Flat Earthers and other regressions

[jelgate]

So you broke his neck in the basement? Didn't take you for the violent type.

I think we all knew it was going to happen eventually

[Falcon Horus]

So you broke his neck in the basement? Didn't take you for the violent type.

I blame the basement.

[jelgate]

I blame the mole people

[aretood2]

Well as long as she isn't putting people in a pit in the basement telling them that it puts the lotion on the skin or it gets the hose again...

[jelgate]

I think we just solved the mystery of where Soul is

[Annoyed]

It's more about metal being divided into sub-genres as it expands. I'm not a huge fan of the likes of thrash or death metal either. But Symphonic Metal like Nightwish, Within Temptation or Delain I adore. Metal also in of itself is just so vast these days that it is it shouldn't really grouped together at all any more.

Gotta say Annoyed I might not agree with much of... well anything you say... But you have awesome taste in music.

Not too much into the melodic genre but I do enjoy some Be'lakor from time to time.

Annoyed got good taste yes but he made one irreparable mistake. The Black Album is the worst, that's the pivotal point that Metallica shifted from metal to commercial metal only touring with mainstream bands not deemed too "extreme". That's also when Hedfield *learned to sing* (boo).

Maybe these sub-genres should be broken off into their own category of music. Many of them don't sound all that much like what was originally known as metal.

Oh, and have to disagree about the black album. "Enter Sandman" has so much going on at the very low end it's like an audio massage. Granted, you won't hear most of it on ear buds and such. But if you're playing with enough power, there is a lot there.

[Chaka-Z0]

Maybe these sub-genres should be broken off into their own category of music. Many of them don't sound all that much like what was originally known as metal.

The main aspect of metal is that there is no rules, no genres. Similar to rock but pushed a step further: outside of the normal musical boundaries, electric guitars tuned to sound raw paired with shocking vocals.

IMO, you stop being true metal when you conform to please the masses or for any other motives.

Oh, and have to disagree about the black album. "Enter Sandman" has so much going on at the very low end it's like an audio massage. Granted, you won't hear most of it on ear buds and such. But if you're playing with enough power, there is a lot there.

The music isn't bad, I actually enjoy some songs but enter Sandman was just played to death on every single rockish radio stations I know of and I'm just sick of hearing it.

[Chaka-Z0]

I've got a lovehate relationship with this band because Master of Puppets was my first CD and then I discovered Ride the Lightning, And Justice for all, etc. I was stunned at the Black Album and I was disgusted at Saints Anger.

I also have a copy of an unsealed record of the 91 album Metallica (its true name) which I'm planning to keep for the next 30-40 years then sell it for a fortune.

[P-90_177]

The main aspect of metal is that there is no rules, no genres. Similar to rock but pushed a step further: outside of the normal musical boundaries, electric guitars tuned to sound raw paired with shocking vocals.

IMO, you stop being true metal when you conform to please the masses or for any other motives.



The music isn't bad, I actually enjoy some songs but enter Sandman was just played to death on every single rockish radio stations I know of and I'm just sick of hearing it.

Indeed. It's a lot like Jazz, which can sound radically different between sub-genres. Hell it can sound radically different between different musicians which is why I've seen jazz fans get into (drunken) punch ups before.

[Chaka-Z0]

Indeed. It's a lot like Jazz, which can sound radically different between sub-genres. Hell it can sound radically different between different musicians which is why I've seen jazz fans get into (drunken) punch ups before.

Yep Jazz or Blues is a good analogy, and I might go as far to say Jazz was the first genre to introduce offbeat percussions and some early type of breakdowns. Also if you think about it, Jazz was the same mindset than metal, revolutionary music coming from people that felt oppressed and in their case for good reasons.

Jazz and Blues gave birth to Rock, which gave birth to Hip-hop, Metal, techno etc.

[P-90_177]

Yep Jazz or Blues is a good analogy, and I might go as far to say Jazz was the first genre to introduce offbeat percussions and some early type of breakdowns. Also if you think about it, Jazz was the same mindset than metal, revolutionary music coming from people that felt oppressed and in their case for good reasons.

Jazz and Blues gave birth to Rock, which gave birth to Hip-hop, Metal, techno etc.

Oppressed in different ways but yeah that's pretty accurate. Jazz and Blues came out of race disenfranchisement of the African Americans in the Deep South while Metal came out of Class disenfranchisement. It was rock n roll that was rooted in a lot of the anger felt by the working class British youth.

Interestingly both were appropriated by the richer white middle classes after not too long a time though.

[Annoyed]

The main aspect of metal is that there is no rules, no genres. Similar to rock but pushed a step further: outside of the normal musical boundaries, electric guitars tuned to sound raw paired with shocking vocals.

IMO, you stop being true metal when you conform to please the masses or for any other motives.

Damned Lizards, always contradicting themselves. Can't get a straight answer out of any of 'em.
I thought there were no rules?

The music isn't bad, I actually enjoy some songs but enter Sandman was just played to death on every single rockish radio stations I know of and I'm just sick of hearing it.

Well, radio does that to everything.

[magi877]

I refer you to the replies made by P-90_177 below and Tood's.






You're an American talking European history -- that's a very interesting combo.

It tends to lean to superficial knowledge more often than not, the same as we have a superficial knowledge of American history.

My history classes ranged from prehistoric Europe to modern day Europe (albeit modern day was closer to 2000 than 2019).
I am literally surrounded by that history and have visited more than my fair share of medieval, ancient roman, ancient greek and celtic sites.

so, are you inferring that people can only learn the history of where they live?

by that line of thought then I should be an expert in the Seneca Indians, specifically, their 'cornplanter kingdom' area

but, i am not. but you could be a student on native american history even though you are in europe. you should not be limited by "a mistake of geography"

i have little interest in native american history, their story is not my story or even a part of it



now i am not saying one can only learn the history that is connected to the DNA that he/she is a product of, but rather the culture and tradition I "descend" from.

but that should not limit one either; i also have a great interest in asian history-particularly northeast and north central asian and i am in no part, asian

[magi877]

The way I see it Rome didn't have a culture, they had an Empire created by and for the aristocracy. That provided the aristocrats the freedom to do anything they liked, maximum debauchery.

The Goths could've helped Rome to protect their borders but they were treated like sh*t. Then woops Fritigern leads a rebellion eating them from the inside with the epic Battle of the Willows and the circle wall of wagons. Meanwhile there was the Persian campaign drawing lots of resources and the accumulation of barbarian uprisings.

the goths did help rome. the visigothic army and other germans and i believe alans, fought against the huns on behalf of rome at the battle of the Catalaunian Plains

people need to remember, the germans wanted a piece of the roman dream. they saw, for centuries, what rome and roman citizenship had to offer and were willing to fight for inclusion into it

they wanted everything rome had to offer--from their food and wine to their language and laws (the gothic kingdoms and the franks all adopted parts of roman law and organization as well as the use of latin)

of course, the obstinate romans (or whatever passed for roman by that time)were ever in refusal to allow in foreign peoples or ideas if it was not their idea

to wit, their refusal to adopt the stirrup and their long delay in adopting the long sword for cavalry and to armor their cavalry

such ideas were barbarian and not acceptable for a roman to acquire

it is a familiar story to history and is still playing out now. but now it is the germanic nations that are being "over run" by peoples who want to be a part of our culture. they become a part of it even as they transform it, as did the germans to rome's

[Falcon Horus]

so, are you inferring that people can only learn the history of where they live?

Nope, not implying that at all.

Just drawing from personal experience in which history from other continents is rarely touched upon in depth so it's always a bit tricky, I personally find, to discuss it or talk in depth about history on an international forum with an international audience.

Unfortunately though, American history is very superficial in our history classes -- European history takes up all the hours already. We didn't delve into Eastern history either, unless it was somehow important towards anything happening in Europe.

In fact, I wanted to study South-American pre-Columbian history but those courses were not even available at any of our universities. Would have had to go to Leiden in The Netherlands, and that was a little too far out for me. (mentally not capable of moving that far away)

i have little interest in native american history, their story is not my story or even a part of it

Neither is Roman or Greek, and yet part of our history curriculum -- in depth.
Where I live, the Romans just never really reached that far north -- to say, there is very little archaeological evidence to the contrary.

now i am not saying one can only learn the history that is connected to the DNA that he/she is a product of, but rather the culture and tradition I "descend" from.

That would mean, everyone should learn African history... ...and in my case, it would also include Germanic (which it does), Roman (did), Scandinavian maybe, Eastern-European likely... Too many to name.