30 Nov 10 The musician’s life
It’s interesting, at least to me, how different groups of musicians pursue the individual and highly amorphous/ambiguous (relative) idea of “brutality”. What does “brutality” really mean? Like any other word, it has a meaning derived from context and the intent of the communicator (if not, also, the will of the hearer) and thus can be twisted to represent any of several different concepts within that highly subjective and colorful realm where musicians seek to translate ideas, metaphors, reflections, motivations, etc. from abstract derivations into the even more theoretical dimensional plane of musical experience. It can be oddly rewarding or unsettling, in a minor way, to trace the germ of “brutality” throughout death metal’s history and see where the concept originated, was misinterpreted, split into separate parts, evolved into different aesthetic ideals, etc.
Once can of course make an adequate argument for the fact that each isolated group (or going even farther: each individual musician) has its own idea of what “brutality” is and seeks to embody or make manifest that ideal in music that may or may not live up to their ideals. The levels of aesthetic/abstract transference are confusing, being split into the separate spheres of an artist’s ideal, his interpretation and self-illustration of that same ideal (where he may misinterpret his own ideas, not being able to adequately communicate them), the inability to concretely “capture” that ideal in music (limited by skill, talent, imagination, effort, work ethic, outside “friction”), and then the chance for a complete misinterpretation on the listener’s part based on his/her own inadequate understanding, aesthetic sensitivity, or a contrasting (cherished) concept of the ideas in question. What happens when a musician and listener’s ideas of “brutality” do not match? Is there any kind of communication? Surely it is not the type of communication wished for by the musician. (more…)
