Burzum mastermind Varg Vikernes has released instructional videos showing those out there in black metal fandom land how to play along with a selection of riffs from classic Burzum songs.
The videos, released via Vikernes’ ThuleanPerspective YouTube account, show him playing each riff and explaining its context and purpose in the corresponding song with an ear for atmosphere and emotion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u9Do9Dn0io
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xEtWk8eo94
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOAhaSUFiPs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebaRLR-TD2E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ADdTmxCvH4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6A-XSRWSx8
Tags: Black Metal, burzum, varg vikernes
Hehe. In one of the comments, Varg said Emperor were “always trendy posers”
Ishahn talks about worshiping satans might cock.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k5P_X5aHps
This is one of the best things I’ve come across in recent times. For all the truly useless shit that gets passed off as ‘Metal as academia’ – this is about the limit of what it truly should consist of: basically just some compositional insights into from the greats about how they did it and what motivated them to do it like that at the time, the thinking behind it.
If there is any detraction it is that the textual additions don’t last long enough on the screen for me to read them.
These videos with Gorguts offered something similar in that department and always went a long way with me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOF7KXscYM0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJqrMoj_XpM
Wow, never expected this from Varg of all people! Wonderful insight.
It’s amazing how close Varg’s intended effect is to the actual effect the music has on me, I view all these parts just as he describes them. Try finding the same cohesiveness in a Van Morrison song, it is impossible because there is no purpose to the music, nothing real and universal to grab onto.
What a ridiculous thing, to take a stab at Van Morrison. Astral Weeks is more “real and universal” than anything that will ever be produced by anyone sharing your muddy genes.
It’s only universal for people who can relate to AIDS and anal bleeding.
“If today’s so-called heterosexuals really believe they have found their way to Truth, why should they bash homosexuals. In contrast to true heterosexuals, the pseudo-heterosexuals are deeply bothered, intrigued and fascinated by the sinful life of the homosexuals. One can feel that, in fighting the sinful other, they are fighting their own temptation.”
Hahah yeah right! I call a fag a fag, sometimes they’re alright (decent, polite people) and I’ve got no problem with them while other times I’ll be happy to help bash ’em for nothing more than being what they are. What bothers me more than weakness being weak however is that there’s always an intelligent guy that should know better, prepared to jump in a play good samaritan when he perceives some social injustice in progress. News Flash: (So called) Nihilists! It’s only ‘good’ if you give a fuck about browny points in the eyes of an ignorant, media-fed mob.
Care to elaborate on weakness being weak? I’m not sure what you mean there.
As for the rest of what you wrote: nihilism isn’t the same as not caring (about social injustice). But sure, in The Big Lebowski it is.
I never saw that film. I started to watch it once with my girlfriend but she quickly got angry with the subject matter, then made me feel embarrassed for even putting it on.
Weakness IS weak! what the hell else could it be? strength? I think not. The guy that gets his ass fucked by another guy is weaker than the one who fucks his ass, though both are weak subhumans imho (and perhaps I am weak to them for my narrow-minded views on life [insistence on rectal virginity in maintaining a healthy balanced spirit]). But it makes sense to me and really it’s much the same with animals who live within this natural law and aren’t hindered by questions of justice, morality etc in the human mind (a thing that is far too easily distorted and used for manipulative ends).
It is for that reason also that I say there are no ‘social injustices’ and that if there are, they are perceived. Surely you realized that just having enough people on side doesn’t make what they believe in real (i.e. actually healthy, functional).
Might > Strength > “normal” > Weak
Oceans of Might!!!!
Rivers of Strength! !!!!
Creeks of normality! !!!!
Puddles of weakness!!!!!!!!!!!
Getting embarrassed about petty shit is pretty weak. So is getting worked up about homos online.
Whaaaat !!? Getting ’embarrassed’/being conscious of what’s appropriate time spent with someone you love is similar to the kind of weakness that makes a man find it acceptable in his heart/mind to let another man perform anal sex on him? And on top of it, some (most-probable liberal arts/sciences) doofus is actually so appallingly bereft of the intuition required to let it stand as faggotry, but defend it?
Enjoying anal sex (both as a receiver and/or giver) has nothing to do with weakness.
Ironic that a website sprung out of one called anus has sexual bigots in its ranks.
Ironic that you mention animals and natural law too, since homosexual behaviour has been observed in nearly all animal famillies, and hence can be called one of nature’s laws. Homophobia, on the other hand, is a thing of the human mind, and not a natural law.
“Only ass is true!” – Paul Ledney
Brett is at one with the ANUS. Brett is the ANUS.
everything spawned by the human mind is necessarily human too, therefore it is also natural…however wrong. ignorance is also natural. however, defying the laws of gravity and float neatly into a big black veiny cock might be unnatural.
Yeah I get it. LOVE is the ultimate law of existence, not HATE. You’re either a fun-loving, non-judgemental creature that would see life as pure bliss-filled hedonistic happiness if it weren’t for a few biggots left over from the outmoded thinking of a weary old corrupted worldview, or you ARE one of the biggots (king hits fag that smiles at him while out on the town).
And as for homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom, or course it’s an exceptions to the rule, not the rule at all. It doesn’t matter in the bigger picture whether a little dysfunction occurs on the fringes. And in our human version of it we have biggots to take care of that shit anyway.
Also nice job trying to pass connection between pro-homosexuality and ANUS based purely on the name. As I understand, it was so called because it stood as metaphor on seemingly infinite meta-levels. Same as the ‘CORRUPT’, ‘Amerika’ or ‘Groin’ monikers. May as well call it ‘Cesspit’ even for that matter (anything that flexibly and realistically sums up the current state of affairs).
In this world, in all things, it’s more important to know what you do want than what you do not.
There appears to be a genuine fascination with the rectum in the anus crowd.
Goatse, sodomy, etc etc etc
My best bet is that they’re closet homosexuals in real life.
That kind of dialogue helps no one. If their point of view is so broken, express why. Categorical logic based on moral/emotional imperatives won’t work.
Every Van Morrison song I heard reminded me of the Lemmy Winks song from South Park.
Battered in blood sold as a whore
earth we inherited – a splinter
Immemorial parent – ravaged, degraded
bent under the will of man
And humanity is moving forward
technology advances
but the morality of the past
progress is the jaws are closed
Consumed – your countenance a shadow
Now darkness itself is camping
Cursed are you whose children turn against you
Oh earth your era have fled
Next people are going to start defending Morrisey and the Velvet Underground.
I just want to ask you this once, as a man, in all seriousness, would you be ok to let a guy fuck you up the ass? To me it is utterly repulsive and a disgusting sin against nature (if it happened in childhood that’s too bad cause only revenge by bloodshed can set your mind free). But if men present as a gentleman and are intelligent and well conducted in society (don’t mention sex, religion, politics) I guess I could overlook it. But boys club shit can fuck off too in my opinion. I even hate heterosexuals that trade little tidbits of what should be private and sacred information between their own. It’s a deep perversion.
There’s your mission statement. Preserve the sacred and private. How many Romantic poets have you read?
Bits and pieces, not half as much as I would like. But you’re probably right in that I obviously let my hate get the better of me. Even still this is a reaction to the perceived destruction of what I love.
I am not trying to preach. Experience has taught me (slowly) that goal-oriented thinking is the only realistic response to life.
Destruction of what you love? What exactly? Nobody forces you to have or love anal sex.
Do you not have enough empathy/imagination to tolerate the notion that some people might find sexual arousal in different ways than yourself?
At least the romantic poets had that: imagination, wild imagination, and interest in the Different. (Lord Byron was bisexual. PB Shelley wanted to start a community based on free love.)
There is no Natural Law. It’s a mirage, a delusion you inherited from our religious ancestors. There is only reality, of which nature is part. Homosexuality is part of nature.
Moreover, homosexuality is not a “defect”, nor something on the fringes. About 10% of men is not a mere fringe-thing, nor is it a disfunction of nature. It wouldn’t exist in that large numbers if it was a mere disfunction, evolution would weed it out. It clearly evolved to serve a social/natural cause.
Maybe you aren’t a bigot, sorry for assuming so. So, what serious and recent scientific texts have you read on the matter? How many homosexuals did you have true conversations with, about the subject? Have you talked to women who enjoy anal sex about the subject? Is your mind big enough to step outside its own experience?
Why should sex be private? Based on what Moral Law? Who wrote that Moral Law? Mother Nature? Why do you imply that sex is sacred? What do you mean with “sacred”?
You talk about sin. Ironic, for a death/black metalhead.
Nobody should force him to approve of it or sponsor it either. If he wants to have higher moral standards, that should be beyond criticism.
What I think is ready for lots of criticism is “pogromism” (borrowing the title from Drogheda Pogromist). People who form little lynch mobs to go destroy others for having different standards.
Oddly enough, both sides of this debate are guilty. You want to eradicate “bigotry”; he disapproves of sodomy. There is a middle ground.
If Hessiantown, USA, decides not to have sodomy, that should be respected. If nearby Lovetown, USA, decides to approve it, that should not be an excuse for drunk youths from Hessiantown to drive over there and beat the sodomites.
This is the middle path.
If you are asking these questions, you are without hope of understanding him. Jonathan Haidt’s research may be enlightening:
http://chronicle.com/article/Jonathan-Haidt-Decodes-the/130453/
Out of six categories, left-leaning people care about three; rightists care about six (generally, the moral standards crowd are rightists). The categories are very insightful.
I am aware of Haidt. The way I see it, it means rightist want more Law, and more meddling. That’s not exactly the hessian way, in my book, and for sure not the nihilist way.
Why would disapproving of homosexuality be of a “higher” moral standard? Again, which standard? Moral Law is an ever evolving human construct, not something set in stone, and surely not a “Natural Law”. Why would it be above criticism? Nothing is categorically “above” critical thought.
He uses a reductive analysis method. If it distilled to that, the categories would reflect it. If you read his book on the topic you can see the math.
Higher means “more restrictive.” A broad standard is closer to no standard, thus is lower in terms of difficulty of admission.