Written by Angelic Storm on 16.12.2010 at 16:55

@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.

I am not denying the theoretical existance of such idiots, but I am questioning their relevance. In my experience these people live an extremely periphery existance, which in some ways is evidenced that this thread is nearly 100% a bunch of people agreeing with eachother on the foundational points of the issue. I'm saying that this percieved group of individuals appear to possess the qualities of a strawman (a fictional character or group of characters used to discredit someone else's opinions during a discussion, but that really is irrelevant to the issue at hand). In all cases I've seen of the "they are unoriginal" approach to criticism, the nature of those statements point to the word "unoriginal" being used wrongly instead of "generic" or "mediocre". This is also often blatantly obviously the case. Therefore I question the existence of this percieved group of individuals who only care about originality and not about quality as anything else than a strawman to help unsecure people validate their own opinions and discredit the opinions of others.

I attribute this to language errors, and not so much to people being genuinely only attracted by original music. I would very much like some links to posts by these aforementioned people to prove me wrong though. The OP talked about comments surrounding some euro-power albums, for instance. Which albums are we talking about here? What do the comments look like?

What I'm saying, basically, is that there is a difference between a badly worded argument and an attraction to only original music, and if it all (or most of it) comes down to badly used English, which is likely, then this "I only like original music" type of people becomes a strawman and not relevant at all to any serious discussion (only usable in intellectually dishonest ways of discrediting the opinions of others). I get the sense that the purpose of this little strawman would be to go into hyper-defensive mode when people criticize albums they like, as that would be it's most obvious use.

The reason that I dislike the "it's all subjective" argument has nothing to do with whether it's true or not but with how it's most commonly used. It is most commonly used by a person when said person has done very badly in a debate and wants to cover it all up. It is an excuse not to take what the other person has said seriously and not, and it also makes the other person not take you seriously. Regardless of whether it's true or not it is an incorrect way to debate, and makes the entire debate worthless. It basically nullifies anything that could have been learned from the debate.

Regardless of what it is meant to do, it nearly always comes across just as Vezzy pointed out. It also quite clearly signals your stance, being of the type "I don't care about what you think, I only care about what I think. I have no intention of learning from this debate, I just want to say what I think, and if I lose the debate, I have this to fall back on, effectively nullifying the debate". It's quite simple really, when you decide not to take someone else seriously, they decide not to take you seriously as well, and the entire debate becomes a complete waste of time.

I agree with you though, the little overzealous anus.com people deserve to be called out for their idiocy, and for being completely turned away from reality, but there are better ways to do it.

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 16.12.2010 at 19:29


The reason that I dislike the "it's all subjective" argument has nothing to do with whether it's true or not but with how it's most commonly used. It is most commonly used by a person when said person has done very badly in a debate and wants to cover it all up. It is an excuse not to take what the other person has said seriously and not, and it also makes the other person not take you seriously. Regardless of whether it's true or not it is an incorrect way to debate, and makes the entire debate worthless. It basically nullifies anything that could have been learned from the debate.

or it's used by someone tired of wasting time arguing minutiae with someone else when both occupy contrary positions with neither willing to budge. it doesn't make the debate worthless, however ultimately acknowledges that both parties are entitled to separate points of view.

it's certainly better than 16 pages of useless ongoing back and forth arguments by two differing opinions.

@ForeverDarkWoods: The thing about comments on euro-power albums is something you'd have to bring up with the OP. lol There is a difference between a badly worded arguement and an attraction to only original music. The problem then is, it comes down to the individuals' own interpretation of criticsm of unoriginality in a band. A person can only be attacked for what they've actually said, so I dont think you can really blame anyone for not being mind readers and not seeing more in someone criticising a band's unoriginality if that's the only thing they've attacked in their criticsm. There are lots of people who get hyper-defensive when bands/albums they like are attacked, but by the same token, a person cant be blamed for someone else's badly worded arguement. (if thats what the criticsm of originality actually is) I do agree with you though that in at least some cases when someone is criticising (or seems to be criticising) only unoriginality that its more of a case of language errors and poor choice of words, rather than only liking original music.

Oh, and I know what a strawman is. hehe

Well, the huge flaw with that angle, is that it's not possible for someone to "do badly" in a debate were its purely musical opinions that are being debated. Because as I stated earlier, there is no "right and wrong" where opinions on music is concerned. Ive never actually criticised subjectiveness in a debating context.

In fact, the only time I have ever brought subjectivity into a "discussion", is when the other person is not actually debating at all, and is coming from the angle of "I don't care about what you think, I only care about what I think. I have no intention of learning from this debate, I just want to say what I think...". Once someone displays that attitude in any type of discussion or debate, then attacking them in any way, is completely justified. Debating is absolutely fine, but once someone displays their own opinions as facts, and wont respect your opinions, then there is no debate, or discussion, and it simply becomes a tedious excercise in one upman-ship and trying to prove that your opinion is "right". You can respect someone else's views on bands/albums without agreeing with them. And proper debate and discussion has to be based on that respect, otherwise it just becomes an infantile, dead-end arguement which serves no purpose other than for someone to try and satisfy their own ego.


@BitterCold: Bingo, you've hit the nail right on the head there. That's exactly what Im trying to say. xD

Written by BitterCOld on 16.12.2010 at 19:58

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 16.12.2010 at 19:29


The reason that I dislike the "it's all subjective" argument has nothing to do with whether it's true or not but with how it's most commonly used. It is most commonly used by a person when said person has done very badly in a debate and wants to cover it all up. It is an excuse not to take what the other person has said seriously and not, and it also makes the other person not take you seriously. Regardless of whether it's true or not it is an incorrect way to debate, and makes the entire debate worthless. It basically nullifies anything that could have been learned from the debate.

or it's used by someone tired of wasting time arguing minutiae with someone else when both occupy contrary positions with neither willing to budge. it doesn't make the debate worthless, however ultimately acknowledges that both parties are entitled to separate points of view.

it's certainly better than 16 pages of useless ongoing back and forth arguments by two differing opinions.

I didn't say "always". I said "most commonly". I'm sure there are correct ways to use the argument as well, but that isn't all too common these days. And generally, if a debate is going nowhere, it tends to die off as all participants eventually get bored and stop caring. I just don't like the way it's often being used in an attempt to kill otherwise productive discussions. There is obviously nothing inherently wrong with "Let's agree to disagree" situations, but most of the uses of the "it's all subjective, man" argument don't really come off as such (at least not to me). Most of the time, it just doesn't take the discussion anywhere, and often the debate still continues even after said comment has been posted, making it completely nonsignificant. Debates tend to die off on their own, and the few that turn into huge shit throwing contests (on MS these are very few if you compare with other places) can be dealt with in other ways.

And you're right, in those situations it doesn't make the debate worthless, since in those situations the debate is already worthless and should be allowed to die.

This is however quite OT.

Written by Angelic Storm on 16.12.2010 at 20:26

@ForeverDarkWoods: The thing about comments on euro-power albums is something you'd have to bring up with the OP. lol There is a difference between a badly worded arguement and an attraction to only original music. The problem then is, it comes down to the individuals' own interpretation of criticsm of unoriginality in a band. A person can only be attacked for what they've actually said, so I dont think you can really blame anyone for not being mind readers and not seeing more in someone criticising a band's unoriginality if that's the only thing they've attacked in their criticsm. There are lots of people who get hyper-defensive when bands/albums they like are attacked, but by the same token, a person cant be blamed for someone else's badly worded arguement. (if thats what the criticsm of originality actually is) I do agree with you though that in at least some cases when someone is criticising (or seems to be criticising) only unoriginality that its more of a case of language errors and poor choice of words, rather than only liking original music.

Oh, and I know what a strawman is. hehe

Well, quite simply I see an interpretation that makes sense and one that makes no sense. Which one do you think I'll go with? Even at the start of the thread I also tried to point out the difference between unoriginality, genericness and mediocrity. I did this since I thought it was highly related to the problem. Everything I've seen still tells me I'm right about this. I don't know if you remember, but we had a thread on generic european power metal a while back where this failure to differentiate between terms became very apparent.

Also, I am not aware in what ways you have used the "it's all subjective" argument, and my rant was not directed at you personally. I apologize if it seemed that way.

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 16.12.2010 at 20:41
I'm sure there are correct ways to use the argument as well

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 16.12.2010 at 20:41
I just don't like the way it's often being used in an attempt to kill otherwise productive discussions.

Ive highlighted these two things you've said, because I think they are the most key in what Im trying to say. The correct way to use it, at least as a criticism, is only when the "discussion" (I'm using that word loosely lol) is not productive. To use it to kill off a productive discussion is wrong, I totally agree.

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 16.12.2010 at 16:15

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.

Exactly. I totally agree.

Written by RavenKing on 16.12.2010 at 14:39

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 don't think anyone is dumb for their taste in music because it is all a matter of taste, diversity makes for interesting conversations. One person's perspective about a supposed failure may stand completely opposite to someone who finds it interesting or inspiring. Sometimes I just get completely sick of a type of music and need to find something completely different for a while, it's all a matter of timing. There are just those albums that you come across that really speak to you at that given time, it doesn't matter if it's unoriginal, generic, or completely experimental.

Written by Introspekrieg on 17.12.2010 at 01:30

Written by RavenKing on 16.12.2010 at 14:39

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 don't think anyone is dumb for their taste in music because it is all a matter of taste, diversity makes for interesting conversations. One person's perspective about a supposed failure may stand completely opposite to someone who finds it interesting or inspiring. Sometimes I just get completely sick of a type of music and need to find something completely different for a while, it's all a matter of timing. There are just those albums that you come across that really speak to you at that given time, it doesn't matter if it's unoriginal, generic, or completely experimental.

Or the reverse, one's dislike for something that's generally considered to be great. Though you find less of those people because a huge majority love holding onto this 'Originality=quality' premise which is stupid.

Written by [user id=107773] on 18.12.2010 at 09:02

Or the reverse, one's dislike for something that's generally considered to be great. Though you find less of those people because a huge majority love holding onto this 'Originality=quality' premise which is stupid.

I don't think it's an originality premise as much as a "fresh" sounding one. This is relative to the individual depending on how much music they have listened to. If you have never listened to metal before, any generic band may sound so different to you that they may seem original. I've also seen people so tired of listening to progressive metal, death metal, folk metal, power metal, thrash metal, etc. that they think nothing is original anymore. From this perspective, originality doesn't even matter. Again it's all a matter of individual opinion vs. collective opinion. Some bands are just fashionable to hate or love and you will always encounter people who posture themselves to appear more intelligent or cool, but it's just human nature. Imagine actually liking "Risk" or "St. Anger" and having to continually be told how bad your taste in music is... now that takes some self-confidence.

Written by Introspekrieg on 18.12.2010 at 10:38
I don't think it's an originality premise as much as a "fresh" sounding one. This is relative to the individual depending on how much music they have listened to. If you have never listened to metal before, any generic band may sound so different to you that they may seem original. I've also seen people so tired of listening to progressive metal, death metal, folk metal, power metal, thrash metal, etc. that they think nothing is original anymore. From this perspective, originality doesn't even matter. Again it's all a matter of individual opinion vs. collective opinion. Some bands are just fashionable to hate or love and you will always encounter people who posture themselves to appear more intelligent or cool, but it's just human nature. Imagine actually liking "Risk" or "St. Anger" and having to continually be told how bad your taste in music is... now that takes some self-confidence.

Great post. I dont think it's human nature, because that would mean that everybody does that. Generally though, there are a lot of people who do that. But that only proves that most humans are stupid.

I actually do like "Risk" and have never had any problems openly stating that fact. As for "St. Anger", to me, it is a very flawed album, but I still find quite a bit to like about it. I dont think me having no issues with stating opinions like that has anything to do with self-confidence. More that what anyone else thinks of my musical tastes means nothing to me. lol

Written by Introspekrieg on 18.12.2010 at 10:38

Written by [user id=107773] on 18.12.2010 at 09:02

Or the reverse, one's dislike for something that's generally considered to be great. Though you find less of those people because a huge majority love holding onto this 'Originality=quality' premise which is stupid.

I don't think it's an originality premise as much as a "fresh" sounding one. This is relative to the individual depending on how much music they have listened to. If you have never listened to metal before, any generic band may sound so different to you that they may seem original. I've also seen people so tired of listening to progressive metal, death metal, folk metal, power metal, thrash metal, etc. that they think nothing is original anymore. From this perspective, originality doesn't even matter. Again it's all a matter of individual opinion vs. collective opinion. Some bands are just fashionable to hate or love and you will always encounter people who posture themselves to appear more intelligent or cool, but it's just human nature. Imagine actually liking "Risk" or "St. Anger" and having to continually be told how bad your taste in music is... now that takes some self-confidence.

I don't think it takes self confidence to defend a band that's accepted as 'bad' by a majority, not if you like them. I hang around friends who don't have any taste for the music I listen to and listen to them saying how crap the bands I listen to are. And even in metal circles there will always be a 'band to hate' [most of the time it's DragonForce :p] and I think they're great too. I'd love to know how DragonForce aren't 'original' though :p

That's why that argument of 'originality' being quality' fails for me.

Written by Introspekrieg on 17.12.2010 at 01:30

Written by RavenKing on 16.12.2010 at 14:39

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 don't think anyone is dumb for their taste in music because it is all a matter of taste, diversity makes for interesting conversations. One person's perspective about a supposed failure may stand completely opposite to someone who finds it interesting or inspiring. Sometimes I just get completely sick of a type of music and need to find something completely different for a while, it's all a matter of timing. There are just those albums that you come across that really speak to you at that given time, it doesn't matter if it's unoriginal, generic, or completely experimental.

... wise man's words...

A few comments.
A band that want's to avoid the label "cheesy" ought to shape something significantly new/improved. If they are just repeating a standard set by someone else - it's boring as #$^& for most of us, and hackneyed.
Genres are for historians to figure out, i.e., why should bands label themselves into a genre and stick to it?
Let them just make music, who cares about genres that much?
Also bands in the same genre can be similar but have there own touch, which is cool too.
But listening to a band which has no significant personal touch - is lame & boring.

Written by Candlemass on 18.12.2010 at 20:49

A few comments.
A band that want's to avoid the label "cheesy" ought to shape something significantly new/improved. If they are just repeating a standard set by someone else - it's boring as #$^& for most of us, and hackneyed.
Genres are for historians to figure out, i.e., why should bands label themselves into a genre and stick to it?
Let them just make music, who cares about genres that much?
Also bands in the same genre can be similar but have there own touch, which is cool too.
But listening to a band which has no significant personal touch - is lame & boring.

Obviously that's fair enough, but when there's a huge majority of people agreeing on what is 'cheesy', suddenly, it's not all opinionated discussion, it's like a set of rules or guidelines and any band that doesn't fit the criteria is 'cheesy'. Everyone accepts a band like Opeth as a brilliant Prog band which is fair enough in itself, but when a new band comes out that sounds vaguely like them, has the same approach to music as them and [god forbid lol] are also from Sweden, they'll instantly be dubbed as 'cheesy', 'unoriginal' and 'clones'.

For instance, you can't have a female fronted symphnic band these days without them being Nightwish clones! What a load of bull. Whenever you have communities that rate things in terms of 'perceived quality', avoiding these criticims are unavoidable.

@Luneth
If you find it good enough, who cares? Seriously, why do you give a dime even considering what other people think when it comes to music? Just listen to n to Justin Timberlake and fhinish with it :-)
Isn't metal about just listening to what you like & love?
Grow a backbone, why other opinions matter to you more then yours?
I listen to what is considered 'guilty pleasures', which I acknowledge are pretty cheesy, yet I still enjoy them and appreciate there music for that.
Musical taste is also personal & biography dependent, not only social. I hope the 'metal' ideal is towards the former.

Written by [user id=107773] on 18.12.2010 at 09:02

Or the reverse, one's dislike for something that's generally considered to be great. Though you find less of those people because a huge majority love holding onto this 'Originality=quality' premise which is stupid.

Huge majority? By the looks of this thread, I'd say no. By the looks of the old generic euro power thread (which was largely a shitfest), I'd still say no. I still have yet to see these people in action. Some links would be nice.

Remember, the words "generic" and "unoriginal" are not the same!

Prove to me that this is not a strawman! Right now it sure seems like it.

Written by [user id=107773] on 18.12.2010 at 23:55

For instance, you can't have a female fronted symphnic band these days without them being Nightwish clones!

Sure, you can. Check Ancient Bards. It is not a Nightwish clone, it is a Rhapsody clone. *laughs*

Written by RavenKing on 19.12.2010 at 13:59

Written by [user id=107773] on 18.12.2010 at 23:55

For instance, you can't have a female fronted symphnic band these days without them being Nightwish clones!

Sure, you can. Check Ancient Bards. It is not a Nightwish clone, it is a Rhapsody clone. *laughs*

Yeah because they come from Italy, right? *laughs*

Written by [user id=107773] on 19.12.2010 at 14:19

Written by RavenKing on 19.12.2010 at 13:59

Written by [user id=107773] on 18.12.2010 at 23:55

For instance, you can't have a female fronted symphnic band these days without them being Nightwish clones!

Sure, you can. Check Ancient Bards. It is not a Nightwish clone, it is a Rhapsody clone. *laughs*

Yeah because they come from Italy, right? *laughs*

No. Because pretty much everything is copied on old Rhapsody. The only difference is they use a female vocalist.
I told you about it already. And other members told you too. Now, if you still want to try and deny it, it's your own problem.

I call your current attitude concerning this band as trying to deny reality.

I think it's been established that Luneth is pretty new to metal. I mean he got into the genre through Guitar Hero for fucks sake! I mean, I know it's not your fault Luneth but that depresses me to such an ungodly end it's hard to vocalise conherently and I'll generally just go: "PLUEGHHHHHHHHHHAGAHAHAG!!!"

Anyway from what you've typed and your collection it looks like your mainly into keyboard heavy power metal, with a few doomish bands thrown in (good call on Swallow the Sun incidentally). Now there's nothing wrong with that, when I got into metal for a year I listened to pretty much nothing but metalcore, but having a narrow view on this genre in general kinda puts you at a disadvantage when spotting what is and isn't original.

Bands don't just borrow from within their own genre. Thrash bands borrow from punk and hardcore. Death bands borrow from thrash. Grind borrows from Death and Punk. Black borrows from death, thrash and punk.

Now I'm really not trying to talk down to you because 6 years ago I was in the exact same situation, albeit with a different genre, and it took years for me to even make it through a deicide album from start to end. I just feel that with you being new to the genre and, pretentious as it sounds, world of heavy metal, you're opinion on originality or lack there of lacks credibility.

Originality is largely down to the listener and his or her knowledge of the subject material. And you can come out and say, I dunno, Beneath the Massacre are original but then that's only because you've not heard early Cryptopsy or Origin, or Dragon, or Notcurnus and you come across as a little bit foolish.

Before you start wading into debates surrounding originality in music and it's significance and relation to quality, I'd widen you're scope in listening material and dig deeper into other genres with metal and those that precede it. Download some Robert Johnson! It all began there imo and he's great to listen to to get a sense of perspective on not just modern metal but modern music everywhere.

Written by King Bonzo on 19.12.2010 at 14:37

I think it's been established that Luneth is pretty new to metal. I mean he got into the genre through Guitar Hero for fucks sake! I mean, I know it's not your fault Luneth but that depresses me to such an ungodly end it's hard to vocalise conherently and I'll generally just go: "PLUEGHHHHHHHHHHAGAHAHAG!!!"

Anyway from what you've typed and your collection it looks like your mainly into keyboard heavy power metal, with a few doomish bands thrown in (good call on Swallow the Sun incidentally). Now there's nothing wrong with that, when I got into metal for a year I listened to pretty much nothing but metalcore, but having a narrow view on this genre in general kinda puts you at a disadvantage when spotting what is and isn't original.

Bands don't just borrow from within their own genre. Thrash bands borrow from punk and hardcore. Death bands borrow from thrash. Grind borrows from Death and Punk. Black borrows from death, thrash and punk.

Now I'm really not trying to talk down to you because 6 years ago I was in the exact same situation, albeit with a different genre, and it took years for me to even make it through a deicide album from start to end. I just feel that with you being new to the genre and, pretentious as it sounds, world of heavy metal, you're opinion on originality or lack there of lacks credibility.

Originality is largely down to the listener and his or her knowledge of the subject material. And you can come out and say, I dunno, Beneath the Massacre are original but then that's only because you've not heard early Cryptopsy or Origin, or Dragon, or Notcurnus and you come across as a little bit foolish.

Before you start wading into debates surrounding originality in music and it's significance and relation to quality, I'd widen you're scope in listening material and dig deeper into other genres with metal and those that precede it. Download some Robert Johnson! It all began there imo and he's great to listen to to get a sense of perspective on not just modern metal but modern music everywhere.

While I see what you're saying makes sense, I fail to see how one gets into a genre matters...in any way shape or form. It implies that there is a right way to get into metal, if you believe that, please share, what is it? I'd really like to know.

Additionally, I wholeheartedly agree that I should widen my palette, but I still don't see how having slightly limited knowledge in this context makes any difference, the original post was a very valid argument against the whole 'originality' bull that people of this forum come up with and I don't see how listening to another 200 albums or so will elevate me to a higher plain of understanding so that I won't need to even wonder if a metal album is good, I would've listened to sooo many albums that I'll know what the original was and base it solely on that.

You buttered it up nicely, but essentially what you're saying is: Your opinion is invalid until you have listened to 'X' amount of albums in 'X' amount of genres in 'X' amount of years. Provided the route to 'X' was not Guitar Hero

Arrogant, much?

Written by [user id=107773] on 19.12.2010 at 15:04

While I see what you're saying makes sense, I fail to see how one gets into a genre matters...in any way shape or form. It implies that there is a right way to get into metal, if you believe that, please share, what is it? I'd really like to know.

Additionally, I wholeheartedly agree that I should widen my palette, but I still don't see how having slightly limited knowledge in this context makes any difference, the original post was a very valid argument against the whole 'originality' bull that people of this forum come up with and I don't see how listening to another 200 albums or so will elevate me to a higher plain of understanding so that I won't need to even wonder if a metal album is good, I would've listened to sooo many albums that I'll know what the original was and base it solely on that.

You buttered it up nicely, but essentially what you're saying is: Your opinion is invalid until you have listened to 'X' amount of albums in 'X' amount of genres in 'X' amount of years. Provided the route to 'X' was not Guitar Hero

Arrogant, much?

There is no "right" way to get into metal, I just find it depressing that you got into through a video game. It's an emotional response and I can't explain why it leaves a bad taste any more than I can explain why I hate the touch of sugar paper...

The reason listening to more albums and more genres will elevate you to a higher plain of understanding in regards to originality is because you have more experience to draw upon to make informed decisions and contributions to these discussions. At the moment you're largely an uninformed contributer and critic and thusly it's hard to take anything you say regarding originality seriously because you don't have the foundations and experience in the specific field to make your opinions and contributions carry weight.

As is to metal is likened to me wading in on a discussion about Roman history when I've only read one book on the subject and everyone else has studied it for years.

Arrogant? totally and proud of it

Written by King Bonzo on 19.12.2010 at 15:17

Written by [user id=107773] on 19.12.2010 at 15:04

While I see what you're saying makes sense, I fail to see how one gets into a genre matters...in any way shape or form. It implies that there is a right way to get into metal, if you believe that, please share, what is it? I'd really like to know.

Additionally, I wholeheartedly agree that I should widen my palette, but I still don't see how having slightly limited knowledge in this context makes any difference, the original post was a very valid argument against the whole 'originality' bull that people of this forum come up with and I don't see how listening to another 200 albums or so will elevate me to a higher plain of understanding so that I won't need to even wonder if a metal album is good, I would've listened to sooo many albums that I'll know what the original was and base it solely on that.

You buttered it up nicely, but essentially what you're saying is: Your opinion is invalid until you have listened to 'X' amount of albums in 'X' amount of genres in 'X' amount of years. Provided the route to 'X' was not Guitar Hero

Arrogant, much?

There is no "right" way to get into metal, I just find it depressing that you got into through a video game. It's an emotional response and I can't explain why it leaves a bad taste any more than I can explain why I hate the touch of sugar paper...

The reason listening to more albums and more genres will elevate you to a higher plain of understanding in regards to originality is because you have more experience to draw upon to make informed decisions and contributions to these discussions. At the moment you're largely an uninformed contributer and critic and thusly it's hard to take anything you say regarding originality seriously because you don't have the foundations and experience in the specific field to make your opinions and contributions carry weight.

As is to metal is likened to me wading in on a discussion about Roman history when I've only read one book on the subject and everyone else has studied it for years.

Arrogant? totally and proud of it

To be quite honest, listening to music for a few years doesn't make you an expert mate. Not like say...one of these original musicians who have been making music and playing music for years.

arguing with a historic scholar who's been studying history their whole life is in no way similar to someone who does listen to metal, albeit a comparatively smaller amount than yourself, arguing about inconsistencies in people's approach to critiquing bands [yes that's was this is about if you didn't know, under the guise of 'the originality paradox].

I could be listening to metal my entire life and then have someone explain something to me that I didn't understand quite easily. If you choose to be ignorant of the fact that people have unfounded judgements of bands because they sound a bit like an earlier band then that's your choice. But don't act like I'm some novice who can't have an opinion on it and you are superior because you've been listening to metal for longer, that's ridiculous.

I won't go to a medical forum and argue with doctors about the best treatment for influenza :
But I'll definetly go on a metal forum and argue with someone who thinks they no more about something because they've been listening for longer, especially with such a broad topic.

Especially when their justification for my, 'handicap', let's say, is that I started listening to a genre through 'a video game'. Heaven forbid listening to the holy genre that is metal through a videogame, disgusts one.

Written by [user id=107773] on 19.12.2010 at 15:43

arguing with a historic scholar who's been studying history their whole life is in no way similar to someone who does listen to metal, albeit a comparatively smaller amount than yourself, arguing about inconsistencies in people's approach to critiquing bands [yes that's was this is about if you didn't know, under the guise of 'the originality paradox].

Actually it's pretty similar. All we've done is change subject matters from Ancient Rome to Music. You could supplant it for Sports or Cars or Cooking or Sex or Pig Farming. It's all the same basic rule of thumb: Those opinions and arguments that come from people with more experience of a subject will inevitably carry more weight and be set on a more solid foundation than those with less experience.

Quote:

If you choose to be ignorant of the fact that people have unfounded judgements of bands because they sound a bit like an earlier band then that's your choice.

No one will have an opinion that a band is un-original that is unfounded. That's a literal impossibility because in order to deem something unoriginal you need to be able to reference something that did the same thing and came before. Now someone claiming something is original can either be well informed on the subject and correct, or ill informed and wrong. Someone claiming something is unoriginal can be well informed and correct or lying.

Quote:

But don't act like I'm some novice who can't have an opinion on it and you are superior because you've been listening to metal for longer, that's ridiculous.

Yeah but you are a novice by your own volition. And I am superior because of the law of nature.

Quote:

I won't go to a medical forum and argue with doctors about the best treatment for influenza :
But I'll definetly go on a metal forum and argue with someone who thinks they no more about something because they've been listening for longer, especially with such a broad topic.

Why would you do one and not the other? You could easily say "pfft doctors think they know more about healthcare just cause they've read more about it, it's such a broad topic!" see how stupid that sounds?

Written by [user id=107773] on 19.12.2010 at 15:04

Additionally, I wholeheartedly agree that I should widen my palette, but I still don't see how having slightly limited knowledge in this context makes any difference, the original post was a very valid argument against the whole 'originality' bull that people of this forum come up with and I don't see how listening to another 200 albums or so will elevate me to a higher plain of understanding so that I won't need to even wonder if a metal album is good, I would've listened to sooo many albums that I'll know what the original was and base it solely on that.

Again, where is this percieved "originality-bull" that you are constantly referring to? I don't see it anywhere basically. People don't diss on those bands only because they are unoriginal, but also because they percieve said bands as mediocre or crap. Cheesiness, which most of the time is a term used for describing the feeling when you are exposed to something that is so over the top it becomes stupid (in a bad way) has also very little to do with originality. What my experience of this forum tells me is that the main problem is not with originality and has never been. It is whether the quality is up to snuff, or if the band is mediocre.

Originality and quality are not related, virtually nobody has claimed that they are, and still you are trying to say that it is unfair that people are dissing your favourite bands because of lack of originality only. This is not some valid point you're making. The way I percieve it, you are using a strawman to throw a tantrum about other people not liking your favourite bands. In fact, I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt (maybe there really are such idiots who care only about originality and not about quality, and I've just never come across them), but since I've asked you to post links to discussions featuring these individuals at least two times in this thread (a request you have ignored), I am becoming more convinced that you are misunderstanding what people are saying on purpose in order to use this strawman.

FYI, the term "clone" in it's most common deregatory usage doesn't just mean "they sound just like band X", it's usually used (when used as a deregatory comment) to say "they sound just like band X except crappier". There's the problem with your reasoning. The word generic, the correct word to use when slamming these bands, refers to the fact that they have no distinguishing qualities. In a generic band, very little or nothing stands out in any way, and this includes such things as guitar riffing, vocal performance, drum tracks, bass lines and the list goes on. Basically, in these cases, there is nothing good or original about the music. It just leaves a blank impression.

This is the problem, not the "originality-bull" you're speaking of. Unless of course you can show me to these people who think otherwise (who knows, I might still be wrong).

Written by [user id=107773] on 19.12.2010 at 15:04

You buttered it up nicely, but essentially what you're saying is: Your opinion is invalid until you have listened to 'X' amount of albums in 'X' amount of genres in 'X' amount of years. Provided the route to 'X' was not Guitar Hero

No, but a more experienced person is more likely to get the facts right. In fact, there is no way you can possibly argue that a lot of these bands are original. If you were calling it quality stuff, then I wouldn't blame you, but originality is not so much a matter of opinion as you might think.

Written by [user id=107773] on 19.12.2010 at 15:43


To be quite honest, listening to music for a few years doesn't make you an expert mate. Not like say...one of these original musicians who have been making music and playing music for years.

arguing with a historic scholar who's been studying history their whole life is in no way similar to someone who does listen to metal, albeit a comparatively smaller amount than yourself, arguing about inconsistencies in people's approach to critiquing bands [yes that's was this is about if you didn't know, under the guise of 'the originality paradox].

I could be listening to metal my entire life and then have someone explain something to me that I didn't understand quite easily. If you choose to be ignorant of the fact that people have unfounded judgements of bands because they sound a bit like an earlier band then that's your choice. But don't act like I'm some novice who can't have an opinion on it and you are superior because you've been listening to metal for longer, that's ridiculous.

I won't go to a medical forum and argue with doctors about the best treatment for influenza :
But I'll definetly go on a metal forum and argue with someone who thinks they no more about something because they've been listening for longer, especially with such a broad topic.

Especially when their justification for my, 'handicap', let's say, is that I started listening to a genre through 'a video game'. Heaven forbid listening to the holy genre that is metal through a videogame, disgusts one.

Let's just say that if somebody who has forgotten about more bands than I have ever heard comes along I would take what that person was saying quite seriously. I'd also try to see what I could learn from said person though. It's really basic you know, greater knowledge of any subject means that your opinions and perception of said subject carries more weight than those coming from a person with lesser knowledge. This is simply because those who know more have a greater background to base their opinions on. I'd be very hesitant to take a persons opinions on the evolution of black metal seriously if said persons hadn't heard bands like Bathory, Sarcofago, Venom, early Sodom and Mercyful Fate, for instance, just like I'd take said person more seriously had they heard bands like Root, Parabellum and Master's Hammer.

Saying that experience doesn't matter also means you are equating your opinions on metal with those of people having no experience in the subject at all. You're basically equating your opinions of metal with those of a mainstream rapper.

Haha, comparing the "experience" of a metal fanboy to an academic degree in history or medicine? While I can't deny your right to an emotional reaction to the issue, Bonzo, your arguments about experience aren't really valid. There's no "higher understanding" to achieve here, and "originality" is a subjective idea defined by your personal experiences with music. (Well, at least nobody's offered a proper look into what "originality" supposedly means.) But because it has no relevance to quality, I don't see why we're even discussing it.

If anything, experience shows that the more you listen to a genre, the more disillusioned and numb you become. I'd love to have those fresh ears of a newcomer again.

Written by IronAngel on 19.12.2010 at 17:12

Haha, comparing the "experience" of a metal fanboy to an academic degree in history or medicine? While I can't deny your right to an emotional reaction to the issue, Bonzo, your arguments about experience aren't really valid.

...who said I was being emotional? Also my argument is perfectly valid, it applies itself to any subject from brain surgery to spongebob squarepants. The more knowledge you have regarding a subject the more weight your opinions carry. I can't understand why this incredible simple rule of life is lost on some people.

Written by King Bonzo on 19.12.2010 at 17:18

Written by IronAngel on 19.12.2010 at 17:12

Haha, comparing the "experience" of a metal fanboy to an academic degree in history or medicine? While I can't deny your right to an emotional reaction to the issue, Bonzo, your arguments about experience aren't really valid.

...who said I was being emotional? Also my argument is perfectly valid, it applies itself to any subject from brain surgery to spongebob squarepants. The more knowledge you have regarding a subject the more weight your opinions carry. I can't understand why this incredible simple rule of life is lost on some people.

Try and validate it as much as you wish, the real facts are:

Medical surgery is something that will either be right or wrong.
Whether you think a band is unoriginal can never be falsified.

It's you who isn't understanding the fundamentals here. You may have more knowledge on the subject, but so what? Does that mean you alone can speak of it?

Written by [user id=107773] on 19.12.2010 at 17:23

Try and validate it as much as you wish, the real facts are:

Medical surgery is something that will either be right or wrong.
Whether you think a band is unoriginal can never be falsified.

It's you who isn't understanding the fundamentals here. You may have more knowledge on the subject, but so what? Does that mean you alone can speak of it?

Surgeons disagree all the time! 90% of what a doctor does is based upon his opinion of the situation. And also you can be right or wrong when it comes to originality in music.

Insect Warfare is original. Insect Warfare is derivative. One of these statements is right, the other is wrong. Simple.

Also I'm not alone in speaking of it many people here seem to agree with me.

I totally agree withBonzo on this one. Experience does carry more weight.
If a total newbie to metal or to be more specific doom walks up to me and tells me Mourning Lenore or Swallow The Sun (espaically on their first two albums) are the most original doom bands ever I simply cannot take a word of that seriously. It is clear to anyone who does know his/her doom that ML takes a big leaf out of the old Paradise Lost book and StS out of old the old Katatonia book hence immediately tdisqualifying themselves as original.
I, who has heard near to a thousand doom bands over period of 31 years has to believe someone who only, let's say, heard 10 doom bands just over the past year? You gotta be kidding me. Besides not knowing a significant amount of bands to base their opinion on they also miss the historical context.