Most evil of metal

One of them murdered another and went to prison for it, but it wasn't artistically motivated. So that just makes one "evil" meraber of the band. In terms of themes, Cannibal Corpse downright redefine the nature of evil!
 
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 sounRAB 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.
 
If those are the defining factors, then Metallica's cover of Whiskey in the Jar ALONE makes them the most evil purveyors of sonic atrocities the likes of which you just mentioned.
 
Gwar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
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.
 
You're trying to use the argument that a sound cannot cause detriment. Thats fine, but the OP wasn't implying that any music could actually cause physical or mental harm to anyone. He was I think implying that music can conjure up a sense or feeling of evil or malice that shows through in the sound produced by eliciting such emotional response, as does all good music.

So perhaps it was slightly incorrectly worded in that the sentence itself does mean what you are saying.

However if we're not splitting grammatical hairs, its plainly obvious to anyone that he is implying the latter possibility.
 
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.
 
Well sitting through 3 hours plus of overblown and notably innacurate film, directed by a man intent on remaking the neverending story, is pretty damn evil by my standarRAB.
 
Back
Top