It's come to me that when Power Metal bands release albums that are the typical melodic [guitar solo's, extensive keyboard usage, high pitched vocals etc] European metal type all the feedback that these albums receive are comments such as

'flower metal'
'unoriginal'
'cheesy'

Why? Is my question. Surely it's logical that the old Power Metal bands such as Stratovarius; Rhapsody of Fire and Helloween set certain foundations of metal. These new bands follow the foundations because they work and are dubbed clones and all the aforementioned ridiculous names. Now here comes the intense deep thinking, a pioneer is someone who starts or greatly contributes to something, now in a metal context a generally accepted pioneer of Power Metal such as Stratovarius will have a lot of 'clones' because people emulate what works. right? So how can people criticise these new bands when all they're doing is using a formula that works? How can EVERY band bring ground breaking music to the field? It simply isn't possible, you have to judge them on the quality of THEIR music, not the distinct relation that music shares to a former band :s

This has been going through my mind for some time, but the two catalysts for this topic was a comment I received for one of my reviews of an album from a Power Metal band called Alliance of Bards. The commenter stated that the band was nothing more than a Rhapsody of Fire rip off [of course, every new Power Metal band from Italy MUST be ripping of Rhapsody right?]. While I wholeheartedly agree that there a lot of similarities between the two bands I have to say that ONE album from Alliance of Bards moved me musically more than any Rhapsody [Of Fire] album ever did, yet that band will forever be a clone and cheesy flower metal band because of a pioneering band.

The second catalyst was the review of an album by an unknown Power Metal band called Winter's Verge. The album was dubbed 'unoriginal' because it was too typical of the genre...thinking about that....doesn't it seem weird? What's the point of being in a genre if you don't stick to it?? Would you all still bum Opeth so much if they suddenly started going pro Industrial metal? No, of course you bloody wouldn't!

What is the cause of this paradox? Simply put, expectancy. People expect too much from new bands because of the 'standards' set by old bands. Like I said previously, it is not possible for every album to be ground breaking in its genre.

And this doesn't just go for Power Metal, in ALL genres metal you'll find the same old bigots who will bum the leading bands to extinction and shoo away all the upcoming bands untill...BANG! All the bands of old have disbanded, and finally, the no longer new bands will become the norm. Sadly, Power Metal being my favourite genre it's all I can talk about in excess, so I'll provide another example.

Stratovarius, as I've said, are considered a highly influential band in European Melodic Metal. Sonata Arctica, and band that came into existence while Strat were in their prime borrowed a lot of ideas, musically, from Stratovarius and really came into their own at the beginning of the 21st century, interestingly, whenever Sonata have released an album, it has never been dubbed cheesy or flower metal, sometimes, even by the greatest hater of Power Metal. Why is that exactly? There is very little difference between the two bands!

Thoughts?

I suppose you're right. People don't even blink an eye over the myriad of generic death and thrash bands. I personally don't like the music, and because I don't like the music, and don't listen to it regularly; it all sounds the same to me.

Your logic is horribly clouded.

you cite a band being dubbed "unoriginal" for sticking to the framework of accepted power metal... i fail to see what is wrong with labeling a band who adopt the "color by number" approach as unoriginal.

"what is the point of being in a genre if you don't stick to it?"

what is the point in being in a band if you are just doing b or c grade knock offs of what others have done before?

you can start within the accepted framework and incorporate something different within your music to set yourself apart ... whether it be a different point of view (say, Nile's adaptation of Egyptian themes, instrumentation, and lyrics rather than standard DM fodder) or flat out going way outside the box, such as Oranssi Pazuzu's album which goes from black metal to almost peaceful ambient within the same album.

if you think the mockery of such bands is limited to power metal, you are mistaken - some of the later thrash/early dm bands were jokingly referred to as "Slayer Babies" for aping them... Darkclones come to mind within BM. At no point is power metal the only subgenre that gets written off as "unoriginal" - they all do - it just hits closest to home for you because you are a power metal fan.

the cheesy remark is completely separate from "original" - but if the band is singing about heroes slaying dragons to save princesses, it's cliche. it's cheesy. the same is also often side of boring BM and DM bands that dredge up the same lyrical fodder that others did 20 years prior.

i don't think people "expect" too much from new bands - people like bands within their favorite genres that follow along the beaten path.

enjoyment of a fan <> originality of a band

to some of us, exploration and artistic expression is far more important than "using a formula that works"... thank lug for bands with the balls to be innovative rather than glommers on sticking to "a formula that works" - they make our world a better place.

@BitterCold: Totally agree that "unoriginality" is most definitely not limited to power metal only. I seem to recall a very similar thread recently that was about "generic european power metal" as if that is the only genre that has generic, unoriginal bands in it. I myself do not require orginality in order to enjoy a band's music. I merely see it as a bonus if they are doing something unique and out of the box. xD

Written by Angelic Storm on 14.12.2010 at 23:49

@BitterCold: Totally agree that "unoriginality" is most definitely not limited to power metal only. I seem to recall a very similar thread recently that was about "generic european power metal" as if that is the only genre that has generic, unoriginal bands in it. I myself do not require orginality in order to enjoy a band's music. I merely see it as a bonus if they are doing something unique and out of the box. xD

There is although a difference between generic and unoriginal bands. An unoriginal band can still stand out in terms of quality. The term "generic" also says something about the quality aspect of the music, referring to something that doesn't stand out in any way.

I also think that in terms of the ratio good bands/generic or crap bands, black metal tends to come off as the worst genre by far.

Note though that "good" says nothoing about originality. To illustrate this, we can take a band like iwrestledabearonce, showing the possibility of a highly original band sucking ass completely (actually one of the worst bands to come out of the '00s). On the other hand, we have bands like Tankard, who are not original in any way, but have made some good songs/albums (admitedly, also a lot of generic ones though).

I pretty much agree with BitterCold.

As for Powermetal more specifically, sorry but I think modern-day PM sucks and has been pussified too much. If you compare old to new PM, the old stuff is many times better. Also, while all genres can suffer from unoriginality and genericness, I think no other genre suffers as much from it as PM.

The problem with PM is when bands try to do something a bit different from 'generic Euro Powermetal', it's allways in the same direction : by going softer, radio-friendly, slower, pop-ish, etc.
When PM changes, it fails to keep it metal. Why not trying to push PM in a more extreme way for a change, once in a while?

Concerning Ancient Bards (since the comment you refer to as a catalyst in your post, Luneth, is mine), have you ever heard me label any other Italian PM band as a Rhapsody clone? No.
But Ancient Bards is a clone of old Rhapsody in all departments. Hell, just think about 'Dargor the Shadowlord' and 'Daltor the Dragonhunter' and you already have a good start. And the similarities are far from stopping there. It doesn't make it bad. In fact, it's a quite decent clone. Still, a clone and not anything new or groundbreaking.

In my case, I surely don't expect too much from old PM bands. To tell the truth, I expect nothing from them. Most of them are dead as for PM, anyway, and moved to hard rock and what I would call Popmetal.

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 15.12.2010 at 00:20
There is although a difference between generic and unoriginal bands. An unoriginal band can still stand out in terms of quality. The term "generic" also says something about the quality aspect of the music, referring to something that doesn't stand out in any way.

I also think that in terms of the ratio good bands/generic or crap bands, black metal tends to come off as the worst genre by far.

Note though that "good" says nothoing about originality. To illustrate this, we can take a band like iwrestledabearonce, showing the possibility of a highly original band sucking ass completely (actually one of the worst bands to come out of the '00s). On the other hand, we have bands like Tankard, who are not original in any way, but have made some good songs/albums (admitedly, also a lot of generic ones though).

Yep, that's just about right. xD

Ive always said orginality doesnt automatically equal "good", just as unoriginality doesnt have to mean "bad".

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 15.12.2010 at 00:20

Written by Angelic Storm on 14.12.2010 at 23:49

@BitterCold: Totally agree that "unoriginality" is most definitely not limited to power metal only. I seem to recall a very similar thread recently that was about "generic european power metal" as if that is the only genre that has generic, unoriginal bands in it. I myself do not require orginality in order to enjoy a band's music. I merely see it as a bonus if they are doing something unique and out of the box. xD

There is although a difference between generic and unoriginal bands. An unoriginal band can still stand out in terms of quality. The term "generic" also says something about the quality aspect of the music, referring to something that doesn't stand out in any way.

I also think that in terms of the ratio good bands/generic or crap bands, black metal tends to come off as the worst genre by far.

Exactly. Thanks for pointing this out about unoriginal vs generic. To me, generic means 'unoriginal to the point it hurts', if you know what I mean. Generic has something to do with mediocrity, imo.

About the BM genre. I'm a big BM fan and it's by far my favorite genre but I totally agree. For me, there's not much middle ground when it comes to BM: it's either great or sucks.

@BitterC0ld: How is my logic 'clouded'?

Good bands that aren't the 'founders' all either expand on something that has already been put in place, or bring something totally new to the genre [which doesn't happen all that often].

That seems perfectly logical to me.

Written by [user id=107773] on 15.12.2010 at 00:52

Good bands that aren't the 'founders' all either expand on something that has already been put in place, or bring something totally new to the genre [which doesn't happen all that often].

Wrong. Lots of bands only copy the original without adding anything to it. Many bands are no more than a pale copy of the original.

Written by RavenKing on 15.12.2010 at 00:35

Exactly. Thanks for pointing this out about unoriginal vs generic. To me, generic means 'unoriginal to the point it hurts', if you know what I mean. Generic has something to do with mediocrity, imo.

About the BM genre. I'm a big BM fan and it's by far my favorite genre but I totally agree. For me, there's not much middle ground when it comes to BM: it's either great or sucks.

I used to be a huge fan of black metal as well, but since then I've moved on to more traditional genres. Basically, I couldn't be bothered with wading through all the crap to find something good. In general I agree with you though, it's either good or it sucks. There also are some albums which are just surreal to the point where you really can't tell if they're good or not, like the first Parabellum EP (basically the most sick, demented and sinister black/death metal ever made, nothing else I've heard comes close, but it's also somehow borderline retarded and very hard to describe), Misantropical Painforest (half of the times I listen to it I really like it in some weird way, and half of the times I'm not even sure what's going on) or the early Von material. I also find that some of the really good albums are highly mood dependant, and can be percieved as really crappy if you listen to them under the wrong circumstances (although this mostly really goes to show how atmosphere-dependant black metal is).

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that bm is the least consistent genre of metal, and one of the most varied, yet the amount of really awesome bands is still disturbingly low for such a diversity.

I'm not big on modern euro-power either, but that has nothing to do with originality or lack thereof. It only has to do with the fact that I don't like the style.

Written by [user id=107773] on 15.12.2010 at 00:52

@BitterC0ld: How is my logic 'clouded'?

Good bands that aren't the 'founders' all either expand on something that has already been put in place, or bring something totally new to the genre [which doesn't happen all that often].

That seems perfectly logical to me.

for starters you complain about bands "sticking to a formula that works" get labeled as unoriginal. how more clouded does it get?

and that statement talks about "expanding" or "bringing something new to the table" - the majority of clone bands in any genre do no such thing. they just stick to "a formula that works."

Written by [user id=107773] on 15.12.2010 at 00:52

@BitterC0ld: How is my logic 'clouded'?

Good bands that aren't the 'founders' all either expand on something that has already been put in place, or bring something totally new to the genre [which doesn't happen all that often].

That seems perfectly logical to me.

RavenKing made a valid point connected to this, but I'd also like to add that even the founders of genres expand on things put in place before them. Music evolves gradually, and not thinking so is what gives rise to stupid viewpoints like the "All metal comes from Black Sabbath and only Black Sabbath!!!" fallacy. Everybody with things that's been laid out before them, and the rise of new genres is usually predated by a multitude of musicians moving in the same direction (often a natural one to take) rather than a single band suddenly inventing a whole new playing style so to speak. Evolution is way more gradual than that.

I don't know if your logic is "clouded" (as that's not a logical term in itself), but it's certainly invalid. That is to say, there's no necessary logical contradiction between the premisses and conclusions you present. There's certainly no paradox here, in the proper sense of the term. It is perfectly possible, logically, to criticize perceived unoriginality and nonetheless praise similar music that's perceived as original. The only logical contradiction might be this: A: it is good to stick to a genre, B: it is bad to be unoriginal. But nobody said both A and B: that's something you assumed and something I doubt many people would subscribe to.

However, I do agree with you on what I think is your main point: dismissing a band based on their alleged "unoriginality" is the biggest load of pretentious and lazy garbage to come out of a music critic's mouth. This self-satisfied snobbery is infuriatingly common in metal; there's actually a blogger I've read who thinks creating something completely new (as if that was objectively defined) is the most important virtue of music, and especially characteristic of metal (yeah right). How the hell do you define originality, anyway? Everything posted here so far is ambigious, subjective and insubstantial, which shows that it's an empty concept. Granted, there's some gut feeling of originality we get when we hear the kind of stuff we've never heard before, and we do recognize familiar sounds as unoriginal. But don't you see how much this depends on your preconceptions? Somebody new to a style will hardly find the first band they hear "unoriginal" and any such accusations would (rightly) fall on deaf ears. Originality is an aspect you can mention in music criticism, and it's understandable you're not interested in music you've heard a hundred times over. But I play the Hipster card if you say it's the key factor in your enjoyment. Originality is a matter of credibility external to the music. I think it's ironic metalheads are so proud of their authenticity and focus on the music itself, while bickering over matters of historical causation. If you really think about it, it seems terribly irrelevant whether Ancient Bards released their album before or after Rhapsody's debut. If you like it, you like it (and I feel bad for you if you stop liking it once you hear somebody did it before). If you don't, please come up with a better explanation than "unoriginality."

This topic touches on a bigger question of art criticism: should a work of art be evaluated as it is in itself, or in its proper context? And what is that context? The intentions of the artist? The allusions to other art or intellectual questions? The historical tradition it's part of? I think you can make a reasonable case one way or another, but too much emphasis on context will mislead you. The context can add to or reduce your appreciation for the work, but you're not being very honest and receptive to the aesthetic experience itself if you let the context dictate your final decision.

Written by [user id=107773] on 14.12.2010 at 21:10

Now here comes the intense deep thinking, a pioneer is someone who starts or greatly contributes to something, now in a metal context a generally accepted pioneer of Power Metal such as Stratovarius will have a lot of 'clones' because people emulate what works. right? So how can people criticise these new bands when all they're doing is using a formula that works?

Not really that much to think about... any band using a formula is not trying to be original. I thought this topic was discussing the real originality paradox, the understanding of man in relation to individual and society.

Written by BitterCOld on 15.12.2010 at 01:05

Written by [user id=107773] on 15.12.2010 at 00:52

@BitterC0ld: How is my logic 'clouded'?

Good bands that aren't the 'founders' all either expand on something that has already been put in place, or bring something totally new to the genre [which doesn't happen all that often].

That seems perfectly logical to me.

for starters you complain about bands "sticking to a formula that works" get labeled as unoriginal. how more clouded does it get?

and that statement talks about "expanding" or "bringing something new to the table" - the majority of clone bands in any genre do no such thing. they just stick to "a formula that works."

I'm complaining? No, I'm doing the opposite, I'm defending those bands! I think it's wrong that they're slandered the way they are. I completely disagree with the view that 'clone' bands bring nothing new to the table. For starters people only measure that viewpoint against the original, i.e, the band that started the trend. Musically, of course they bring something new to the table, that's just obvious, not all pieces of music sound the same, they just can't lol

Written by Introspekrieg on 15.12.2010 at 01:24

Written by [user id=107773] on 14.12.2010 at 21:10

Now here comes the intense deep thinking, a pioneer is someone who starts or greatly contributes to something, now in a metal context a generally accepted pioneer of Power Metal such as Stratovarius will have a lot of 'clones' because people emulate what works. right? So how can people criticise these new bands when all they're doing is using a formula that works?

Not really that much to think about... any band using a formula is not trying to be original. I thought this topic was discussing the real originality paradox, the understanding of man in relation to individual and society.

Oh no, I've written a few essays on that for fun though, this is just in a metal context and yeah, there's not really that much to think about really

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 15.12.2010 at 01:10
RavenKing made a valid point connected to this, but I'd also like to add that even the founders of genres expand on things put in place before them. Music evolves gradually, and not thinking so is what gives rise to stupid viewpoints like the "All metal comes from Black Sabbath and only Black Sabbath!!!" fallacy. Everybody with things that's been laid out before them, and the rise of new genres is usually predated by a multitude of musicians moving in the same direction (often a natural one to take) rather than a single band suddenly inventing a whole new playing style so to speak. Evolution is way more gradual than that.

This is completely true. To use an example, Helloween are considered by me and many others to be the first band to play "power metal". However, they merely expanded on a blueprint laid down by bands like Judas Priest, and Accept. If it wasnt for the groundwork of such bands, Helloween would not have played the style that they did. So more than one band was responsible for the evolvement into that genre. Usually one band is like a figurehead for "starting" a genre, but as you said, those bands are merely expanding on things that other bands before them have already done.

Well, I would question the underlying premise of many posters here: that "bringing something new to the table" is a good thing in itself, let alone a necessary criterion of good music or quality art. No doubt, it's an important part of the greater evolution of music. It happens naturally because thousands of bands release new records every year. Don't worry about a few scenesters. When progress becomes a goal in itself, though, you miss what I think is the more important point: entertainment. Yes, I like to reduce music and art to entertainment. You can use grander terms if you want: emotional resonance, transcendence of your surroundings, deep insights to your life and the universe, whatever floats your boat. None of this is necessarily connected to originality and progress. Some people might be so obsessed with new experiences that they need experimental, seemingly original bands to entertain them. That's fine, but it's just a matter of taste. Hardly an objective criterion of the music's "quality."

Written by [user id=107773] on 15.12.2010 at 01:27

I'm complaining? No, I'm doing the opposite, I'm defending those bands! I think it's wrong that they're slandered the way they are. I completely disagree with the view that 'clone' bands bring nothing new to the table. For starters people only measure that viewpoint against the original, i.e, the band that started the trend. Musically, of course they bring something new to the table, that's just obvious, not all pieces of music sound the same, they just can't lol

what you call "defending" comes across as someone getting butt hurt because a power metal band they like got called "unoriginal".

as for "something new to the table" - you missed the boat. just a different song with a different title doesn't make it particularly "new". i guess changing a note here or there counts as "new" to you. if you sound 99% like a band that came before you, it is not new. might be good, but is not new, innovative, or original.

Written by BitterCOld on 15.12.2010 at 01:59

as for "something new to the table" - you missed the boat. just a different song with a different title doesn't make it particularly "new". i guess changing a note here or there counts as "new" to you. if you sound 99% like a band that came before you, it is not new. might be good, but is not new, innovative, or original.

Agreed.

I wish to add that quality and originality are different things. You can have something not original at all but so well executed it is great, while you can find lots of failed experimentation that end up sucking big time.
Sometimes, people make it sound as if originality = quality. And this is something quite wrong.

Robert Johnson was original, everything else is a rip off. End of.

Incidentally there is nothing wrong with being unoriginal. You think Leonardo Da Vinci was the first guy to paint a half smiling brunette? Hell no he just did it better than everyone else!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being unoriginal. Especially in this day and age, when its a lot harder to make anything truly unique as most things have already been done before. If a band is good and original, I take that as a bonus. I think its pretty dumb, people who think music has to be original for it to be enjoyable.

Written by Angelic Storm on 16.12.2010 at 12:40

I think its pretty dumb, people who think music has to be original for it to be enjoyable.

Indeed. And those people are asking too much. Also, I believe they will hit a brick wall one day because they will be unable to find anything new that is original from their point of view. The more experienced they get with metal music and the more stuff they listened to, the closer they are to splat their face against the wall.

Imo, it's a stupid and snobbish mindset that will lead them only to disappointment in the end. It's unrealistic to think like that. And those people do not realize they are probably the worst kind of elitists, often dismissing very good music only because it is not 'original enough' from their point of view. For them, originality = quality and, when they push it too far, they will dismiss great stuff purely on the originality aspect and will praise crap only because it is supposedly original (read failed experimentation).

I have no problems with unoriginal music, as long as it stands out in terms of quality. I just don't want my stuff to be generic (stuff that does not stand out in any way and that I'm going to forget about just a little time after hearing it).

Stuff can be unoriginal but not mediocre, and mediocre (quality-wise) but highly original. It is when unoriginality and mediocrity combines that it becomes generic, and it is not until then it becomes a problem. Simple, really.

However (long rant ahead):

I have also yet to see all these percieved people who are convinced that originality=quality. This topic is, for instance, completely devoid of such posts, and it kinda feels like we're all saying pretty much the same thing. Could someone link me to some of the posts? This percieved originality=quality crew feels a bit like a strawman. I guess my question would be: do these people really exist to an extent noticable enough to warrant this discussion or are they just people having problems understanding the difference between the words "unoriginality" and genericness (unoriginality+mediocrity)? I really need to confess that I have never seen any of these posts.

It seems to resemble a bit the percieved crew of metal elitists corrupting the place (also largely a strawman).

And also, if you are referring to the "generic euro power metal" thread we had a while back, I believe most of the posts didn't deal solely with unoriginality (if I remember correctly), but more about cheesines (which has nothing to do with originality), genericness (not the same as originality, but also says something about the relative quality) and a general distaste for the genre (and this is totally fine, no matter what some people might say). In fact (again, if I remember correctly), I believe a lot of shit in that thread was due to one or two people (defending the genre rather than slamming it) who choose not to have a civil discussion.

This also begs another question. If this indeed is a strawman, why does it exist? To me it seems like a case of trying to discredit the opinions of others who disagree with you (the same purpose of the elitist strawman), perhaps in an attempt to justify your liking of what others seem to think of as generic and crappy (in fact, thes nearly seems to be a variation of the elitist strawman). This begs another question. Why would someone do this. To this question, I have no real answer. To me, you can like what the fuck you want, even if I think it sucks. If you try to shove something down my throat, however, I will present my opinion of it (likewise, I will criticize bad arguments and comparisons). I do not, however, expect you to change your mind based on what I am saying.

A person who at this time is obsessed with who is right or wrong might at this point ask me why I am even partaking in a discussion about metal. That is because the main purpose of debating metal on a public forum is the learning experience rather than that "Yeah!! I won!!" feeling. Why is this so? Because this quality that we have talked about a lot in this thread is largely something subjective (debating something objective would be quite pointless anyway, so yeah, "It's all subjective, man!" is another argument i totally loathe since that is so completely obvious that it shouldn't need saying and when it is used it is usually used in so intellectually dishonest ways that it is sickening, being a shortcut towards invalidating a point made rather than anything else). I debate about metal to learn about it, and that is all that drives me in that case. I want to know as much as possible about metal, and about the ways in which you can enjoy it's different types, but this mindset about "You can't possibly think differently than me without being wrong" is quite disturbing. I do, although, know what I like and what I don't like.

And yeah, honestly, that is what I think this is. Unless someone comes in here and proves me wrong, I will stick by that.

Genre restrictions are created by the fans, not the bands, so your whole "why create a genre if you don't stick to it?" doesn't work. It's not like these bands set out to copied by 3000 others, it just happens.

Secondly, it's not a black and white issue, it's more about degrees than anything else. Some bands have a certain character to them that makes them stand out despite not being terribly original.

Quote:
How can EVERY band bring ground breaking music to the field?

They can't, just as not every band can be great. Point being, the unoriginal sound of some bands can be overlooked if they at least have some distinct quality that makes them identifiable when standing next to other bands of the genre. More times than not people just want to mimic their idols instead of reworking their influence into their own thing.

The OP sounded like a logical question until the whole Opeth thing came up, not that I'm getting defencive over Opeth, as I really couldn't give two shits, but it just made the whole thing seem like whining from someone who has had their generic favourite bands shit on a few too many times.

And yes, I consider Sonata Arctica flower metal.

@Foreverdarkwoods: Are you trying to say you've never seen anyone criticising a band solely for being unoriginal?

Aside from extremely rare instances, there is no "right and wrong" where opinions on music are concerned, because opinions are just that. As for the "generic power metal" thread, and talking about people posting in it who had a general dislike for that genre, well, the point of the thread would be totally lost on people like that, as they dislike the genre itself. Whether certain bands are generic or not then becomes a non-issue. And of course disliking the genre is perfectly fine, (people who say its not are idiots) but it only stands to reason that people like that will criticise the genre no matter what.

Some people get hyper defensive when someone criticises their favourite bands/albums. I myself couldnt care less what anyone else thinks about bands I like. Im very happy to debate with people in a rational, friendly way. But personal attacks are something that Ive always seen as wholly unnecessary, especially when debating a subject such as tastes in metal/music. I tend to see such behaviour as more defensive than attacking, as it really should not matter what anyone else thinks about your musical opinions. To sink down to the level of childish namecalling and fighting smacks to me of someone who isnt sincere in their thoughts and opinions.

Its interesting that you seem to hate the point of "its all subjective" so much. I only criticise subjectivity when it is being used to paint personal opinions on music as irrefutable facts. And there are certainly a good few people who think their opinions are superior to others', and that they are facts, and not merely their own opinions. The whole problem I have, is with people thinking that everyone who holds a different opinion to them is wrong, and that only their opinions can be right.

Hey man, I am unable to defend my argument any further... so I'll just depart with this:

It's all subjective.

...

Written by vezzy on 16.12.2010 at 18:36

Hey man, I am unable to defend my argument any further... so I'll just depart with this:

It's all subjective.

...

Yeah...but we won't get anywhere all saying that in every discussion will we? lol

Written by [user id=107773] on 16.12.2010 at 18:50

Written by vezzy on 16.12.2010 at 18:36

Hey man, I am unable to defend my argument any further... so I'll just depart with this:

It's all subjective.

...

Yeah...but we won't get anywhere all saying that in every discussion will we? lol

Precisely why it's annoying to say.