when they find out it wasn't the case (no way of knowing whether they would have cared or not in retrospect) vs. someone who is cruising playgrounds (ugh...  even typing those words just skeezes me out).  I mean, is it COOL that rockers were probably banging high school girls while in their 20s/30s?  No.  But intention counts for a lot there, even if it was "UGH nasty wrong" either way.

This is maybe getting a bit pedantic, but paedophilia is the attraction to prepubescent children. So sleeping with someone who's still in high school may be skeezy, but it wouldn't make that person a paedophile.

Citanul wrote:

Runicen wrote:

As for the pedophile thing, yeah, there have been some people nailed for it in the rock industry.  Not sure I'd lump all of those names in together though.  It's a weird story, but having read Pete Townshend's autobio, I'm inclined to think it wasn't what the media presented it as.  Likewise, those 70s rockers who were banging younger girls may have been operating in pretty bad taste, but they weren't cruising to sleep with kids.  I think there's a distinguishing line between someone who sleeps with someone they assume to be of age and who shrugs when they find out it wasn't the case (no way of knowing whether they would have cared or not in retrospect) vs. someone who is cruising playgrounds (ugh...  even typing those words just skeezes me out).  I mean, is it COOL that rockers were probably banging high school girls while in their 20s/30s?  No.  But intention counts for a lot there, even if it was "UGH nasty wrong" either way.

This is maybe getting a bit pedantic, but paedophilia is the attraction to prepubescent children.  So sleeping with someone who's still in high school may be skeezy, but it wouldn't make that person a paedophile.

Plus the legal age of consent is different in every state, in many states the age of consent is 16.

Citanul wrote:

Runicen wrote:

As for the pedophile thing, yeah, there have been some people nailed for it in the rock industry.  Not sure I'd lump all of those names in together though.  It's a weird story, but having read Pete Townshend's autobio, I'm inclined to think it wasn't what the media presented it as.  Likewise, those 70s rockers who were banging younger girls may have been operating in pretty bad taste, but they weren't cruising to sleep with kids.  I think there's a distinguishing line between someone who sleeps with someone they assume to be of age and who shrugs when they find out it wasn't the case (no way of knowing whether they would have cared or not in retrospect) vs. someone who is cruising playgrounds (ugh...  even typing those words just skeezes me out).  I mean, is it COOL that rockers were probably banging high school girls while in their 20s/30s?  No.  But intention counts for a lot there, even if it was "UGH nasty wrong" either way.

This is maybe getting a bit pedantic, but paedophilia is the attraction to prepubescent children.  So sleeping with someone who's still in high school may be skeezy, but it wouldn't make that person a paedophile.

I was going to reply, "Yep. I'm completely on board with that," and then realized I probably needed to rephrase that...

Yeah, when we're talking about people who are distinctly attracted to and pursuing prepubescent children - ugh, nasty, awful, immoral and other words like that. No question.

My only issue is when people, via circumstance ("she looked 18") or just doing something kind of stupid and traceable (i.e. Pete Townshend going on websites he probably shouldn't have for "research" purposes) get lumped in with those who are totally gung ho about their proclivities. Just seems unfair given that there is (rightly) a HUGE social stigma around it. It's disgusting, predatory and wrong, but if the label is in any sense inapplicable, it still does a lot of damage to a person's reputation.

Am I making any kind of sense? I feel like I'm rambling. Mostly trying to clarify my position. I'm not getting the sense anyone's disagreeing with me on this point (though I could be wrong on that as well...).

I've read Townshend's explanation and it would be hilarious if it wasn't for the seriousness of the subject, plus he plead guilty case closed.

Sleeping with underage girls (or boys) is not skeezy, it's criminal and those who do it are sex criminals. I get that a guy doing a lot of substances might sleep with an under age girl because he didn't know or was too wired to care to much, but read up on the stories I mentioned, they are absolutely nothing like that.

Boris2008 wrote:

I've read Townshend's explanation and it would be hilarious if it wasn't for the seriousness of the subject, plus he plead guilty case closed.

Sleeping with underage girls (or boys) is not skeezy, it's criminal and those who do it are sex criminals. I get that a guy doing a lot of substances might sleep with an under age girl because he didn't know or was too wired to care to much, but read up on the stories I mentioned, they are absolutely nothing like that.

I seem to recall that he pled guilty to attempted access, not possession because they didn't find anything ON his computers. Again, I think that's a distinction worth drawing.

And I used the word "skeezy" because I have an allergy to speaking in moral/preachy terms. You're absolutely right. It is criminal and, more often than not, those doing it are predators. Where I have a hard time is when people who aren't predators get lumped in with those who are by comedy of errors or something of the like. It's no less tragic, but still something to be cautious of. Yeah, protect children, but don't attack people who aren't willfully attempting to prey on them.

I'm not familiar with those cases, but I'll take your word that they're not misunderstandings or mistake, etc. Some days my faith in humanity can't take the knocks of reading some of this stuff. Being based in PA, I get to hear all sorts of fun around the Jerry Sandusky case and all manner of "through the hoop" defenses sports fans here want to make about the college's coverup. That kind of thing bothers me to my core...

But we're getting a bit off topic here, so that'll be my last piece on the subject if that's alright. It's grim stuff.

Runicen wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

I've read Townshend's explanation and it would be hilarious if it wasn't for the seriousness of the subject, plus he plead guilty case closed.

Sleeping with underage girls (or boys) is not skeezy, it's criminal and those who do it are sex criminals. I get that a guy doing a lot of substances might sleep with an under age girl because he didn't know or was too wired to care to much, but read up on the stories I mentioned, they are absolutely nothing like that.

I seem to recall that he pled guilty to attempted access, not possession because they didn't find anything ON his computers.  Again, I think that's a distinction worth drawing.

And I used the word "skeezy" because I have an allergy to speaking in moral/preachy terms.  You're absolutely right.  It is criminal and, more often than not, those doing it are predators.  Where I have a hard time is when people who aren't predators get lumped in with those who are by comedy of errors or something of the like.  It's no less tragic, but still something to be cautious of.  Yeah, protect children, but don't attack people who aren't willfully attempting to prey on them.

I'm not familiar with those cases, but I'll take your word that they're not misunderstandings or mistake, etc.  Some days my faith in humanity can't take the knocks of reading some of this stuff.  Being based in PA, I get to hear all sorts of fun around the Jerry Sandusky case and all manner of "through the hoop" defenses sports fans here want to make about the college's coverup.  That kind of thing bothers me to my core...

But we're getting a bit off topic here, so that'll be my last piece on the subject if that's alright.  It's grim stuff.

That it is my friend. Can't get away from it in this country, half of the children's TV presenters that i watched as a kid are in jail the moment. 

Runicen wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

I think it's ridiculous to say that Ozzy is worse then someone who actually committed murder.

*shrug*  He's skirting a line, but I think ripping someone off in such a way that their labors get them zero or near to it while you profit is worse than killing someone.  

So... let's say you have a kid, and I murder him. Now let's say you have another kid and Vexer rips him off, and he doesn't get paid for something he worked for.

You'd consider what Vexer did worse than what I did?

Lari wrote:

You'd consider what Vexer did worse than what I did?

What Vexer does is always worse than what anyone else does. It's a HoM rule! 

Boris2008 wrote:

Lari wrote:

You'd consider what Vexer did worse than what I did?

What Vexer does is always worse than what anyone else does. It's a HoM rule! 

But you can see why other people would find the statement that ripping someone off is nearly as bad as murder completely ridiculous.

I'm not saying it's not evil(Bernie Madoff was certainly deserving of his fate) but it still doesn't inspire the same kind of hatred that murder does, Ozzy is nowhere near as heinous as mass-murderers like James Holmes and the guy who killed all those people in Norway(I keep forgetting his name).

I also remember someone on this site compared illegally downloading music to rape, and that person thought I was nuts for saying how unbelievably crazy and wrong that statement was.

Vexer6 wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

Lari wrote:

You'd consider what Vexer did worse than what I did?

What Vexer does is always worse than what anyone else does. It's a HoM rule! 

But you can see why other people would find the statement that ripping someone off is nearly as bad as murder completely ridiculous.

I'm not saying it's not evil(Bernie Madoff was certainly deserving of his fate) but it still doesn't inspire the same kind of hatred that murder does, Ozzy is nowhere near as heinous as mass-murderers like James Holmes and the guy who killed all those people in Norway(I keep forgetting his name).

I also remember someone on this site compared illegally downloading music to rape, and that person thought I was nuts for saying how unbelievably crazy and wrong that statement was.

Yeah, in this instance i completely agree with you.

Vexer6 wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

Lari wrote:

You'd consider what Vexer did worse than what I did?

What Vexer does is always worse than what anyone else does. It's a HoM rule! 

But you can see why other people would find the statement that ripping someone off is nearly as bad as murder completely ridiculous.

I'm not saying it's not evil(Bernie Madoff was certainly deserving of his fate) but it still doesn't inspire the same kind of hatred that murder does, Ozzy is nowhere near as heinous as mass-murderers like James Holmes and the guy who killed all those people in Norway(I keep forgetting his name).

I also remember someone on this site compared illegally downloading music to rape, and that person thought I was nuts for saying how unbelievably crazy and wrong that statement was.

What is "right" is mostly determined by who can bring enough force to bear to make it so. People want to say X is worse than Y but all they can really say is X in my opinion is worse than Y. There are most likely others who disagree. Just like with music, who is to know which opinion is correct?

Wow... Ok, let me see where to start on answering that one.

Going off the threats to my (nonexistent) children - if one was killed I'd want the guy who did it drawn and quartered. I think for the comparison to stick though, my second kid would need to be an inventor and a damn good one. Now, if someone came along and pulled a Thomas Edison on him, robbed him of a lucrative patent/invention and profited off of it greatly while discrediting him (my kid here) so that their ability to work in the field and be taken seriously was crippled or rendered nonexistent? Yeah, you've basically turned someone incredibly gifted and productive into someone who can only earn a subsistence living at a McDonalds. I guess the only other thing I could compare it to is imagine being attacked and you die. Now, imagine you were attacked and LIVED, but were paralyzed from the neck down. Yeah, you can still operate, but based on what someone else did TO you, you're not even half of what you were before.

This probably sounds like an extreme comparison, but consider that a lot of the musicians who get/got ripped off by people like Ozzy and his ilk in the business lost their most productive years in the industry to this bullshit. It's not like they're going to write or play on a hit now - so that ship has sailed. It's also a bit late for most of them to pick up a trade and get the cash rolling in that way.

So, ok, saying Ozzy is as bad as a mass murderer? Not exactly what I was going for (besides, he didn't rip off THAT many people). That said, I think it's a close second to screw somebody's career to advance your own. That's the meat of my argument here.

And illegal download being compared to rape? Jesus... I have some apology cards to send out...

This has to be the weirdest thread derailment yet.

At least nobody asked about the ways and means of objectively assessing whether a musical selection had balls...

Witchfinder wrote:

This has to be the weirdest thread derailment yet.

and that says a lot given this board