Black Wizard
Pleb Hunter
We're in lockdown. Anything goes.
GREATEST METAL ALBUM CUP - Winner: Iron Maiden - Seventh Son of a Seventh Son!
- Thread starter LooseCannon
- Start date
karljant
Ancient Mariner
"Wankery", "pointless", "just noise" or "not listenable" are regards that surprise me in any review. And are obviously unjustifiable. To illustrate this point let me present you with two scenarios regarding Iron Maiden:
1) Think about what folks that listen to far more direct music think abot songs like Empire Of The Clouds, Rime Of The Ancient Mariner, Dance Of Death, Seventh Son or To Tame A Land... how pointless and overall displays of soloing wankery the long instrumental sections are and how they hurt the potential of a song by increasing its length with "unnecessary" elements.
2) Imagine how lighter music fans can't surely stand heavier songs such as Be Quick Or Be Dead, Man On The Edge, Judgement Day, Sea Of Madness, Purgatory, Invasion or Moonchild labeling them as unlistenable and overall noisy due to the distorted and aggressive chords, uptempo and raspy vocals.
Now ask yourselves this: are these observations fair overall? And why? You'll surely answer no and that it's "just the listener's opinion" that may be "completely out of context" or those are people "lacking of a trained hear" labeling them "musically square" or even having "bad taste". If you pondered slightly about these approaches by now you'll be getting my point.
1) Think about what folks that listen to far more direct music think abot songs like Empire Of The Clouds, Rime Of The Ancient Mariner, Dance Of Death, Seventh Son or To Tame A Land... how pointless and overall displays of soloing wankery the long instrumental sections are and how they hurt the potential of a song by increasing its length with "unnecessary" elements.
2) Imagine how lighter music fans can't surely stand heavier songs such as Be Quick Or Be Dead, Man On The Edge, Judgement Day, Sea Of Madness, Purgatory, Invasion or Moonchild labeling them as unlistenable and overall noisy due to the distorted and aggressive chords, uptempo and raspy vocals.
Now ask yourselves this: are these observations fair overall? And why? You'll surely answer no and that it's "just the listener's opinion" that may be "completely out of context" or those are people "lacking of a trained hear" labeling them "musically square" or even having "bad taste". If you pondered slightly about these approaches by now you'll be getting my point.
Last edited:
Shmoolikipod
Stranger to the Light
Sure, I'll be saying that's their opinion. When I at least see adjectives like those, I just automatically say that's just how they felt while hearing the song... The same way when anyone says this song is good, beautiful, touching, epic.
I don't understand then how those statements are unjustifiable? That's how you (or at the very least, how I) express an opinion, whether positive or negative.
It doesn't matter if the reviewer thinks they're the voice of God, and that what they said is axiomatic. They still just stated an opinion, as valid as the next guy's, even if the words are harsh.
karljant
Ancient Mariner
Easy: one thing is labeling something "wankery" or "noise". Other completely different is saying "I don't like it", "I hate it", "it's not my cup of tea" or "it bores me", "it does nothing for me" or even finding a song "generic", "unoriginal", "over the top", "weak", "great", "amazing", "garbage"... whatever. Your answer is about the later cases: an approach that is totally fair no matter how harsh it can be because it portraits an individual approach a mere opinion and that's ok as you said. The earlier is trying to stick a factual label into something regarding one's personal opinions (i.e. "noise" and "music" have totally distinct meanings). Ok... sometimes people say it to reinforce a personal approach (in that case I understand it) but many times that's not the case... and saying that something is merely "wankery" or "noise" just because we feel so is an unfortunately systematic exercise in presumption and self centered behavior IMO.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
I think people use language like that when something is so far outside the envelope of what they could ever consider enjoyable that they can’t fathom how someone else could like it. It’s still an expression of opinion. I’m sure it’s annoying to people who really like the thing in question, be it farting in tune, or barfing into the microphone, or that “Population Explosion” song where it’s just a guy saying “bang” over and over again at the same rate that babies are born worldwide, but that’s just a sign that what they like is niche. The more it’s savaged, the more niche it is.
I actually thought it was reserved purely for excessive amounts of fast guitar playing (ie lots of repetitive fast hand movements) that are done for the hell of it rather than contributing to the quality of the music.
Last edited:
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
I have no problem with the use of the word wankery in music, it refers to self-indulgence. Music is a reciprocal experience, it's simultaneously enjoyable both for the provider and the recipient. Self-indulgence is when the musician perceived to forget about that reciprocity, not unlike a sexual partner who is just looking for his/her sexual gratification and forgets about the gratification of his/her partner.
It comes down to individual interpretation, musical taste is subjective. One might actually enjoy the product that comes out of self-indulgence. Perhaps it's your kink to watch a guy masturbate, rare as it may be. For most that would be self-indulgence, but you could find the odd person who takes enjoyment in observing that activity and turns it into a reciprocal thing in an indirect sense.
It comes down to individual interpretation, musical taste is subjective. One might actually enjoy the product that comes out of self-indulgence. Perhaps it's your kink to watch a guy masturbate, rare as it may be. For most that would be self-indulgence, but you could find the odd person who takes enjoyment in observing that activity and turns it into a reciprocal thing in an indirect sense.
Shmoolikipod
Stranger to the Light
Well, if I understand what you're saying, I don't disagree. If I'll call a track "just noise", it's because it's so loud and doesn't fulfill what I expect from music, that's a bit how Scum was for me. But I'm not actually meaning to say it's literally noise i.e. the dictionary definition of noise. In this case it's basically an exaggerated way of saying "this is trash".
About the last part: it's unfortunate that some think they can reduce music to those terms, just because "it feels like it's noise" or "it feels self indulgent". That's what my ending sentence was about - they're still only stating their opinion, even if they think they're using the defined terms.
Saying "this is noise" will always mean "this sounds like noise does to me", it's just that some people can't separate their feelings from reality and believe that if they feel so, it's literal noise...
Time for some EXTRA TIME.
I think, starting in League 15, I will be doing extra time at the end of the league play, however many teams need it. That way we don't have overlap if 2 or 3 go to ET.
I think, starting in League 15, I will be doing extra time at the end of the league play, however many teams need it. That way we don't have overlap if 2 or 3 go to ET.
karljant
Ancient Mariner
An artistic production that abide to the laws of rhythm, dynamics, harmony and melody is not noise... it's music. None of the records I've seen presented here break a single one of these requisites. Hell it might broke one or two and be called pure artistic experimentalism (but it's only then the discussion of it being "music" or not kicks in) These are established definitions. As for the wankery I get your point and the metaphor with sex you used is a good one. But if it is merely self indulgence... why are there so many people enjoying it? Isn't that a reciprocal interaction already? Aren't we taking for granted it's an egotistical exercise when perhaps the musicians involved know there are many folks that will love it listening as much as they do? Get my point? And bear in mind I'm not even close of being a LTE fan.
Black Wizard
Pleb Hunter
Some of the dictionary definitions of "noise" definitely do apply to crap like Napalm Death:
one that lacks agreeable musical quality or is noticeably unpleasant (Merriam-Webster)
a sound or sounds, especially when it is unwanted, unpleasant, or loud (Cambridge)
a loud or unpleasant sound (Collins)
karljant
Ancient Mariner
See your points and 100% agree.
karljant
Ancient Mariner
You sir managed to be dryly meaner to virtuosos you don't like than I could ever be in my harshest diatribes eheheheheh .
BTW... really enjoying this Virgin Steele record. Listening to it right now. Who would say...?
Shmoolikipod
Stranger to the Light
karljant
Ancient Mariner
Something tells me that the definition of "Wankery" there will be something like "not Liquid Tension Experiment, you bloody heretics!"
I appreciate the wanking replies.
Also, why the dismissal of jamming? Improvised music has existed for many centuries and makes up a lot of what rock and metal developed out of. While it's not really my thing, there are entire genres of rock music that are entirely based around jamming. It can lead to a level of excitement and spontaneity that doesn't come from composed works.
Most music that is enjoyed around here was created for the musicians' own pleasure. Those musicians were fortunate to find an audience that also appreciated that sort of thing, but the listener's preferences are usually the last thing that is considered. Some exceptions, such as classical music that was patronized by a church/monarchy or a lot of top 40 material, but just about everything in this game so far has been "masturbatory" in the way you describe. With that in mind, I fail to see how the term is descriptive.
What is more self indulgent and masturbatory than Iron Maiden playing A Matter of Life and Death in its entirety live when people came to hear Run to the Hills?
If you can't hear the purpose or direction in a piece of music, I think that is on you.
Also, why the dismissal of jamming? Improvised music has existed for many centuries and makes up a lot of what rock and metal developed out of. While it's not really my thing, there are entire genres of rock music that are entirely based around jamming. It can lead to a level of excitement and spontaneity that doesn't come from composed works.
Most music that is enjoyed around here was created for the musicians' own pleasure. Those musicians were fortunate to find an audience that also appreciated that sort of thing, but the listener's preferences are usually the last thing that is considered. Some exceptions, such as classical music that was patronized by a church/monarchy or a lot of top 40 material, but just about everything in this game so far has been "masturbatory" in the way you describe. With that in mind, I fail to see how the term is descriptive.
What is more self indulgent and masturbatory than Iron Maiden playing A Matter of Life and Death in its entirety live when people came to hear Run to the Hills?
Black Wizard
Pleb Hunter
Some people just get a kick out of watching others do something self indulgent.
karljant
Ancient Mariner
Agreed... what some people consider to be completely pointless may be a well defined design to others and vice versa. It depends on the listener.
This is a fact... as the metal god himself stated: "from jazz and electricity and good old southern blues".
I fail to see self indulgence here. What I see is a band that enjoys so much its new material and is so sure of its quality that played the entirety of the album on the first tour because they knew it would become a favorite among many fans (as it did). Even if I disliked AMOLAD I must applaud how a 30 year old veteran act has the balls to pull that out when the majority of bands with the same age were playing it safe living almost entirity from their past reportoire.
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
Nailed it. It's a term based on taste, not a descriptive or axiomatic one. When you like what the artist is doing it becomes "artistic integrity", when you dislike it it becomes "self-indulgence". To suggest this is anything more than a matter of taste on the part of the observer of the art is hypocritical. In terms of the way the art is created, the two have precisely the same origin.
I think this is the essence of art in many ways.