Nergal of Behemoth on being a Morrissey fan, avoiding politics


Starts at 1:57 talking about how politics should be separate from music. Talks about Morrissey starting at 2:35
 

Comments

V

vegan cro spirit 888

Guest
I think the point is more that "fans" should listen to the music if they like it but try to avoid unhealthy identification with a person they can't really know anyway.
:rolleyes:

:straightface:

WTF???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
does this even mean FFS:crazy:

fans SHOULD LISTEN
but TRY TO AVOID "UNHEALTHY" IDENTIFICATION WITH A PERSON ( WHO:lbf:-)
they CANT REALLY KNOW ANYWAY'



HOLY FLOCKS!!:eek:
 

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><><>
I think the point is more that "fans" should listen to the music if they like it but try to avoid unhealthy identification with a person they can't really know anyway.
But if they know the person then unhealthy identification would be alright?

How about healthy identification? and is there such a thing?

Also, is there such a thing as healthy fandom? seems a paradox.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The Labour Party right now is making Morrissey Solo AND Morrissey look completely sane & reasonable, so I don't think anyone needs to worry about being a Morrissey fan anymore.
 

The Truth

about Ruth
But if they know the person then unhealthy identification would be alright?

How about healthy identification? and is there such a thing?

Also, is there such a thing as healthy fandom? seems a paradox.
When you are forming your identity, say in your teens, and artists like Morrissey can help you find a way to understand yourself better it's natural to become attached to the image you have formed of them. That image is not who they are, though.
And it's good, as you become an adult, to relate to them in a different way. You know this is true. Lots of people go through a stage where they cover the walls with band posters and it's usually around the early teens.
I'm not sure there is such a thing as a healthy fandom. It's all about balance of course but there is a big difference between being a fan of the music and being a fan of the person.
At the extreme levels of fandom it can become cultlike or it can go the other way. It can become a thing where nothing that person does can ever be wrong in your eyes and it's upsetting to you to see them criticized. That's fine, but the thing is you're not really a fan of that person. You're a fan of the image and impressions you have of that person.
Or it can go the other way where you can't quite understand that this relationship you had with "the artist" was all in your mind, and that when they "change" or "let you down" instead of taking the responsibility for that you might sign in every day and make negative comments about them, try to win other fans over to your point of view and "expose" the artist. Really you're just exposing yourself.

Whatever works for the individual is fine but I think that it's possible to have a pure relationship with the art because the the art is an expression of the highest forms of human communication. But you can't have a pure relationship with the artist. They're not perfect or ideal. They're changeable. Your impressions of the art might change, but the art essentially remains the same. The artist changes. And if you want them to remain true to this image and these impressions you have conjured and which exist only in your mind you're either going to be disappointed or you're going to have to start actively adjusting your perceptions in order to continue to see the same image.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The Labour Party right now is making Morrissey Solo AND Morrissey look completely sane & reasonable, so I don't think anyone needs to worry about being a Morrissey fan anymore.
Nothing could make Morrissey-solo look sane and reasonable, least of all a post on Morrissey-solo.
 
V

vegan cro spirit 888

Guest
When you are forming your identity, say in your teens, and artists like Morrissey can help you find a way to understand yourself better it's natural to become attached to the image you have formed of them. That image is not who they are, though.
And it's good, as you become an adult, to relate to them in a different way. You know this is true. Lots of people go through a stage where they cover the walls with band posters and it's usually around the early teens.
I'm not sure there is such a thing as a healthy fandom. It's all about balance of course but there is a big difference between being a fan of the music and being a fan of the person.
At the extreme levels of fandom it can become cultlike or it can go the other way. It can become a thing where nothing that person does can ever be wrong in your eyes and it's upsetting to you to see them criticized. That's fine, but the thing is you're not really a fan of that person. You're a fan of the image and impressions you have of that person.
Or it can go the other way where you can't quite understand that this relationship you had with "the artist" was all in your mind, and that when they "change" or "let you down" instead of taking the responsibility for that you might sign in every day and make negative comments about them, try to win other fans over to your point of view and "expose" the artist. Really you're just exposing yourself.

Whatever works for the individual is fine but I think that it's possible to have a pure relationship with the art because the the art is an expression of the highest forms of human communication. But you can't have a pure relationship with the artist. They're not perfect or ideal. They're changeaich exist only in your mind you're either ble. Your impressions of the art might change, but the art essentially remains the same. The artist changes. And if you want them to remain true to this image and these impressions you have conjured and whgoing to be disappointed or you're going to have to start actively adjusting your perceptions in order to continue to see the same image.


Whatever works for the individual is fine but I think that it's possible to have a pure relationship with the art because the the art is an expression of the highest forms of human communication. But you can't have a pure relationship with the artist.

doh:

Say what, Cordell Hull?:crazy:

ITS NON STOP UNTRUTH INSANITYdoh:
 

PuppetParrot

Active Member
When you are forming your identity, say in your teens, and artists like Morrissey can help you find a way to understand yourself better it's natural to become attached to the image you have formed of them. That image is not who they are, though.
And it's good, as you become an adult, to relate to them in a different way. You know this is true. Lots of people go through a stage where they cover the walls with band posters and it's usually around the early teens.
I'm not sure there is such a thing as a healthy fandom. It's all about balance of course but there is a big difference between being a fan of the music and being a fan of the person.
At the extreme levels of fandom it can become cultlike or it can go the other way. It can become a thing where nothing that person does can ever be wrong in your eyes and it's upsetting to you to see them criticized. That's fine, but the thing is you're not really a fan of that person. You're a fan of the image and impressions you have of that person.
Or it can go the other way where you can't quite understand that this relationship you had with "the artist" was all in your mind, and that when they "change" or "let you down" instead of taking the responsibility for that you might sign in every day and make negative comments about them, try to win other fans over to your point of view and "expose" the artist. Really you're just exposing yourself.

Whatever works for the individual is fine but I think that it's possible to have a pure relationship with the art because the the art is an expression of the highest forms of human communication. But you can't have a pure relationship with the artist. They're not perfect or ideal. They're changeable. Your impressions of the art might change, but the art essentially remains the same. The artist changes. And if you want them to remain true to this image and these impressions you have conjured and which exist only in your mind you're either going to be disappointed or you're going to have to start actively adjusting your perceptions in order to continue to see the same image.
Are you insane??
 
V

vegan cro spirit 888

Guest
When you are forming your identity, say in your teens, and artists like Morrissey can help you find a way to understand yourself better it's natural to become attached to the image you have formed of them. That image is not who they are, though.
And it's good, as you become an adult, to relate to them in a different way. You know this is true. Lots of people go through a stage where they cover the walls with band posters and it's usually around the early teens.
I'm not sure there is such a thing as a healthy fandom. It's all about balance of course but there is a big difference between being a fan of the music and being a fan of the person.
At the extreme levels of fandom it can become cultlike or it can go the other way. It can become a thing where nothing that person does can ever be wrong in your eyes and it's upsetting to you to see them criticized. That's fine, but the thing is you're not really a fan of that person. You're a fan of the image and impressions you have of that person.
Or it can go the other way where you can't quite understand that this relationship you had with "the artist" was all in your mind, and that when they "change" or "let you down" instead of taking the responsibility for that you might sign in every day and make negative comments about them, try to win other fans over to your point of view and "expose" the artist. Really you're just exposing yourself.

Whatever works for the individual is fine but I think that it's possible to have a pure relationship with the art because the the art is an expression of the highest forms of human communication. But you can't have a pure relationship with the artist. They're not perfect or ideal. They're changeable. Your impressions of the art might change, but the art essentially remains the same. The artist changes. And if you want them to remain true to this image and these impressions you have conjured and which exist only in your mind you're either going to be disappointed or you're going to have to start actively adjusting your perceptions in order to continue to see the same image.

:crazy:


you get upset at the skinny evil trolls IN A MOZ forum because moz helped yourself 'FORM' yourself when you were 15 years old????????????:crazy: WTF?????
while someone who was NOT FORMED (-:crazy:-) by Moz at 15 but decided to troll the peeps in the MOZ forum
and obsessing about what he does or doesnt do is WELL ADJUSTED??????o_O

and then the psycho babble takes up artdoh:

behemoth the satanist hollering is art and the highest form of human communication.
speaking normally is low form of communication. 'can I have a glass of water'=low communication.
45 minutes of behemoth caterwauling=highest human communication.:swear

i think this psycho babble has been 'conjured' some insanity WTF?:grin:
 

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><><>
When you are forming your identity, say in your teens, and artists like Morrissey can help you find a way to understand yourself better it's natural to become attached to the image you have formed of them. That image is not who they are, though.
And it's good, as you become an adult, to relate to them in a different way. You know this is true. Lots of people go through a stage where they cover the walls with band posters and it's usually around the early teens.
I'm not sure there is such a thing as a healthy fandom. It's all about balance of course but there is a big difference between being a fan of the music and being a fan of the person.
At the extreme levels of fandom it can become cultlike or it can go the other way. It can become a thing where nothing that person does can ever be wrong in your eyes and it's upsetting to you to see them criticized. That's fine, but the thing is you're not really a fan of that person. You're a fan of the image and impressions you have of that person.
Or it can go the other way where you can't quite understand that this relationship you had with "the artist" was all in your mind, and that when they "change" or "let you down" instead of taking the responsibility for that you might sign in every day and make negative comments about them, try to win other fans over to your point of view and "expose" the artist. Really you're just exposing yourself.

Whatever works for the individual is fine but I think that it's possible to have a pure relationship with the art because the the art is an expression of the highest forms of human communication. But you can't have a pure relationship with the artist. They're not perfect or ideal. They're changeable. Your impressions of the art might change, but the art essentially remains the same. The artist changes. And if you want them to remain true to this image and these impressions you have conjured and which exist only in your mind you're either going to be disappointed or you're going to have to start actively adjusting your perceptions in order to continue to see the same image.

Or it can go the other way where you can't quite understand that this relationship you had with "the artist" was all in your mind, and that when they "change" or "let you down" instead of taking the responsibility for that you might sign in every day and make negative comments about them, try to win other fans over to your point of view and "expose" the artist. Really you're just exposing yourself.

:thumb:


I do agree that art, especially sound(instrumental) and abstract art
can be considered a ‘highest forms of human communication’.

But, is art really so ‘perfect ‘, ‘idea’ and immune to change? Is not our image/experience of art the art itself?

If one believes art (or any object) comes into existence through our observation, perception and personal experience of it, then, is it not impossible to come to the understanding that through our experience of the art that the art also changes for the person that is experiencing it?

Some would say, no. (‘Your impressions of the art might change, but the art essentially remains the same.’) that the art remains the same, that it is only ones experience that changes.
But, that can only be true if one believes that the art has existence separate from ones experience of it, and then one needs to ponder if anything exists outside of our experience/perception of ‘it’, does a ‘it’ exist without us.

:paranoid:

:lbf:

:cool:
 

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
Nothing could make Morrissey-solo look sane and reasonable, least of all a post on Morrissey-solo.
It's nice that you would think that.

On the bright side, my social media is aflame with Corbinistas denouncing the 'Blue Labour' movement as National Socialism, which they now accept is left-wing economic policies combined with conservative social values. So Morrissey has been vindicated on another point.
 

ACTON

Don't Leave Us In The Dark
Nerfal: "Do you understand what I'm trying to say?".
Interviewer: "Yes because you're saying f*** all. But throw in a few expletives and those death metal rehabs will love it."
 

The Truth

about Ruth
Or it can go the other way where you can't quite understand that this relationship you had with "the artist" was all in your mind, and that when they "change" or "let you down" instead of taking the responsibility for that you might sign in every day and make negative comments about them, try to win other fans over to your point of view and "expose" the artist. Really you're just exposing yourself.

:thumb:


I do agree that art, especially sound(instrumental) and abstract art
can be considered a ‘highest forms of human communication’.

But, is art really so ‘perfect ‘, ‘idea’ and immune to change? Is not our image/experience of art the art itself?

If one believes art (or any object) comes into existence through our observation, perception and personal experience of it, then, is it not impossible to come to the understanding that through our experience of the art that the art also changes for the person that is experiencing it?

Some would say, no. (‘Your impressions of the art might change, but the art essentially remains the same.’) that the art remains the same, that it is only ones experience that changes.
But, that can only be true if one believes that the art has existence separate from ones experience of it, and then one needs to ponder if anything exists outside of our experience/perception of ‘it’, does a ‘it’ exist without us.

:paranoid:

:lbf:

:cool:
Some work is chaotic and free of form. There may be some concept behind it but I'm not sure we can say it is the expression of an idea. Consider Yoko Ono's "Play It By Trust," a chess board and the pieces are all white. This is a clear idea, "all white chess set," which can have interpretations and meanings attached to it by the viewers.
But the work is "perfect" in that it represents an idea that preexisted the physical form.
As we learn more about Yoko and what was happening at the time she made the piece, and possibly discover notes, photos, contracts and so forth having to do with the creation of the piece, our understanding of it may change, but the piece will not change.
It will always have the most immediate and pure meaning even if other layers of meaning, or even completely different interpretations are added to the collection of writings and conversations surrounding the piece.
It existed before either of us was aware of it and will probably exist after we're gone. A work of art doesn't need to be viewed in order to exist. All that happens when more people see it is that the idea or "energy" contained in the piece has a greater effect.
Even more importantly, some would say that the idea behind the piece also has an existence, and existed before the thought came to Yoko Ono to create the piece.
All of this applies to all of the works of art that might come to mind from Michelangelo's David to Andy Warhol's Marilyn Monroe.
Lots of songwriters say that their best works happened immediately and that they just heard it and don't feel like they actually wrote it. The trick is just to be ready when an idea arrives whether you're a painter or a musician. You have to have the skill to bring the idea into a form that others can experience it.

Anyway, the point is that the artist is a conduit for the work but the artist is always going to be imperfect. The work can come close to being perfect. No matter how well executed most artists will see and hear flaws in their work that the audience doesn't. The idea behind the work is, or can be, perfect. This applies even if that idea is never expressed. Some artists are so inundated with ideas they could never do them all, but the ideas still exist, in my opinion.
Some people believe the universe just happened by random chance and others believe that a creator somehow attained consciousness and self awareness and that all that followed is the manifestation of "an idea," like "let there be light." The story is flawed as it is told by human beings but the laws of the universe, the "laws of physics" exist whether or not we are aware of them Artists are like priests who can communicate the ideas contained in their art so that we can all experience it. But the artist, or the priest, are always human beings, imperfect and subject to change. That doesn't affect the ideas expressed in their works.
I do think biographical information is interesting when studying an artist. If you study Francis Bacon's paintings without knowing that he was a masochist or his sexual history you won't have the same experience. His work is really personal. But his work does conjure up feelings on an immediate level. You won't see it differently by knowing his history. You will just go from an immediate intuitive understanding to a different sort of experience where facts and logic are now part of your experience. I sometimes think the intuitive understanding is much richer and deeper.

I don't really need to know anything about Morrissey to appreciate his art and I think it's completely valid if not actually preferable to just listen to the music and tune out the noise of the interviews and interpretations. I do not care what he thinks of most of the political issues. I think he's very typical of someone his age and background and offers no great insight, to say the least. But none of that affects the work or the ideas expressed in the work. When he does use the work to express these ideas, as opposed to "pure" and "perfect" ideas, I think the work and the listener both suffer. Most "political" rock or punk music is flawed because it's taking something that should be sacred almost and using it to push an idea that comes from a much lower place. You wind up with a Bono playing nanny to the audience and who needs that.
 
V

vegan cro spirit 888

Guest
Some work is chaotic and free of form. There may be some concept behind it but I'm not sure we can say it is the expression of an idea. Consider Yoko Ono's "Play It By Trust," a chess board and the pieces are all white. This is a clear idea, "all white chess set," which can have interpretations and meanings attached to it by the viewers.
But the work is "perfect" in that it represents an idea that preexisted the physical form.
As we learn more about Yoko and what was happening at the time she made the piece, and possibly discover notes, photos, contracts and so forth having to do with the creation of the piece, our understanding of it may change, but the piece will not change.
It will always have the most immediate and pure meaning even if other layers of meaning, or even completely different interpretations are added to the collection of writings and conversations surrounding the piece.
It existed before either of us was aware of it and will probably exist after we're gone. A work of art doesn't need to be viewed in order to exist. All that happens when more people see it is that the idea or "energy" contained in the piece has a greater effect.
Even more importantly, some would say that the idea behind the piece also has an existence, and existed before the thought came to Yoko Ono to create the piece.
All of this applies to all of the works of art that might come to mind from Michelangelo's David to Andy Warhol's Marilyn Monroe.
Lots of songwriters say that their best works happened immediately and that they just heard it and don't feel like they actually wrote it. The trick is just to be ready when an idea arrives whether you're a painter or a musician. You have to have the skill to bring the idea into a form that others can experience it.

Anyway, the point is that the artist is a conduit for the work but the artist is always going to be imperfect. The work can come close to being perfect. No matter how well executed most artists will see and hear flaws in their work that the audience doesn't. The idea behind the work is, or can be, perfect. This applies even if that idea is never expressed. Some artists are so inundated with ideas they could never do them all, but the ideas still exist, in my opinion.
Some people believe the universe just happened by random chance and others believe that a creator somehow attained consciousness and self awareness and that all that followed is the manifestation of "an idea," like "let there be light." The story is flawed as it is told by human beings but the laws of the universe, the "laws of physics" exist whether or not we are aware of them Artists are like priests who can communicate the ideas contained in their art so that we can all experience it. But the artist, or the priest, are always human beings, imperfect and subject to change. That doesn't affect the ideas expressed in their works.
I do think biographical information is interesting when studying an artist. If you study Francis Bacon's paintings without knowing that he was a masochist or his sexual history you won't have the same experience. His work is really personal. But his work does conjure up feelings on an immediate level. You won't see it differently by knowing his history. You will just go from an immediate intuitive understanding to a different sort of experience where facts and logic are now part of your experience. I sometimes think the intuitive understanding is much richer and deeper.

I don't really need to know anything about Morrissey to appreciate his art and I think it's completely valid if not actually preferable to just listen to the music and tune out the noise of the interviews and interpretations. I do not care what he thinks of most of the political issues. I think he's very typical of someone his age and background and offers no great insight, to say the least. But none of that affects the work or the ideas expressed in the work. When he does use the work to express these ideas, as opposed to "pure" and "perfect" ideas, I think the work and the listener both suffer. Most "political" rock or punk music is flawed because it's taking something that should be sacred almost and using it to push an idea that comes from a much lower place. You wind up with a Bono playing nanny to the audience and who needs that.
:rage:

WTF!!! a psycho babble U turn??? now art is subjective and you have to know the bio.
but only of some artists. other artists dont have subjectivity in their art???
WTF??? that other dude yes but moz no, moz is a machine with no subjectivity:dizzy:


YOKO ONO is art?:smirkcat:

punk rock and political rock are flawed because they take pure sacred ideas and.. LOL
use them to push OTHER ideas that are lower ideas.:anguished:
ideas are like push wagons.:pensive:


:crazy: for sure.
 
Tags
behemoth media morrissey nergal politics

Trending Threads

Top Bottom