jackhammer

I have heard far far worse than this .

__________________

Inuzuka Skysword

Marduk for me. Something about their music evokes a really bad feeling in me.

Far Beyond Driven

Same way with me, one time was listening to some Marduk and I burped and didn't even say excuse me.

Comus

You just proved you have no taste by bashing the best thing metallica did since And Justice for All.

__________________
last.fm

GuitarBizarre

I disagree. The unforgiven, nothing else matters, the majority of S+M, Human, No leaf clover, all of those could be construed as bland but not necessarily awful.


THat cover however, was god ****ing awful.

Also, AJFA isn't even that great. RTL is much better and at least you can hear the goddamn bass.

__________________

SATCHMO

If anyone has heard anything more evil than Xasthur's -Defective Epitaph I'd be surprised.

Urban Hat€monger ?

All those shitty death metal bands I wasted my money on in the early 90s

__________________

The Unfan

Annoyingly bland is not synonymous with evil.

The real thing I question is is if music can be evil, and the answer I came up with is no. Music is a sound and sounds have no inherent action that could be detrimental and thus I reason music itself can't be evil. So therefore the only logical question to be found in this thread is "Which metal band does the most evil actions" and to that I'd probably say any metal act that pushes a disagreeable political message.

GuitarBizarre

Thats stretching the logic a bit there. By the same token, music is a sound and should hence have no inherent ability to elicit an emotional response of any knd be it happiness or sadness, yet music does exactly that with or without lyrics.

So I believe this is a perfectly valid discussion. Particularly when it comes to discussing things like the Tonus Diabolicus, an interval of a flattened 5th that for an inordinately long time was avoided completely by musicians and composers alike as its clashing nature was held to be evil, hence the name.

__________________

The Unfan

Not really. It comes down to how we define evil. However, I've decided to view evil as "that which is bad" and bad is subjective, on the other hand that which is bad subjectively will be viewed as a detriment to that who sees it as bad. However as long as it doesn't cause harm to non-consenting parties than it can't be a detriment to the well being of others. Can music in and of itself cause harm? Well it comes down what we accept as causing harm. Can music cause you fiscal harm without consent? No, music can not take money out of your wallet without you wanting to spend money on it. Can music cause physical damage to you without you agreeing to the risk of that physical damage? No, most certainly not. Any loss of hearing is due to the fact that you decided to put yourself in a situation where the music was loud enough to cause it. You decided those risks were agreeable on your own terms and the music didn't force you into that position. How about mental harm against your will? No, music can't cause mental harm without your consent to the risk first. Upon choosing to listen to music you agree to what it may or may not do to you mentally, and music can not force you to listen to it. Therefore music can not be a detriment to a non-consenting party. A person can be a detriment by forcing another to hear his or her music, but the music itself can not force a person to hear it, and therefore isn't bad objectively using a definition which pivots on subjectivity. However if we choose to define evil some other way it might be possible to rationalize music as being evil.