The Originality Paradox
Original post
Posted by Unknown user, 14.12.2010 - 21:10
'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?
| ForeverDarkWoods Posts: 1001  |
Written by [user id=107773] on 19.12.2010 at 17:23 Originality isn't that much of a subjective term as people would have you believe. Original means different. If a band is aiming for the same sound as those that came before it (with only slight variations), then said band is not original. Bands who push boundaries in some way are original (to boldly go where no band has gone before, so to speak  ). Rehashing the same ideas that others have already done can never be original (and no, that is not subjective, it lies in the definition of the word). Could still be good though, nobody is saying otherwise.What I don't understand is why you feel the need to justify your own liking of these bands to others. So what if they are considered unoriginal or generic? If you still like them, feel free to do so. If you, however, decide to throw tantrums about originality using strawmen and flawed facts when other people don't agree with you, expect to be called out for it. It sounds a bit like "you dislike my favourite bands, and you can't possibly do so for honest reasons".
---- Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction! - George W. Bush, ex-president of the United States of America
Loading...
|
| IronAngel Posts: 4874  |
Written by King Bonzo on 19.12.2010 at 17:18 You did. I was referring to the emotional response you said you have regarding Luneth's introduction to metal. Your simple rule of life fails because it's too simple. You need to define the parameters further. Furthermore, it's not an empirical statement (or if it is, it's obviously false) but rather a loaded imperative. What you mean to say is "The more you know about a subject, the more weight your opinions should have." Isn't this basically your point? But that's a fallacious argument ad hominem. The validity of an argument isn't dependant on the personal attributes of its maker, but the evidence presented. Whenever a debate turns personal, something's gone wrong. In this matter, you'd have to define "originality" conclusively. Considering all music is constructed from the same parts, and the origin of our actions and creations actually lies outside of ourselves in the determinism of history, I'm not sure what meaningful substance you could ascribe to originality. Even if you managed to set the rules of originality, you'd have to investigate historical causation and differentiate it from coincidential similarity (insofar as "similarity" means anything objective in music). You should also interview the musicians to determine what their intentions and influences were, and you'd probably have to practice some kind of psychoanalysis to get to the influences they don't actively remember. Nothing is more vulnerable to fallacy than the opinions of an amateur (and by that I mean the positive, literal definition). People with a lot of experience in and passion toward a subject are particularly inclined to make assumptions and treat their established opinions uncritically. The kind of knowledge you have in this field isn't necessarily relevant to the question at hand. That's another problem with your simple rule. What kind of knowledge can we actually have about this issue, and what's the best way to acquire it? If we come to the conclusion that originality is mostly a matter of gut-feeling, or that it must be investigated with strict methodology, all your experience of listening to this music becomes irrelevant. I'm not saying anything definite one way or another, but your stance is more absolute than the evidence and the nature of the issue actually justifies.
Loading...
|
| IronAngel Posts: 4874 |
Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 19.12.2010 at 17:45 This isn't a very convincing or conclusive definition, to be honest. "Original" seems to suggest something which has, or is, an origin of some kind. I don't see where difference comes into it. Two legal systems, religions or music styles can have different historical origins and ultimately end up resembling eachother. Originality, as such, suggests nothing about pushing boundaries either. An original musician might be someone who is the origin of this music. But what does this mean? Directly, a musician is always the origin of his music, no matter what it sounds like. If I write and play a total Rhapsody-copy song, I am its origin. Indirectly, the origin is always outside the individual. I am defined by my surroundings and probably physical determinism that has inevitably lead from the birth of the universe to me writing this song. So the distinction seems ambigious and irrelevant. I don't know what's the best definition for originality. It's certainly not what the general consensus seems to suggest, though. That's just sloppy semantics. But unless somebody can produce a conclusive definition they could sell to the academic community in a doctorate paper (or something quite close), I think at least some humility and healthy skepticism is warranted. I guess the most important thing is not to point fingers and question the personal attributes of posters in the first place, though. Let arguments and presented evidence determine the case, no matter who posts them and how "experienced" they supposedly are. If you can't defend your point other than by calling your opponent a noob, you've already lost.
Loading...
|
| King Bonzo Posts: 220  |
Written by IronAngel on 19.12.2010 at 17:46 So what you did was reference a response I had to an entirely different part of the conversation? glad we're clear on that Quote: Ok, so would you not agree that those in the debate who have the most experience of the subject matter would have more evidence to draw upon to make their point? To only case where more experience would not add more weight to your cause is where experience is irrelevant. The only cases I can think of where this would be true would be in entirely personal discussions (theology, religion, love, politics) as oppose to those based in the wider context of historical documentation like our own where experience and evidence are paramount, and experience provides evidence to those involved so basically....you're wrong. Quote: o·rig·i·nal·i·ty -noun 1.the quality or state of being original. 2.ability to think or express oneself in an independent and individual manner; creative ability. 3.freshness or novelty, as of an idea, method, or performance. Think that covers it. Quote: I have no idea what you're trying to say here, do try to be more succinct.
Loading...
|
| ForeverDarkWoods Posts: 1001 |
Written by IronAngel on 19.12.2010 at 17:53 Definition of the word's different meanings (from a dictionary): -adjective 1. belonging or pertaining to the origin or beginning of something, or to a thing at its beginning: The book still has its original binding. 2. new; fresh; inventive; novel: an original way of advertising. 3. arising or proceeding independently of anything else: an original view of history. 4. capable of or given to thinking or acting in an independent, creative, or individual manner: an original thinker. 5. created, undertaken, or presented for the first time: to give the original performance of a string quartet. 6. being something from which a copy, a translation, or the like is made: The original document is in Washington. All the definitions that are relevant to the subject at hand support mine (based on the general consensus).
---- Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction! - George W. Bush, ex-president of the United States of America
Loading...
|
| IronAngel Posts: 4874 |
@Forever: 1. This is clearly the best definition, because it's related to the word itself. It doesn't apply to music indiscriminantly, so we need to decide what kind of origins and beginnings are relevant. It becomes an evaluation rather than a fact. 2. All music is "new" or "inventive" strictly speaking, and in a looser definition it becomes (at least partially) a matter of taste. What's "new enough"? What's the relevant kind of novelty? Your definitions don't answer this. 3. No music arises independently, so we can dismiss that definition altogether. 4. This might apply to artists, if not the music itself. This is a nice definition. Even if nobody is really independent, we have a fair idea of what it means in practice. The key word here is creativity. Unfortunately, that seems highly subjective (or demanding a full psyschological evaluation of the musicians in question, so let's not go there). 5. By this definition, every new song ever written is original. Not relevant. 6. This is relevant when it comes to cover songs. "Copy" here means an actual, intentional copy rather than an evaluation of something that sounds similar. So yes, there is a fairly good idea of what originality is. But no matter which way you look at it, it doesn't boil down to facts. Are facts relevant? To many definitions, they sure are. Does the factual evidence determine the validity of the evaluation? Not by a long shot. I'm not even sure what the contention is about, here. I don't think anybody says you can label bands original or unoriginal without any knowledge of other music. The issue, for me, is whether a "veteran" is somehow more qualified to express his opinions and that his arguments are evaluated with somehow different standards than those of a complete newbie. I actually agree with almost all of your previous posts in this topic, so the core issue isn't at stake here. What I don't believe is that there's a clear definition of originality we could apply to music by ticking boxes on a list of evidence. (That, and the absurd notion that talking about music are comparable to the sciences of medicine or history. If it was, no one here would be qualified.) @Bonzo: You're right about experience and evidence. There's usually a correlation. But's not necessarily true, though, and it's not always relevant. Either way, it's an extra step you don't need to take. Why would you indirectly evaluate whether somebody is experienced enough to present good arguments and evidence, when you can directly look at the arguments and evidence and decide if they're good? It just seems like an excuse to dismiss somebody's arguments on the basis of their person.
Loading...
|
| RavenKing Posts: 1941  |
Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 19.12.2010 at 17:39 Indeed. If I look at many things now, with over 25 years of listening to metal, I realize how wrong I was at times in the 80s, when I was much less experienced with metal than I am now.
---- They shake your hand and they smile and they buy you a drink They say we'll be your friends we'll stick with you till the end But everybody's only looking out for themselves And you say who can you trust I'll tell you nobody
Loading...
|
| RavenKing Posts: 1941 |
Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 19.12.2010 at 17:45 Quality can be quite subjective. Originality: very little, for the reasons you explain. EDIT: Problem with originality is people who are new to metal often don't realize the same thing has been done years ago because they didn't hear enough stuff until now to judge rightly. They lack the required knowledge to see the whole picture.
---- They shake your hand and they smile and they buy you a drink They say we'll be your friends we'll stick with you till the end But everybody's only looking out for themselves And you say who can you trust I'll tell you nobody
Loading...
|
| King Bonzo Posts: 220 |
Written by RavenKing on 19.12.2010 at 19:24 True this^ "This band is good" = statement of opinion "This band is original" = statement of fact
Loading...
|
| RavenKing Posts: 1941 |
Problem with lots of people on forums is they believe "everything is subjective" and use this motto to give value to opinions that are basically wrong or false. And when we point out facts at them, we are labeled as arrogant close-minded metalheads and elitists. I won't deny that many things are subjective but not everything is.
---- They shake your hand and they smile and they buy you a drink They say we'll be your friends we'll stick with you till the end But everybody's only looking out for themselves And you say who can you trust I'll tell you nobody
Loading...
|
| King Bonzo Posts: 220 |
It's part of the whole "everyone's opinion is equal" view on things. In some areas that's true (politics, religion, philosophy) but in most cases it's not. You're either right or wrong. Saying everything is subjective is a falsehood, it's also a total cop out and a way a belittle any kind of discussion. Was Hitler right? Well it's subjective so lets not discuss it. Israel Vs Palestine? Nah it's subjective what's the point. Evoultion? Subjective I'm afraid lets leave it alone.
Loading...
|
| RavenKing Posts: 1941 |
Written by King Bonzo on 19.12.2010 at 19:46 What I don't like with this "everyone's opinion is equal" concept is it is a way to 'level things by the bottom', if you know what I mean, as it gives the same value to a ridiculous opinion than to a well-thought one. Some opinions are simply wrong. For example, saying that Stratovarius is faster than Kreator. Or Avantasia's recent material heavier than the Metal Operas. Or early Blind Guardian more aggressive than "Transylvanian Hunger". There are things you cannot back up in any way because the evidence speaks against you. That's when an opinion is stupid and invalid.
---- They shake your hand and they smile and they buy you a drink They say we'll be your friends we'll stick with you till the end But everybody's only looking out for themselves And you say who can you trust I'll tell you nobody
Loading...
|
| ForeverDarkWoods Posts: 1001 |
Written by IronAngel on 19.12.2010 at 18:19 I didn't say they were all relevant, those are just all the definitions of the adjective. I would base most of my argumentation of the second definition of the word. Since it is the one that has been used throughout this discussion (by practically everyone), it seems the most relevant to the issue at hand here. And while I agree that all music is new and inventive in some miniscule way, it all really comes down to a discussion about a gradual scale. How new and inventive is it? To answer this, you have to compare it to the works of others during this time period. Is it new and inventive compared to cover bands? That's not saying much, is it? Already in stating that it can be relatively objectively defined that a standard cover band is not that very original (which by all definitions is pretty self evident), we have laid down that there are certain things that can be laid down quite objectively. I'm not saying that there is a finished model that can be used to compere the originality of everything to everything else, and people will have differing opinions, but there are some cases where it becomes self evident that there is just no comparison. If you listen to Nine Inches Of God by Deep Switch (a very original NWOBHM record) and compare it to your standard NWOBHM throwback band (take White Wizzard for example), one will see that in some cases, there is no comparison. But in more close calls, you are completely right. Who's to say, really? It becomes more and more subjective the closer it gets. I guess my use of the word original could be expanded a bit from definition number 2 and turned into something like "clearly showing more qualities which for the time of release were new and inventive than most other bands of the time". This is also when it comes to music the most logical meaning of the second definition. I'd actually say that most of the other definitions are completely irrelevant to the issue, since they were clearly put in the dictionary for use in other situations. And yeah, any type of originality could be included in this definition. The type is not what matters, the significance is. Basically, the question isn't "is it new or inventive?" but "is it new and inventive compared to most other bands of their time?", which is a case you can not realistically make for most generic european power metal.
---- Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction! - George W. Bush, ex-president of the United States of America
Loading...
|
| IronAngel Posts: 4874 |
@Bonzo and RavenKing: The point isn't that everybody knows just as well. It's that the issue is way more difficult than you think it is, and you can hardly afford confidence based on nothing but your listening experience. There's probably no science to it, but even if there was, none of us would be the academic experts on it. It's just ridicilous that amateurs on an internet board are bickering over who's got the most experience under their belt, when most of us have no relevant degrees. If somebody was "more qualified" to talk about this issue than others, it wouldn't be the metal fans put people who've studied aesthetics, art and philosophy. Listening to music ten years longer than the next guy doesn't make you a unique snowflake. Now you're the ones strawmanning. You're using the imaginary demographic of the "subjective crowd" and supposedly comparing the "originality" of music to evolution and geopolitics. You can repeat "originality is a fact" all you want. And no doubt, it has a strong basis in empirical fact (way moreso than quality). But I've seen none of you give anywhere close to a complete explanation of what exactly originality is and how it can be measured. Does that mean we have to ditch the term as unobjective? No, probably not, because we'd have to do the same to most of our vocabulary. But it certainly means you should show a little humility and skepticism toward your mighty listening experience. This issue isn't simple enough to warrant arrogance. This all boils down to one fact (which isn't a subjective opinion!): it's bad form to use ad hominen in debate. That's pretty much the point and motivation of all my posts. It's rude, it's naive, and it doesn't lend validity to your arguments.
Loading...
|
| vezzy Stallmanite Posts: 3493  |
Written by King Bonzo on 19.12.2010 at 19:46 I knew your avatar was a neo-Nazi swastika variant flag all along!
---- Licensed under the GPLv3. Relinquish proprietary software for a greater GNU/America.
Loading...
|
| King Bonzo Posts: 220 |
Written by IronAngel on 19.12.2010 at 20:04 I did but here it is again: originality 1.the quality or state of being original. 2.freshness or novelty, as of an idea, method, or performance. original 1.belonging or pertaining to the origin or beginning of something, or to a thing at its beginning: The book still has its original binding. 2.new; fresh; inventive; novel: an original way of advertising. 3.arising or proceeding independently of anything else: an original view of history. 4.created, undertaken, or presented for the first time: to give the original performance of a string quartet. There were a lot of words in your post but very little was said. You'd make a good politician.
Loading...
|
| King Bonzo Posts: 220 |
Written by vezzy on 19.12.2010 at 20:10 Damnit! Ousted by my own post!!
Loading...
|
| IronAngel Posts: 4874 |
Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 19.12.2010 at 20:01 Oh, I didn't mean to suggest you presented all definitions as relevant. I just wanted to look at each of them to see how they'd do. Anyway, I pretty agree with you. I think we're closing in on the relevant point here: it gets fairly hard to judge, so the least one could do is exercise fair consideration with plenty of evidence. In most cases, you can make a convincing and "objective" argument one way or the other, and it's just silly to dismiss and prejudge the issue beforehand. If you think something's dead-obvious and the other guy is wrong, show it extensively. Don't dismiss it as "obvious to anyone but those who don't have as much experience as me." (Passive you, not you you.) In the end, though, I think any debate on originality is pretty banal. If it is meant as an objective estimate, it's about as interesting and relevant as "which band plays faster" or "who's the loudest." If it's supposed to say anything about value of interest or quality, it's off the mark anyway. So I'd rather any talk of originality was dropped altogether in music criticism.
Loading...
|
| IronAngel Posts: 4874 |
Written by King Bonzo on 19.12.2010 at 20:12 This is a generic definition of how the word is usually used. I've already pointed out why none of those definitions are sufficent as such. What I want from you is a scientific paper on how to judge the objective originality of music that to you is so obvious and simple. What kind of methods will you use? Clinical testing with a control group, perhaps? Do you find this a ridicilous prospect? No doubt, but you're the one who compared this issue to medicine, history and political science. It's only fair that you're consistent. Your last line is an example of exactly what I criticized in the first place: an argument ad hominen. It might shock you, but that is actually (objectively) the true fallacy here. You may note that I have not evaluated anybody's argument on the basis of their person, and neither have I supported my own with facts about merits. And that's exactly the line that I'm trying to point out to you.
Loading...
|
| King Bonzo Posts: 220 |
Written by IronAngel on 19.12.2010 at 20:16 Seriously... Go into politics you'd be great! Ok muggins Originality, not just in music but in all art, attributes to an element or a whole of the piece of art that has not expressed or utilised before within the confines of the artistic norm. i.e. Nile sing about ancient Egypt. This is an original subject matter for a death metal because prior to Nile these themes had not been adopted by the Death Metal band. It's not difficult and we don't need focus groups (or at least you don't be you have the experience to reach these conclusions yourself). In order for anything to be original it needs to either do something that has not been done before, or apply an element, or elements, to the artform in a way that has not been done before. Simple. Another example. Interview With The Vampire is an original novel because it utilised the framework of an interview for it's story in a way that had not been applied for Vampire myths previously.
Loading...
|
| IronAngel Posts: 4874 |
So Nile are original because they sing about Egypt? Well, I'm not sure I could agree there. But let's say it is so. So why is not Generic Power Metal Band X original, if they sing about the Crystal Spire of Mullbulldom, on which Axemaster Piraeus slew the serpent? I'm sure nobody's written a song about that exact story. Why is one "original enough" and the other isn't? That's where it boils down to ambigious lines. It's in these tangible issues that opinions can vary, and two opposite views can be rationally defended. I would say that lyrical subject matter can never determine any relevant originality in music, and especially not if it would appear very typical in a different context. I think this is the real woe of our age: people think they can glue two old ideas together and appear "original" or "progressive." Opeth is a prime example of fooling people into praising "originality". I hadn't thought of Nile, but now that you mention it they also seem like a charicature of originality more than anything. I think it's superficial garbage (though the music is fine). You disagree. We clearly base our opinions on empirical data and rational arguments. See where I'm going with this? Nothing happens twice, so everything is original. But then, everything is just a product of its context and built of the same blocks as the rest of the universe (or music, specifically), so nothing is original. Both of these are objective facts. So clearly there's more to it than appears at first glance.
Loading...
|
| King Bonzo Posts: 220 |
I never once made assertions as to which power metal bands were original. I fucking hate power metal. All I came into this to say was that Luneth isn't in a position to comment on originality because his experience of the metal genre and music in general is sorely lacking. A band is comprised of music and lyrics. I said Nile are original in regards to their lyrical themes I never mentioned the musicality. Although musically there's originality there too with the Egyptian instrumentation and chants. You thinking Nile is garbage is fine, it's also got nothing to do with their originality. Even if you think the band blows you can't deny there is no one else in Death metal doing what Nile do.
Loading...
|
| Angelic Storm Melodious Posts: 6675  |
Nile are original because of mixing in Egyptian music in with death metal. If they played run-of-the-mill death metal with Egyptian lyrics, then I wouldnt call them original. lol
Loading...
|
| IronAngel Posts: 4874 |
Written by King Bonzo on 19.12.2010 at 20:52 Nor did I say you condemned certain power metal bands as unoriginal. But the example I pulled out of my ass is something I would consider unoriginal. Yet strictly speaking, it seems to meet all the criteria of your definition. ForeverDarkWoods put it well: it's a gradual scale. Actual examples on that scale will divide opinions, because there's no one line which marks the transition from originality to unoriginality. I suppose you could say Nile are lyrically original because they write stereotypically spooky and bad-ass lyrics with Egyptian imagery. To me, that's not much of a feat, but it's a matter of taste. They didn't invent Egypt, after all, or the fact that violent metal works well with violent lyrics. Ancient Egypt is about the trendiest thing in the last 200 years. But yes, I guess they are novel in this niche way. You can say that about every band, though. Everything is novel and original in some miniscule way. It comes down to deciding what kind of originality is relevant. Does a slight shift in lyrical theme warrant the label of originality? Maybe, maybe not. (I didn't say that Nile or Opeth are garbage, by the way. I like both of them enough to have gone to see them live. I meant that lauding superficial gimmicks as profoundly original is garbage.) All things aside, your first paragraph is what I aim to object to. You came in here to discredit a person instead of answering their arguments with thorough care. And that's simply where conversation turns to bickering. Talk about stuff, not people.
Loading...
|
| King Bonzo Posts: 220 |
Written by IronAngel on 19.12.2010 at 21:11 As I've said twice (this'll be a third time) in order to be original you have to do something that has not been done before or apply certain aspects in ways that have not been done before. Nile combined ancient Egyptian instruments, languages, chants, stories, religion, politics and philosophy with death metal which had not been done before and therefore they are original, factually. Quote: Really?! where? Quote: No. There is nothing in the slightest bit original about Insect Warfare, or Hail of Bullets, or Xasthur. Quote: Yes I can see that you object to people knowing about what they're talking about.
Loading...
|
| Introspekrieg Totemic Lust Elite Posts: 2749  |
Oh my god. Music is an art form. Art is COMPLETELY subjective. Nothing will ever be right or wrong in a factual sense. Some people feel morally obligated to discredit bands because they don't create original works, just like people look down upon parody movies and remakes. When you sit in your basement and make original music that no one wants to hear, this can be very frustrating. But the beauty of music is that, through experience, there is certain music you know you just enjoy. Not because it makes you look cool. Not because it makes you seem intelligent. Not because they have cool t-shirts. But because when you hit play you feel something, or are at least distracted enough and taken away from your own mundane reality. I personally feel inspired when I listen to my favorite bands. They make me want to reach for something greater, more creative in my life. This little bit of pleasure can't be wrong for anyone. Beautiful Quote: Quote:
Loading...
|
| Luneth Account deleted |
|
| BitterCOld The Ancient One Admin Posts: 15277  |
Written by [user id=107773] on 22.12.2010 at 12:49 the boat left and you were not on it. at no point did Bonzo say you must listen to 400+ albums before you can enjoy music and have opinions on it. enjoyment has no bearing on how much you've heard. (just as originality has no bearing on enjoyment.) personal opinions (whether or not you like something) have no bearing on how much you've heard. however, exposure and experience do play a significant factor when outwardly opining about things. if you've only heard 40 or 50 records, you are not nearly as likely to spot similarities to genre fore-runners as someone who has heard hundreds or thousands of records. what sounds "original" to you could easily be realized as second or even third hand by someone far more familiar with the music. you got into metal because of guitar hero three weeks ago... Marcel has been listening to metal since Tony Iommi sawed his finger tips off. which of the two of you will have a more commanding knowledge of the music? who is more apt to have a more well-grounded and rounded basis to form an opinion on things such as "originality"? it's funny how much traffic we get from teens/young 20somethings who think they know more about a genre for reading the wiki entry or watching a documentary than folks who lived and participated in said scenes (or made the documentary in the case of one insane user vs. Rat Skates) ... but go ahead, dude, keep setting fire to strawmen based upon your vast guitar hero experience. you clearly understand my own motivations better than i do.
---- get the fuck off my lawn. Beer Bug Virus Spotify Playlist crafted by Nikarg and I. Feel free to tune in and add some pertinent metal tunes!
Loading...
|
| RavenKing Posts: 1941 |
Written by BitterCOld on 22.12.2010 at 18:07 Well said. I find it annoying sometimes when kids try to teach a lesson to experienced metalheads like us.
---- They shake your hand and they smile and they buy you a drink They say we'll be your friends we'll stick with you till the end But everybody's only looking out for themselves And you say who can you trust I'll tell you nobody
Loading...
|
| King Bonzo Posts: 220 |
Written by RavenKing on 23.12.2010 at 00:13 These young whipper snappers! *I'm 23 incidentally lol
Loading...
|