I was thinking, momentarily, of posting some Sabbat/Skyclad lyrics, maybe Arcturus, Vintersorg, Borknagar, something along those lines. However, it would be pointless, except as an illustration that metal is in no way limited to songs about dungeons and/or dragons. It would be pointless because people who do not subscribe to the aesthetic of metal would probably thing they were shit. What lyrics they would appreciate I don't know, because I don't understand their aesthetic. That's been my point here: that there are fundamental underlying reasons of taste why some people like metal, and some people don't, and why some people like indie, and some people don't, and so on and so on, and I think it's unrealistic to really expect everyone to be able to embrace every form of music in its totality. I like a few bands which you could probably call indie, for various reasons. I dislike a whole lot more. A good few 'persons of independent extraction' like a bit of metal, and dislike a whole lot more. I'm not saying these categories exist, but, in as far as I have read and studied aesthetics, culture and the history of culture, they seem a reasonable explanation for peoples violently differening taste. If you
were able to comprehend these two differing worldviews completely, and I ain't saying it's not possible (though I think it's hard, because I don't think most people even think about the fact they might possess these worldviews), then you're a better man than I, Gunga Din. You probably also could have a pretty damn good career as a music journalist.
Let me just clarify what I meant by this since like 4 people have commented on it. I was really unclear. I don't mean that you specifically are losing any kind of argument. But the way you've framed things metal sort of gets labeled outdated and culturally irrelevant. Its fashionable in a lot of circles to explain how your beliefs are consistent with or adapt to post-modernism. The unabashed placing of metal in modern/romantic tradition is interesting in that post-modernism seems to be winning all the intellectual battles of the past few decades.
That makes two suppositions that I don't believe to be true:
1: That cultural evolution is a constantly improving linear process
2: That any one cultural framework or movement can claim complete dominance
It seems to me that the legacy of the original romantics still lives on quite strongly in the world. And, at the end of the day, I think Romanticism makes a useful counterpoint to a post-modern outlook. I will make no secret of the fact that I am unashamedly a romantic. Most people involved in metal, especially black and folk metal, by two favourite subgenres, who have any thoughts about the subject would agree. Now, there are a lot of criticisms levelled at romanticism, some of which I think have substance, some of which I think don't. Yes, the romantic worldview, at its most basic level, can be far too simplistic, too black and white. Yes, it can easily be used to glorify war and re-write history, and it has before. However, I don't agree at all with the argument that romanticism is anti-intellectual, anti-enlightenment and even pro-feudal. The mistake is to try and take apart romantic and fantastic fictions to far too high a level. The point of a fantasy story in which the hero is destined to defeat the dark lord and rule the kingdom is not to suggest that some people are born better than others and thus uphold aristocracy, the point is that the 'chosen one' could have been anyone. This is what people who try (I have seen it done quite a few ways) to interpet the Lord of the Rings as 'fascist' miss: the true heroes are the ordinary, unassuming hobbits, not the already mighty heroes like Aragorn. Fantastic literature shows characters rising up from nothing to great power, it's not upholding the establishment. But anyway, bit of a digression there, actually.
The point I'm trying to make, and probably not succeeding, is that I think Romanticism still has a definite place in this world, and that place is in the emotional and spiritual realm, which post-modernism cannot, at least for me, inherently satisfy. In fact, to this day movies and so on will incessantly plunder romantic imagery and literary constructs (most notably the pathetic fallacy) in order to give themselves emotional depth. Romanticism is just an outlook on life, an anti-modern one maybe, but then again, I have also never really made any secret of being, at least to some extent, anti-modern.
Hmmn, I probably haven't made this point too well, someone point out where I've cacked up and I'll try again later.
As far as I can tell the point is "my taste in music is better than everyone else's". Over and over ad nauseam.
Please, Tommy, give it a break. That's not what I've said in this thread at all, and you know it. It's maybe what you want me to have said, what you think I've said, or what you want others to think I've said, but I'll assure you, it's not what I've said, overtly or covertly, at any point in this discussion. You need to be a bit more rational. Why don't you try and isolate why you are so angry?
