I think that Kruel is saying that in that album, the ideology is so intrinsic to the music, and the religious element of the music is force-fed to the listener to the extent that it can't be ignored or separated from the music. You don't need to read the lyrics or hear hype to get the message of the music. I guess we can only really know if this is true if we seem him review a band like Watain, Funeral Mist or Behexen, bands which are virtually impossible to dislike if you like any black metal, and whose lyrical themes centre around theistic satanism.


From memory, Lana gave the album a zero because to her it's random, incoherent drivel just thrown together. I think saying that "he wants to be Mikael Akerfeldt" is a theatrical way of saying "he sounds similar to Mikael Akerfeldt", which is a reasonable thing to say, in the same way that Kruel isn't actually saying that DsO are Christians.

I like DSO's earlier material. Shaxul is an associate of mine. He is very dedicated to Black Metal, as is his label. When he left DSO, the level of dedication they held towards Black Metal became a thing of the past. Once Funeral Mist started getting popular, a lot of bands decided it was cool to take scripture from the bible and turn it into a Black Metal song..and before all you DSO fanboys get your panties in a bunch, I know Salvation and Si Monvmentvm were not far apart in release date..but let us not forget that Devilry came out in 98 and slowly turned a few heads...and since Arioch decided it's much more lucrative to sing for Marducky, you will all have to rely on DSO for your christian-esque Black Metal desires. Although, Watain is not too far behind.

If you guys like all the new Watain's, DSO's, Funeral Mist's...more power to you, but don't think arguing their validity and skill means much to anyone else. A carefully planned, well-crafted song doesn't negate the fact that it may lack impact or feeling.

DsO's music makes me feel "nothingness" and emptiness. Its hard to describe but its pretty damn awesome. Its an odd feeling...perhaps a cleansing of feelings.

I'm not a big fan of splits but I'll definitely give this one a go.

WHAT? Comapring DSO to Dark Funeral is absurd. Dark Funeral is way more melodic and their song strcutures are limited to repeat some riffsreally fast. DSO songwritting is far more complex, with more discordant rhytms and atonal notes, sometine aproaching to the "raw" black metal style. Seriously, I don't know how you reached to that conclusion.

Well said.

Because DsO riffs are just Dark Funeral riffs with atonality arbitrarily injected. It isn't supposed to be a direct comparison to DF per se, just a statement that DsO uses incredibly generic riffing with only a thin veneer of originality covering it.

I highly dispute your statement about DsO's riffs...which are anything BUT generic. You may not like their music but their riffs are uncommon among most black metal bands.

Very little of their stuff since their Darkthrone worship has tonality, so comparing it to Dark Funeral and other such bands is like comparing apples and oranges. DsO's riffs are not simply "incredibly generic riffing with only a thin veneer of originality" because most of their riffs are atonal.

Just skimmed through Sola Fide I and II and I couldn't find anything unique in the riffing on those songs. They're black metal riffs with some funny chord shapes and more notes. Melodically they do nothing new; atonality is not something that DsO invented.

The three prayers are the best song on Si Monumentum... IMO.

My existence contradicts this statement.

Besides, it's not virtually impossible to dislike those bands if you are into any black metal. Its quite possible, actually. Especially if you have any actual taste in metal.

Si Monumentum was a transitional album of sorts.

Listen to Kenose or their latest. Then you will know what I mean.

Then he is flatly wrong. DsO may be my favorite band, and yet theistic satanism is a joke to me. (if that is even what they believe)

I love Deathspell Omega's music because it is expressive and theatrical. In this criteria, they exceed what almost all others in extreme metal have done, or are doing. That their personal philosophy *may* be a theistic, polytheistic, or non-theistic whatever is almost entirely irrelevant to the work itself, and the spirit of the art.

For example, say Deathspell Omega write an album in which they reconcile with uniquely human mortality, with death - as "life aware of itself". Does the fact that their answer to this problem of human existence differs from mine negate my experience? - That is, myself, a human individual, experiencing another as they and their personhood contemplate themselves, express profound, or even trivial emotions etc via art. Absolutely not! To me, music is the human spirit singing. Because I am not a narcissist, because I love life, this will never cease to be interesting to me. So, in the case of Fas, or any other album grappling with such a human topic, why, or even how could I let one of their answers prevent me from experiencing and enjoying their expression of the struggle?

Further, although I may not be a theist, and the DsO boys may be, there is still much we share in common which help to preserve the sanctity of the experience. Obviously they believe that man, as such, can and should develop himself, should create and sing its heart through art, should strive for actualization etc.



I was trying to place emphasis on the fact that Lana's only point of reference for music with alternating levels of intensity is Opeth. Her only point of reference in an articulated growl, colored by her opeth misstep, is Mikael Akerfeldt.

So, you could argue that her complaints were "reasonable", but they remain incredibly amateur and aesthetic. (However "snotty" that makes me, it's the truth)

Beyond this, lines like "they're doing the whole choatic thing" imply an extremely superficial experience with the music. They tell us that Lana thinks in simple generalizations.

Her cliche diatribe about technical ability superseding content is another example. Because she experienced this music so superficially, a high level of technicality becomes wank by default. She couldn't hear the content because she either wasn't listening for it, or it went over her head. The result is applying a cliche she likes to a band to which it does not apply.

... and so on.

DsO lyrics and music go hand in hand and are equally important. The
music serves as a platform for the lyrics.

As stated in an interview.

Before writing a single note of music, a foetal structure of the lyrical aspect has to appear clearly, because the origin of our inspiration communicates - or shall I say imposes ?- through intellectual concepts first and foremost, sensorial elements are subordinated.

http://www.theajnaoffensive.com/newsDet ... ?NewsID=36

You missed the point.

A work about the uniquely human struggle with inevitable death, be it saturated with atheism or satanism, is still a work about said human struggle and thus has value. And so, being a human being, I am able to relate to this work - the act of experiencing someone else via their work is utterly exhilarating. That they have come to different conclusions about theology than I have is irrelevant to this specifically, and it is this specifically to which I assign value.

Now would you please fuck off? One does not have to "understand" an album in order to rate/review it.

Put another way, more broadly...

Almost every metal band I listen to, ultimately, lies on the opposite end of the philosophical spectrum that I do.

I am a non-theistic humanist. I love human beings, and life. Experiencing others is the most wonderful act there is.

Meanwhile, many of my favorite bands loathe humanity. Whether they be nihilists, misanthropes, or any non-classifiable person who holds mostly contempt for human beings.

But what is it they're actually expressing? Disgust at what?

Organized religion? Non-thinking consumerism? Non-thinking idolatry? Herd conformity? Lack of attention span, or desire to know/experience anything of value?

Me too! So here's a rather cartoon-ish, but legit example:

My bands conclude their survey of the masses by exclaiming "Fuck humanity", and I conclude mine with "These are not human beings, but zombies. So, hate zombies. Fuck zombies! But people... they're wonderful"

Am I now to abandon this art, which rallies against the absurdities of human beings acting like zombies? Because the artist's conclusion isn't identical to mine? Even antithetical? Fuck no. That'd be ridiculous.

Yes, yes they do. What a ridiculous thing to say. If you don't understand a work of art, why are you "reviewing" it? "Review" implies at least some semblance of authority. That a given review is provided for the public at large seals this.

Any basic code of personal ethics would require that you at least strive to understand art you are reviewing for the public. You don't need to be an expert, but you do need to understand what you're writing about, no matter it's quality.

You can "review" material you don't understand, but it sure isn't responsible!

Now play nice or go be angry elsewhere.

A review is an opinion; therefore it is always subjective. What if I think there's nothing to be understood in a particular "work of art", that it is naught but pretentious drivel?

On topic: I hope Svest won't write any of those 10+ minutes long abominations of a song they did on "Urfaust" and instead kind of go back to their demo days.

ANY experience is subjective. My claim is that personal responsibility necessitates actually experiencing music before evaluating it for others.

If you come across an album that, with earnest effort, you have concluded is drivel without anything to be understood, such IS an understanding of the material. So, what's the issue? Well, first of all, art wholly devoid of any and all meaning is extremely rare if it exists at all. The meaning may be superficial, it may be poorly expressed and so on, but most times it is there. The example is not pragmatic.

So what is this absurd expectation of mine? That you make an effort to understand the material before evaluating it for the public. That's it.

Opinions are opinions. Lana expressed her opinion. I recognized it as painfully superficial and amateur. Wagontrain expressed his (a similar, and negative) opinion, and I recognize it as substantial and valid, the product of thought, and consideration. (effort)

You do not need to understand a work of art in order to enjoy/dislike it. Yes, understanding it could add or detract something to or from your perception of it, but nothing beyond that.


Amateur? No, it is certainly not. She knows well what she's talking about. The comparison with Opeth is perfectly valid. Moreover, wagontrain's review is rather similar to hers in most points.


I couldn't care less whether you value one review over another. My point is that this "one has to understand something in order to review it" sentiment is utterly retarded, as it will leave naught but a bunch of drooling fanboys praising their fetish beyond any limit. What, do I have to understand, say, Meshuggah or Opeth to review their albums?

Edited for typo.

To enjoy or dislike it superficially - aesthetically. Sure.



I'm not sure if there's more for me to do but disagree and chuckle.



Yes, you do.

You CAN review it without understanding it, but it's an almost worthless gesture. It's superficial. You could write an A+ review giving an album a 0%, or you could write a shitty one based on your shitty experience. I'll call them like I see them.

Reviews in which the writer has made concerted effort to understand the work are infinitely better than those in which the writer has not. Period.

Edit for the hilarious addition: How ironic is it that you mock me by asking "what, do I have to understand opeth to review them" when we've been discussing an absurd opeth comparison.

So here we go: "I don't understand opeth, here's my review. I don't understand DsO, but they're A LOT like opeth. Here's my review"

Fucking classic

So, can you say something more constructive about the Opeth comparison apart from calling it absurd and nonsensical?

If there's nothing to be understood about a work of art, the writer doesn't need to concentrate on understanding. Plus, if I'm reviewing music, I'm much more likely to concentrate on the actual music instead of some fictitious "understanding of a work of art". If the music sucks, nothing can amend it (and one doesn't have to "understand" to realize it's shitty). Period.

The ability to play in weird time signatures and use some weird drum rhythms doesn't automatically mean you can completely dismiss songwriting or replace it with throwing in a bunch of completely different and unrelated half-baked ideas together.

... do you understand how backwards what you're writing is? Your ignorance is highlighted first by the separation of "the actual music" and "fictitious understanding of a work of art". First of all, they're the same thing you silly goober. Second, I'm at a loss for words at your "fictitious" statement... really...



YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND MUSIC BEFORE YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT IT'S GOOD.

Good lord. Did my e-shouting help make this any more clear? If you don't understand music, YOU CAN'T REALLY EVALUATE IT.

I just don't think you get what I mean by "understand". You keep trying to separate it from judgment. Judgment without understanding = fucking BUNK, dude.



Dismiss songwriting? This is a wonderful illustration of the problem with your perception in one little paragraph. You think DsO and their fans value Fas because of the weird time signatures and crazy or "weird' drumming. I don't even know what constitutes an odd time signature! I literally cannot describe it to you! Ditto with Meshuggah. You're thinking in cliches. You're thinking narcissistic-ally and in generalities.

You heard tech and chaotic drums and, without understanding or recognizing the themes and events within the music, arbitrarily, and ignorantly evaluated the album as shit.

Comprehension comes before evaluation by necessity! I almost can't believe I'm arguing something so obvious.

@ the Opeth request, maybe, if I have time. I've spent too much of it on this already. It really looks like you experience this entire matter superficially, hence in your world comprehension is an irrelevant luxury.

Admit it, you're just a butthurt fanboy.




And it's fictitious "understanding of a work of art", not "fictitious understanding of a work of art".

perhaps a better example.

Catachthonian reads a book:

The Lord of the Flies

Cata: This book was worthless, half baked ideas and no direction.. random deaths, stupid talking pigs heads etc.

John: ...but... do you understand the plot? the characters? any of the symbolism?

Cata: I don't have to understand the plot, the characters, the symbolism, or any of that to know that it sucks!

John: It seems like you ought to understand something before you evaluate its worth.

Cata: Look, you can't just write any old adventure story about lost boys on an island killing each other and declare it "art". I don't need to UNDERSTAND the book, cause I fucking READ it! and it sucks!

...

Admit it, your arguments are very poor and this level of reasoning should've left you circa age 16.

Several minutes ago I wondered when the butthurt accusation would come. How predictable.

To call me butthurt implies that I assign value to the piss poor presentations of opinionitis I am criticizing. ... I do not. I have been pointing out precisely this - Lana's review and those like it for other albums, positive and negative, are absolutely awful and are not valuable.

As I said before, Wagontrain's negative review, while wholly at odds with my position, is clearly the product of thoughtful consideration.

I think you admit defeat right here.

Clockhand, do you understand you're implying that the original idea behind a work of art is far more valuable than a work of art itself?

@ cultofkraken: no.

No. I have never and am not saying this. You spent the entire debate confused about what I was claiming.

I'm not saying you don't understand some arcane meaning, I'm saying that you don't understand the art!

I'm not going to repeat myself. I almost elaborated here, but it really is all above. The book metaphor is perfect.

"I don't need to UNDERSTAND the album, I fucking LISTENED to it!"

If you don't see why that's absurd, I think we're both done here.

All I need to know is what the music is like. That's why I don't give a fuck whether the reviewer understands the album in question or not.

Sorry, but calling someone a butthurt fanboy is the last vestiges of a failing argument

But you DON'T know what the music is like because you DON'T care about COMPREHENSION. - - To know "what something is like" requires that you comprehend it! *brain aneurysm*

Again, it's superficial. Your entire process is superficial.

I'm not saying you need to know what Hasjarl ate and shit during the recording of the album, I'm saying that you should be interested in discovering the themes and events of the music! You may not be interested IN those themes and events, but if you want comprehension, if you want to understand and to evaluate, you at least need to know what those events ARE... and then, afterward, you should be asking yourself questions... I wonder why they chose to put this song together this way? - I wonder why the guitars drop here? ... even if the "why" is stupid, you need to at least CONSIDER these things before bashing or praising it.


The book analogy is perfect. Think about it.

I don't need to UNDERSTAND the book, because I READ it!

Is the same as "because I LISTENED to it!" It's positively ridiculous.

Yes, but surely there is a line between a good and bad assessment of the music...and part of Clockhand's disagreement with Kruel's/whatever-her-name-is' review is that the assessment is either (apparently) poor or compromised by judgement of factors that are not musical...

In the case of DSO, the latter is highly possible if not probable.

Edited for...accuracy

I'm not angry at all @ kruel. My earlier posts do address why I think his wholesale rejection of DsO because he thinks they are theists is really silly.

In the case of comprehension, I do think it should be taken into account with reviews. Most fans of modern pop music would instantly dismiss black metal becuase it sounds like noise to them, and fans of shred stuff like Dragonforce would dismiss minimalism as boring. If they took time to understand it they may realise that for what it is, it is actually good.

On topic of DsO, I do like them, I dont know where all the 'intellegent black metal' comments came from though, but I dont see them as incredible.

Exactly.

The pop fan hears Fas, or even something beautiful like Atheist or Cynic, and says "I don't need to UNDERSTAND it because I LISTENED to it, and it sucks!"

They experience the music superficially, and thus dismiss it by default.

My $0.02:

When critiquing an album, it is important to recognize the artist's goals. And then, evaluate the artist's success in reaching those goals. This part of the reviewing process need not have anything to do with the writer's subjective reaction to the work. In that sense, I think Clockhand is right, at least insofar as what constitutes a quality review.

On the other hand, there is no accounting for taste and sometimes people just don't like something, for one reason or another. Perhaps comparing DsO to Opeth is fucking retarded (I haven't heard Fas...), but I can see the comparison. It's a very broad one. Both bands rely on 'intellect' and compositional complexity. Of course by now Opeth has been around for a very long time, and Ghost Reveries has about as much to do with Si Monumentum... as a turd has to do with a unicycle. But Opeth's first three albums really are significant and accomplished works that pushed the boundaries of what can be considered death or black metal. DsO is doing much the same, albeit with a wholly different set of aesthetic starting points.

I had a brief chuckle about your "turd to a unicycle" comparison.

You know what? You're looking for meaning where there may be none. What if a band puts a song together this or that way just because it sounds cool to them? Also, thinking about the way a song is constructed, about its elements and small details is natural for me WHEN listening to an album, not afterwards. And when I read reviews, I assume that reviewers here do the same thing. Reviewing an album could require some effort to understand it, but enjoying an album has nothing to do with this.

@ Manic 616
Off topic for a second, I just realized "Lvytn" means Leviathan. Yes, I'm slow.

On topic, this sounds a bit interesting as a stocking stuffer. Fuck boxers and socks, I want some ugly black metal in my stocking!