PDA

View Full Version : Metal and Politics


zgodt
05-02-2007, 08:26 AM
What do you think about metal songs with political content? While some have complained around here that this is a metal discussion board, not a political discussion board, it occurs to me that metal and politics have always been intertwined. Black Sabbath has political songs (e.g., War Pigs). Iron Maiden has political songs, even early on (e.g., Run to the Hills), and certainly later (e.g., Afraid to Shoot Strangers). Metallica of course has plenty of political songs, and so does Megadeth, and Anthrax, and virtually every thrash band of any consequence. And then you have plenty of overtly activist metal bands like Rage Against the Machine, SOAD, Otep....

So what do you think? Is this as it should be, or not? I have always loved metal in part because of its spirit of resistance and opposition -- its fierce independence against authority and received wisdom. So overt political content seems to me to be an unavoidable part of metal and its surrounding culture. But I don't get the impression that all of ya'll would agree with that. So I'm asking, what do you think?


A related question is this: is it even possible for metal music to be apolitical? Or do all songs -- even escapist fantasy epics, and straightforward pro-metal anthems, and "book report" songs, and love songs, etc. -- have a significant, underlying political component?

EvilCheeseWedge
05-02-2007, 08:47 AM
"The problem comes when you find harangue passing off as art. It seems to me the best art is political and you ought to be able to make it unquestionably political and irrevocably beautiful at the same time." – Toni Morrison, my emphasis.

overkiller
05-02-2007, 08:57 AM
What do you think about metal songs with political content? While some have complained around here that this is a metal discussion board, not a political discussion board, it occurs to me that metal and politics have always been intertwined. Black Sabbath has political songs (e.g., War Pigs). Iron Maiden has political songs, even early on (e.g., Run to the Hills), and certainly later (e.g., Afraid to Shoot Strangers). Metallica of course has plenty of political songs, and so does Megadeth, and Anthrax, and virtually every thrash band of any consequence. And then you have plenty of overtly activist metal bands like Rage Against the Machine, SOAD, Otep....

So what do you think? Is this as it should be, or not? I have always loved metal in part because of its spirit of resistance and opposition -- its fierce independence against authority and received wisdom. So overt political content seems to me to be an unavoidable part of metal and its surrounding culture. But I don't get the impression that all of ya'll would agree with that. So I'm asking, what do you think?


A related question is this: is it even possible for metal music to be apolitical? Or do all songs -- even escapist fantasy epics, and straightforward pro-metal anthems, and "book report" songs, and love songs, etc. -- have a significant, underlying political component?

I basically agree with everything you said in this post (except I wouldn't call Rage, SOAD or Otep metal, but that's almost irrelevant here).

And you're definitely on to something with that last part. Take the whole pagan/viking theme for example--instead of using the old cliche of Satan (which Venom basically beat to death as soon as they instated it) as an expression of rebellion, later bands (Bathory being more or less the first) used ideas about paganism, war as a virtue, strength/honor etc. etc. as an expression against common modern ways of thinking. I've never been an all-out folk-metal guy myself (though I do love and appreciate the stuff), but I do feel that the pagan warrior sentiment more fully captures the spirit of Metal than the Satan metaphor (unless you're going for Milton's romantic Satan, who is, well, metal as fuck). But more bands are concerned about virgin sacrifices and pentagrams, which is unfortunate.

overkiller
05-02-2007, 09:10 AM
And I think the main reason why it became law to keep politics off of here is because it always, always degenerates into people just screaming at each other about what they're very convinced is true, regardless of how full of shit they are. It's just not worthwhile, so it's better to keep it off altogether.

JRA
05-02-2007, 10:14 AM
And I think the main reason why it became law to keep politics off of here is because it always, always degenerates into people just screaming at each other about what they're very convinced is true, regardless of how full of shit they are. It's just not worthwhile, so it's better to keep it off altogether.

A-fucking-men.

JRA
05-02-2007, 10:15 AM
A related question is this: is it even possible for metal music to be apolitical?

Ram It Down

EvilCheeseWedge
05-02-2007, 10:26 AM
Ram It Down
Gay rights? :eyes:

DethMaiden
05-02-2007, 11:04 AM
I don't know if every song is political, certainly not overtly so, but I think putting politics into music often makes it more interesting lyrically.

When it comes right down to it, though, it's completely irrelevant what they're singing about if they can't write a decent song.

overkiller
05-02-2007, 11:35 AM
Ram It Down

HAHAHA

EvilCheeseWedge
05-02-2007, 11:58 AM
There was an editorial in our university newspaper several weeks back by the typical Muslim-bashing, gun-loving, Bush-voting editorialist that usually opines about how the rest of us "don't get us" and "want America to lose" about music and politics. Not surprisingly he wrote a long diatribe about how Beethoven wasn't political, and thus no other music should be too. He urged artists' to consider their legacies: nobody will care about your politics when you're dead, so why bother now and potentially alienate people? Every single example of political music he included were those typically flagged as “liberal” or “left leaning” leaving me to feel he could’ve better summed up his editorial as: It’s only okay if I agree with it.

However, the quote I posted earlier is from an article by Toni Morrison I did a brief presentation on a few weeks ago (we read Jazz in one of my classes) and I brought up the editorial and we talked about that in relation to the quote.

My own thoughts are this: Be political, if you want to. The argument that you should consider your legacy is, frankly, retarded. Why do I care what people think of me when I’m dead? No offense, but if I write a political song I couldn’t care less if people refuse to listen to it in 50 years solely because they disagree with it. If it’s something political that motivates you to create then by all means it should be expressed. Music – art – is about passion, and if what you’re passionate about involves politics, then why shouldn’t you go for it?

I can understand Morrison’s point about “harangue” however, but that’s a hard one. One person’s harangue, might not be to someone else, right? We tried to come up with some examples of harangue passing off as art. I suppose you could include forms of propaganda in there. My professor suggested that perhaps some of Ayn Rand’s work could be considered harangue (I think I would be inclined to agree.)

Bottom line: I think any and all forms of art should be political if that’s what the creator has in mind.

ChildrenofSodom
05-02-2007, 12:24 PM
I dont think politics should be held on a different level than other subjects such as religion, love, money, sadness, etc. They are all things that people care about passionately, and if they want to sing about how much they hate the government, that song should not be seen in a different light as, say, a song about how bitchy women are. I dont believe in underlying political parallels in escapist epic metal.If the lyricist was writing a story about how one completely apolitical fantasy world, it would be wrong for the listener to completely misconstrue the point of the song with their own bias interpretation. I hate songs that go right out and say what they hate (such as Pro-Pain "Foul Taste of Freedom"). I am more likely to listen to stuff like Nevermore that focus on social issues, while still throwing in thought-provoking phrases. "The flies drink the decaying nectar, of their tortured effigy."

It all boils down to what James said; all that matters is what the artist feels comfortable doing. If they want to "fuck the government", then thats fine. If they want to gallop through a meadow with pixies, that is great too.

Div
05-02-2007, 01:55 PM
If the songs good I can overlook it, but sometimes poltical music can become more about the bands personal views and less about the music itself, thats when it becomes really fucking annoying. I don't listen to music to get political information, most of the time its because I just want to clear my mind.

Bouville
05-02-2007, 02:01 PM
Regarding music and politics I think the same way Sartre thought about literature and politics.

ADD
05-02-2007, 02:23 PM
Doesn't concern me either way. My personal preference would lean towards non-political, but its pretty irrelevant in terms of if its a factor in my enjoyment of the music or not.

zgodt
05-02-2007, 04:31 PM
Regarding music and politics I think the same way Sartre thought about literature and politics.

For those of us who haven't studied Sartre, would you care to elaborate?

Bouville
05-02-2007, 04:40 PM
For those of us who haven't studied Sartre, would you care to elaborate?

Sure... I will say it in once sentence. Literature must be engaged in changing the power relationships, it should be used to fight against social injustice and to serve the agenda of the ones who are at the bottom of the social pyramid.

zgodt
05-02-2007, 04:40 PM
If the lyricist was writing a story about how one completely apolitical fantasy world, it would be wrong for the listener to completely misconstrue the point of the song with their own bias interpretation.

I guess the question is, is it possible to have a "completely apolitical" fantasy world? Say a knight goes out and slays a dragon to save a princess, and then marries the princess. Isn't there some political content coded in that? Obviously I'm not saying the dragon has to represent the Bush administration or anything. But even in that standard fairy tale scenario, you have certain social/political assumptions-- there are creatures of evil that it is proper to kill; violent action is the sphere of men, who must act to protect women; etc.
I'm generalizing and simplifying -- the devil is usually in the details. But I suspect that our political and social assumptions are generally reflected in everything we create, whether we mean to be overtly political or not.

As for the rest, I am inclined to agree with you, and with ECW. Didactic/preachy/haranguing songs are more propaganda than art, and usually have a short shelf life and little aesthetic value.

ADD
05-02-2007, 04:41 PM
Sure... I will say it in once sentence. Literature must be engaged in changing the power relationships, it should be used to fight against social injustice and to serve the agenda of the ones who are at the bottom of the social pyramid.

I vehemently disagree with that.

Bouville
05-02-2007, 04:43 PM
I vehemently disagree with that.

That's ok... but I will have to agree with the nobel prize though.

ChildrenofSodom
05-02-2007, 04:43 PM
I guess the question is, is it possible to have a "completely apolitical" fantasy world? Say a knight goes out and slays a dragon to save a princess, and then marries the princess. Isn't there some political content coded in that? Obviously I'm not saying the dragon has to represent the Bush administration or anything. But even in that standard fairy tale scenario, you have certain social/political assumptions-- there are creatures of evil that it is proper to kill; violent action is the sphere of men, who must act to protect women; etc.
.

Not necessarily. I think the stories of dragons and knights were around first. I think politicians being compared to dragons is better than dragons being compared to politicians, if that makes any sense at all.:eyes:

ADD
05-02-2007, 04:44 PM
That's ok... but I will have to agree with the nobel prize though.
Saying an art "must" be used in a certain way to achieve something is something I'm not down with.

Bouville
05-02-2007, 04:48 PM
Saying an art "must" be used in a certain way to achieve something is something I'm not down with.

A political agenda must use all the tools it can, specially the political agenda of the ones who are segregated, oppressed, exploited and have no other means than his/her words. Art is resistance and as resistance it must communicate the voice of those who are oppressed.

ADD
05-02-2007, 04:51 PM
A political agenda must use all the tools it can, specially the political agenda of the ones who are segregated, oppressed, exploited and have no other means than his/her words. Art is resistance and as resistance it must communicate the voice of those who are oppressed.
But I don't like the idea of confining literature to fit that specific purpose alone as Sarte is suggesting.

zgodt
05-02-2007, 04:55 PM
Sure... I will say it in once sentence. Literature must be engaged in changing the power relationships, it should be used to fight against social injustice and to serve the agenda of the ones who are at the bottom of the social pyramid.
Yeah, I am sympathetic to that. Sounds rather compatible with Toni Morrison's statement, too. But I would tend to favor a rather expansive view of how art should serve the needs (rather than the "agenda") of those in need.

ChildrenofSodom
05-02-2007, 04:55 PM
A political agenda must use all the tools it can, specially the political agenda of the ones who are segregated, oppressed, exploited and have no other means than his/her words. Art is resistance and as resistance it must communicate the voice of those who are oppressed.

Isnt calling for all artists to resist, just forcing conformity?

Bouville
05-02-2007, 04:58 PM
Isnt calling for all artists to resist, just forcing conformity?

Au contraire... to resist is to fight and art is one of the many fields in which the war is being fought.

Bouville
05-02-2007, 04:59 PM
Yeah, I am sympathetic to that. Sounds rather compatible with Toni Morrison's statement, too. But I would tend to favor a rather expansive view of how art should serve the needs (rather than the "agenda") of those in need.

I favor the use of the word agenda as is more structural than needs. Agenda refers to a set of goals and tasks set by a collectivity rather than the word "needs" that refers more to the individual.

Bouville
05-02-2007, 04:59 PM
But I don't like the idea of confining literature to fit that specific purpose alone as Sarte is suggesting.

That's fair but I disagree.

ChildrenofSodom
05-02-2007, 04:59 PM
Au contraire... to resist is to fight and art is one of the many fields in which the war is being fought.

But I feel that if artists are expected to dissent, then they are actually following a predetermined standard.

zgodt
05-02-2007, 05:00 PM
Not necessarily. I think the stories of dragons and knights were around first. I think politicians being compared to dragons is better than dragons being compared to politicians, if that makes any sense at all.:eyes:

There have always been power struggles, which is all that politics is. Mythologies -- the old stories -- themselves were built to reflect certain power relationships, preferences, moral codes... And what we learn from such stories does affect how we see the world and our place in it. So I believe fables and myths and fairy tales to be as political as anything.

ADD
05-02-2007, 05:01 PM
That's fair but I disagree.
How come?

Bouville
05-02-2007, 05:02 PM
But I feel that if artists are expected to dissent, then they are actually following a predetermined standard.

This goes at a deeper level, this goes right into the relationships of production in which classes reproduce themselves, this goes way into the collective social consciousness regulated by class position and access to the material means necessary to survive.

ChildrenofSodom
05-02-2007, 05:04 PM
no idea what that means..And I am too tired to care...

Bouville
05-02-2007, 05:04 PM
How come?

Everything is socially regulated, every single book, every single phrase, even the more stupid one. And everything socially regulated is politically engaged. Even the fact of not being political is a political stand, which is characteristic of the bourgeoisie.

Div
05-02-2007, 05:07 PM
What about a song with no lyrics or a painting of a landscape? Surely that can't be considered political because there is no symbolism or implications.

Bouville
05-02-2007, 05:08 PM
no idea what that means..And I am too tired to care...

hahaha, get your books and study.

Class position defines your understanding of the world and set your priorities. Ethnicity and gender play minor roles.

zgodt
05-02-2007, 05:10 PM
I favor the use of the word agenda as is more structural than needs. Agenda refers to a set of goals and tasks set by a collectivity rather than the word "needs" that refers more to the individual.

Those Vallejo poems you love so dearly sure seem to speak more to individualized needs than to collectivized ones.

I resist the urge to cast artistic endeavor for solely didactic or goal-oriented purposes. The nonsense verses of Edward Lear and Lewis Carroll are extremely liberating, for instance, in part because they turn away from serving any interest.

I tend to think the act of speaking out in a strong and individual voice can be enough. Art reasserts the fundamentally unique value of each individual human being, upon which all liberties are founded. I don't mean that in some quasi-Randian every-bastard-for-himself sense -- quite the contrary. It's a lot easier to keep whole classes of people under your bootheel when you don't think of them as individual lives each with intrinsic value and humanity. Good art focuses a lens on that intrinsic value and humanity, a fundamental act that cuts against every form of tyranny.

Bouville
05-02-2007, 05:11 PM
What about a song with no lyrics or a painting of a landscape? Surely that can't be considered political because there is no symbolism or implications.

Class position tends to regulate those behavioral outcomes. A non political statement is a political statement for most of the part but there are exceptions to the rule.

Bouville
05-02-2007, 05:16 PM
Those Vallejo poems you love so dearly sure seem to speak more to individualized needs than to collectivized ones.

I resist the urge to cast artistic endeavor for solely didactic or goal-oriented purposes. The nonsense verses of Edward Lear and Lewis Carroll are extremely liberating, for instance, in part because they turn away from serving any interest.

I tend to think the act of speaking out in a strong and individual voice can be enough. Art reasserts the fundamentally unique value of each individual human being, upon which all liberties are founded. I don't mean that in some quasi-Randian every-bastard-for-himself sense -- quite the contrary. It's a lot easier to keep whole classes of people under your bootheel when you don't think of them as individual lives each with intrinsic value and humanity. Good art focuses a lens on that intrinsic value and humanity, a fundamental act that cuts against every form of tyranny.

Vallejo was a member of the Peruvian, French and Spanish Communist Party and he fought in the Spanish Civil war against Franco. Much of his poems represent the discrimination he had to suffer for not being white or the segregation and exploitation he suffered working for a US mining company in Peru... but sure some poems are really personal, very melancholic and sad which was a condition generated by the material conditions of existence in which he lived.

I see your point and I understand it. I am more radical about the use of art and how it must serve an agenda. You tend to rely on a more humanistic approach, I take the path of a more socialistic approach.

ADD
05-02-2007, 05:25 PM
Everything is socially regulated, every single book, every single phrase, even the more stupid one. And everything socially regulated is politically engaged. Even the fact of not being political is a political stand, which is characteristic of the bourgeoisie.
This doesn't work because everyting is inter-twined in some way, the comon ties of things don't simply lead back to something as trivial as political systems.

Bouville
05-02-2007, 05:27 PM
something as trivial as political systems.

And that is the ontological difference that set us apart.

zgodt
05-02-2007, 05:44 PM
What about a song with no lyrics or a painting of a landscape? Surely that can't be considered political because there is no symbolism or implications.

Landscape paintings have always been political. For example, rich and powerful people loved to have big paintings made of the lands belonging to their estates. It was an expression of their power and wealth. In early history of Western United States landscape painting, painters would make this huge dramatic canvases showing how majestic and beautiful it was out there, which was a way of encouraging Westward expansion and "manifest destiny" -- although some of the best painters themselves also meant the paintings as a call to preservation. So even landscapes are a lot more complicated politically than one might expect.

Instrumental music is historically political too. Just because John Phillip Sousa's marches don't have words doesn't mean they aren't meant to convey patriotic spirit. And there's a reason that Stalin persecuted a composer like Shostakovich.

DethMaiden
05-02-2007, 05:51 PM
Landscape paintings have always been political. For example, rich and powerful people loved to have big paintings made of the lands belonging to their estates. It was an expression of their power and wealth. In early history of Western United States landscape painting, painters would make this huge dramatic canvases showing how majestic and beautiful it was out there, which was a way of encouraging Westward expansion and "manifest destiny" -- although some of the best painters themselves also meant the paintings as a call to preservation. So even landscapes are a lot more complicated politically than one might expect.

Instrumental music is historically political too. Just because John Phillip Sousa's marches don't have words doesn't mean they aren't meant to convey patriotic spirit. And there's a reason that Stalin persecuted a composer like Shostakovich.

Even though you're right about these things, there's certain times when you know the artist didn't have in mind what you interpret. I guess what I'm saying is, does your saying it really make it so?

zgodt
05-02-2007, 05:52 PM
This doesn't work because everyting is inter-twined in some way, the comon ties of things don't simply lead back to something as trivial as political systems.
I don't think Bouville's saying everything boils down to only politics -- but rather that it's a mistake to imagine that anything can exist in a vacuum separate from politics. If you're an painter in the USA in 2007, and you paint decorative little sunflowers because they make you feel happy, then you've made an implicit choice not to use your art to engage with the issues of the day -- whether they be the war in Iraq or the fact that 20% of people in the world's richest nation live below the poverty line. That's a political choice, which suggests complicity with the status quo. "You can't stay neutral on a moving train," as they say.

zgodt
05-02-2007, 05:56 PM
Even though you're right about these things, there's certain times when you know the artist didn't have in mind what you interpret. I guess what I'm saying is, does your saying it really make it so?

I'm not saying all landscape paintings mean this or that. But all landscape paintings mean something. Even simply praising the beauty of nature is a political act. It might not be the deepest or most engaged, but it's still political -- whether it's done in order to celebrate our marvelous creator in heaven above, or to celebrate a natural wonder in danger from environmental degradation.

DethMaiden
05-02-2007, 05:57 PM
I'm not saying all landscape paintings mean this or that. But all landscape paintings mean something. Even simply praising the beauty of nature is a political act. It might not be the deepest or most engaged, but it's still political -- whether it's done in order to celebrate our marvelous creator in heaven above, or to celebrate a natural wonder in danger from environmental degradation.

Yes, I can understand how that may be your interpretation of it. But let's just say a guy decides, "Well, I could use some money and I'm a good painter. I'm going to Nebraska" and he paints a field there. He isn't enjoying it's scenic beauty, he isn't celebrating its creation, he isn't fearing its demise. He's just painting it. Is that political?

DreamEvil001
05-02-2007, 05:59 PM
I have essentially the same viewpoint thats already been said. Music is about passion, and if you feel passion about politics its perfectly acceptable in music. And i think that politics in music can enhance the song and enable you to further read into the song and lyrics, increasing its interest.

DreamEvil001
05-02-2007, 06:00 PM
Saying an art "must" be used in a certain way to achieve something is something I'm not down with.

agreed 100%

zgodt
05-02-2007, 08:32 PM
Yes, I can understand how that may be your interpretation of it. But let's just say a guy decides, "Well, I could use some money and I'm a good painter. I'm going to Nebraska" and he paints a field there. He isn't enjoying it's scenic beauty, he isn't celebrating its creation, he isn't fearing its demise. He's just painting it. Is that political?

Well... why is he painting it? If it's to make money, who's he going to sell it to? Some local Nebraskan? Then he's probably going to paint a fairly picturesque, sentimental landscape that will satisfy and flatter his patron, appealing to his regional pride. But that's just one possibility. Perhaps he's going to abstract the field and consider it in terms of pure shape and color and motion, or alternately he may do it impressionist-style in terms of capturing the "fleeting glance" of human perception. Either way, then, he's resisting the sentimental (and probably more market-friendly) approach in favor of a more rational or humanistic one. All of these decisions necessarily have political dimensions. They may not be particulary interesting, and they may not be the most (and certainly not the only) enlightening way to engage with the painting. But they are there -- they are unavoidable -- they are a necessary ingredient that informs any act of artistic activity.

Div
05-02-2007, 08:36 PM
Well... why is he painting it? If it's to make money, who's he going to sell it to? Some local Nebraskan? Then he's probably going to paint a fairly picturesque, sentimental landscape that will satisfy and flatter his patron, appealing to his regional pride. But that's just one possibility. Perhaps he's going to abstract the field and consider it in terms of pure shape and color and motion, or alternately he may do it impressionist-style in terms of capturing the "fleeting glance" of human perception. Either way, then, he's resisting the sentimental (and probably more market-friendly) approach in favor of a more rational or humanistic one. All of these decisions necessarily have political dimensions. They may not be particulary interesting, and they may not be the most (and certainly not the only) enlightening way to engage with the painting. But they are there -- they are unavoidable -- they are a necessary ingredient that informs any act of artistic activity.

Would you happen to be a sociology major?

zgodt
05-02-2007, 08:39 PM
Would you happen to be a sociology major?
No, but I did take one sociology class in 1991. :eyes:

ChildrenofSodom
05-02-2007, 09:19 PM
For those noobs that dont yet own the new Grave Digger, the whole album focuses on human rights, liberty, war, freedom, oppression, revolution, etc..Read these lyrics and give me your thoughts.

Don't kneel in the sand, defend your land
The kiss of racism is touching your head
I'm not god, I'm a political man
A leader, a lawyer against tyranny

We're raising our hands against execution
We're heading out for silent revolution
We're trying to resist bloody persecution
We're crying out for silent revolution

Spread the words of freedom,
Defend your rights
Our only religion is a peaceful fight
I'm not god, I'm a man of the people
Stand for the children the innocence of life

We're raising our hands against execution
We're heading out for silent revolution
We're trying to resist bloody persecution
We're crying out for silent revolution

Silent revolution

Spoken: What difference does it make
To the dead, the orphans, and the homeless,
Whether the mad destruction is wrought
Under the name of totalitarianism
Or the holy name of liberty and democracy
And for that I had to died???

DreamEvil001
05-02-2007, 10:15 PM
For those noobs that dont yet own the new Grave Digger, the whole album focuses on human rights, liberty, war, freedom, oppression, revolution, etc..Read these lyrics and give me your thoughts.

Don't kneel in the sand, defend your land
The kiss of racism is touching your head
I'm not god, I'm a political man
A leader, a lawyer against tyranny

We're raising our hands against execution
We're heading out for silent revolution
We're trying to resist bloody persecution
We're crying out for silent revolution

Spread the words of freedom,
Defend your rights
Our only religion is a peaceful fight
I'm not god, I'm a man of the people
Stand for the children the innocence of life

We're raising our hands against execution
We're heading out for silent revolution
We're trying to resist bloody persecution
We're crying out for silent revolution

Silent revolution

Spoken: What difference does it make
To the dead, the orphans, and the homeless,
Whether the mad destruction is wrought
Under the name of totalitarianism
Or the holy name of liberty and democracy
And for that I had to died???

unusually good for grave digger lyrics. and it seems to be the opposite of some of the stuff you were preaching last night; peaceful opposition as opposed to violent protest and protection of rights

MetalDrummer888
05-02-2007, 10:17 PM
unusually good for grave digger lyrics. and it seems to be the opposite of some of the stuff you were preaching last night; peaceful opposition as opposed to violent protest and protection of rights

:tp:

shhhhhhhhhhhhh :eyes:

ChildrenofSodom
05-03-2007, 02:59 AM
unusually good for grave digger lyrics. and it seems to be the opposite of some of the stuff you were preaching last night; peaceful opposition as opposed to violent protest and protection of rights
Some times you gotta do what you gotta do.

zgodt
05-03-2007, 04:57 AM
For those noobs that dont yet own the new Grave Digger, the whole album focuses on human rights, liberty, war, freedom, oppression, revolution, etc..Read these lyrics and give me your thoughts.
I think they're pretty average.

As political art, I think they're all but useless. It's so easy to say "we're heading out for silent revolution," but once the song is over, where does that lead? More to the point, though, the message is too abstract / generalized to inspire much. "Spread the words of freedom, defend your rights... stand for the children and the innocence of life." I could see an Iraq war supporter shouting along with these as comfortably as an avid peace advocate. That's a pretty good indication there's not much meat to it.

I'm curious though if this song is supposed to be about Gandhi? It would make more sense to me as a celebration of the nonviolent resistance movement he led. Although the quote at the end suggests the Iraq war.

Anyway, thanks for posting them. :) I'm enjoying the level of discussion in this thread.

ChildrenofSodom
05-03-2007, 12:46 PM
[/B]From Liberty or Death:"From the ashes of our bones
Flames blazing high, Illuminate the enemy, blood red in the sky"
Ocean of Blood:Waves will break the ocean of blood. Freedom waits behind . Waves will break the ocean of blood. Freedom belongs to all mankind"
Highland tears:It is in truth not for glory, not riches,
Not honours that we are fighting for, But for freedom. For that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself. We are the last fighting against a past. To be free.
Highland tears. In blood we died
The king is dead ,all soldiers cried
Highland tears, Flow through our vains
The english killed put us in chains

Until the Last King Died (http://www.lyricsandsongs.com/song/117920.html)

ADD
05-03-2007, 05:38 PM
Liberty Or Death is standard fare power metal, musically and lyrically.

ChildrenofSodom
05-03-2007, 06:23 PM
Liberty Or Death is standard fare power metal, musically and lyrically.

If standard is code for kickass, then you are correct.

DreamEvil001
05-03-2007, 07:11 PM
Liberty Or Death is standard fare power metal, musically and lyrically.

i didnt get this cd, because of that very reason in regard to rheingold, the grave digger, and last supper (which, to be fair has a few kickass songs)

Angelripper
05-03-2007, 11:24 PM
I think Metal bands should do whatever they want with lyrics. Even Nazi bands can have meaningful lyrics if you approach them from a neutral point of view.

Nemesis
05-04-2007, 03:55 AM
YOu might want to add 'joke' tags to your post.

Bouville
05-04-2007, 03:06 PM
I think Metal bands should do whatever they want with lyrics. Even Nazi bands can have meaningful lyrics if you approach them from a neutral point of view.

I mean, everyone hates Jews right?











































Throw the Jew down the well!

This is the second time yo do this... if you hit a third one I will give you a permanent banning.

Angelripper
05-04-2007, 10:28 PM
This is the second time yo do this... if you hit a third one I will give you a permanent banning.
Alright then, fat-hater.

Div
05-04-2007, 10:31 PM
:lol:

Bouville
05-04-2007, 11:53 PM
Alright then, fat-hater.

:lol:

hot_turkey_ed
05-05-2007, 03:45 AM
I think Metal bands should do whatever they want with lyrics. Even Nazi bands can have meaningful lyrics if you approach them from a neutral point of view.

I mean, everyone hates Jews right?

Throw the Jew down the well!

YOu might want to add 'joke' tags to your post.


This is the second time yo do this... if you hit a third one I will give you a permanent banning.

Let me share my first reaction: "FUCK YOU!" followed by a swift permanent ban. Fuck any (more) warnings. A couple of minutes after enforcing said ban, I realized you wouldn't be so fucking stupid to post something like this, so I did a search, found the Borat reference, and lifted the ban -- although still really pissed off. Too bad I haven't seen his movie or shows. Yeah, I get Borat's schtick but this isn't the place for it and you're doing nothing to send Sacha Cohen's real point home. Your post demonstrates exactly why one should refrain from certain types of humor when context can not be clearly established. Rather than using joke tags, I suggest using some common sense and keeping it off metalsetlists. We've never tolerated this kind of shit. We're not now.

Angelripper
05-05-2007, 04:24 AM
Let me share my first reaction: "FUCK YOU!" followed by a swift permanent ban. Fuck any (more) warnings. A couple of minutes after enforcing said ban, I realized you wouldn't be so fucking stupid to post something like this, so I did a search, found the Borat reference, and lifted the ban -- although still really pissed off. Too bad I haven't seen his movie or shows. Yeah, I get Borat's schtick but this isn't the place for it and you're doing nothing to send Sacha Cohen's real point home. Your post demonstrates exactly why one should refrain from certain types of humor when context can not be clearly established. Rather than using joke tags, I suggest using some common sense and keeping it off metalsetlists. We've never tolerated this kind of shit. We're not now.
My bad.