Burzum

Ronnie Jane Devo · 01-13-2010, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

I already told you I believe in the freedom of speech and choice. However, you seem to think that if you have freedom of speech, you have to support every person who uses it, regardless of the opinion they voice. Maybe respecting the freedom to be a racist while not supporting racism is too much of a contradiction in your mind, but it's not in mine. I like freedom and I think it's important to society - but that doesn't mean I like how everyone uses it.

Do you support artists and people you don't like?

I never actually got back to you on this, and I know you're tired of it by now, but I wanted to try taking this discussion/debate from a different angle since it really is an interesting one.

First off, I will agree with you that it's probably wrong to financially support an artist who is actively engaged in activities that cause great harm to others. I don't think it's wrong to merely listen to such an artist, though, and I don't see any strong arguments from you regarding this point. As to the morality of pirating music from an artist in order to avoid financially supporting them, I'm not quite sure where I stand there.

The funny thing is, one could probably easily argue that it's wrong to support any music whose proceeds go partially to a major record company since these companies are likely lobbying/bribing our governments to pass copyright laws that erode our freedoms and privacy (i.e. ACTA). I would call that a far greater threat to humanity than Varg, and I trust you'll find my logic pretty sound here. Unfortunately much of our music - including some that most of us would consider "essential listening" - seems to come through companies that engage in such politicking. What would you say is the best solution for this?

Guybrush · 01-13-2010, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Jane Devo

I never actually got back to you on this, and I know you're tired of it by now, but I wanted to try taking this discussion/debate from a different angle since it really is an interesting one.

First off, I will agree with you that it's probably wrong to financially support an artist who is actively engaged in activities that cause great harm to others. I don't think it's wrong to merely listen to such an artist, though, and I don't see any strong arguments from you regarding this point. As to the morality of pirating music from an artist in order to avoid financially supporting them, I'm not quite sure where I stand there.

The funny thing is, one could probably easily argue that it's wrong to support any music whose proceeds go partially to a major record company since these companies are likely lobbying/bribing our governments to pass copyright laws that erode our freedoms and privacy (i.e. ACTA). I would call that a far greater threat to humanity than Varg, and I trust you'll find my logic pretty sound here. Unfortunately much of our music - including some that most of us would consider "essential listening" - seems to come through companies that engage in such politicking. What would you say is the best solution for this?

You can go through life buying albums and you don't know what label they're on so you don't know who you're supporting. Maybe you do know the label, but you don't know the people who work there and you don't know the pockets where the money end up. As a consumer, it can be hard to know what happens to all the money you spend somewhere down the line. It doesn't have to be music, maybe that brand of coffee you like don't pay their south-american workers very much or maybe that meat company's transport of animals is not as it should be.

You can't expect anyone in modern society to have a complete knowledge of how they affect the world they live in. None of us have those magical powers of observation and insight that let's us do stuff like that. A trickle of the money spent on a product goes here, another one goes there - keeping tabs on all is not just impractical, it's near impossible. As a result, you shouldn't expect everyone to have a moral dilemma every time they wanna spend money on something that could mean a penny goes to something they think is immoral.

However, you are well and truly a sad person if you think that means that having a sense of morale guiding you in a consumerist market is completely futile. Depending on who you are and what your morals are like, you can still have cases which are a little more clear cut. I believe most people in the western world would not buy whale meat for example because aside from every other uncertainty, at least they know that buying whale meat supports whaling. Similarly, even if you don't know if some of the pennies spent on Britney's latest might go to people who exploit the poor in Africa, at least you can be resonably sure that if you spend money on Varg's latest album, that's money in his pocket. He's not supported by a major label, they've stayed away since the murder.

I don't act on every inkling that my money might not support something good, but when I do know what the money goes to, I try to be an aware consumer. For example I don't buy meat from industries which burn down the amazonian rainforest. The power of being able to choose what to spend money on is the tiny bit of control we consumers have on the market.

I'm aware that my limited powers of observation keeps me from keeping tabs on where every penny I spend end up, but I don't believe that itself makes it futile to try and be an aware consumer.

That's it really, but I'll just add that undoubtedly, our moral standards are not the same. I have a lot of opinions on morale and principles I try to follow. For example, I don't believe society should reward murderers and while indeed varg has been in prison, his fame would never have been the same without the notoriety. His standing in the market and the black metal scene - the power of his legacy - doesn't come from the backing of big labels. It comes from us, the consumers.

I'm not really concerned about what conclusions you wanna draw from that. I've made up my mind about it and that's that for me. But even if I don't need people to agree, at least I think it's something people should be aware of. Like, think about it once or twice in your life.

Scissorman · 01-13-2010, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

You can go through life buying albums and you don't know what label they're on so you don't know who you're supporting. Maybe you do know the label, but you don't know the people who work there and you don't know the pockets where the money end up. As a consumer, it can be hard to know what happens to all the money you spend somewhere down the line. It doesn't have to be music, maybe that brand of coffee you like don't pay their south-american workers very much or maybe that meat company's transport of animals is not as it should be.

You can't expect anyone in modern society to have a complete knowledge of how they affect the world they live in. None of us have those magical powers of observation and insight that let's us do stuff like that. A trickle of the money spent on a product goes here, another one goes there - keeping tabs on all is not just impractical, it's near impossible. As a result, you shouldn't expect everyone to have a moral dilemma every time they wanna spend money on something that could mean a penny goes to something they think is immoral.

However, you are well and truly a sad person if you think that means that having a sense of morale guiding you in a consumerist market is completely futile. Depending on who you are and what your morals are like, you can still have cases which are a little more clear cut. I believe most people in the western world would not buy whale meat for example because aside from every other uncertainty, at least they know that buying whale meat supports whaling. Similarly, even if you don't know if some of the pennies spent on Britney's latest might go to people who exploit the poor in Africa, at least you can be resonably sure that if you spend money on Varg's latest album, that's money in his pocket. He's not supported by a major label, they've stayed away since the murder.

I don't act on every inkling that my money might not support something good, but when I do know what the money goes to, I try to be an aware consumer. For example I don't buy meat from industries which burn down the amazonian rainforest. The power of being able to choose what to spend money on is the tiny bit of control we consumers have on the market.

I'm aware that my limited powers of observation keeps me from keeping tabs on where every penny I spend end up, but I don't believe that itself makes it futile to try and be an aware consumer.

That's it really, but I'll just add that undoubtedly, our moral standards are not the same. I have a lot of opinions on morale and principles I try to follow. For example, I don't believe society should reward murderers and while indeed varg has been in prison, his fame would never have been the same without the notoriety. His standing in the market and the black metal scene - the power of his legacy - doesn't come from the backing of big labels. It comes from us, the consumers.

I'm not really concerned about what conclusions you wanna draw from that. I've made up my mind about it and that's that for me. But even if I don't need people to agree, at least I think it's something people should be aware of. Like, think about it once or twice in your life.

What if I want the money in Varg's pocket? The money will be a motivation for him to make more music, and more of his music will make me a happier person. Let's say that you like a band, but you know that the band members spend all the money on drugs and at the same time you know that Paris Hilton would spend her money on building orphanages and hospitals, whose album would you rather buy, the album of the band you like or Paris Hilton's? The bottomline is: Varg is a good musician and if the money he earns selling his music will allow him to make more music, I will buy the album regardless of him being a racist and a murderer.

almauro · 01-13-2010, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Jane Devo

The funny thing is, one could probably easily argue that it's wrong to support any music whose proceeds go partially to a major record company since these companies are likely lobbying/bribing our governments to pass copyright laws that erode our freedoms and privacy (i.e. ACTA). I would call that a far greater threat to humanity than Varg, and I trust you'll find my logic pretty sound here. Unfortunately much of our music - including some that most of us would consider "essential listening" - seems to come through companies that engage in such politicking. What would you say is the best solution for this?

Your trying to make a very eloquent argument, but let's face it, Varg was a dogmatic ideologue who created propaganda music to entice radical youths to incite violence and terror on innocent victims. Record companies are simply looking to make a buck, at the same time employing thousands of people while helping to expand and protect the music marketplace. When comparing the two, I'd say the capitalist is by far the lesser evil.

Scissorman · 01-13-2010, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almauro

Varg was a dogmatic ideologue who created propaganda music to entice radical youths to incite violence and terror on innocent victims

Have you ever heard any of the Burzum songs or you're just making this crap up on the spot? This couldn't be any more untrue than it already is.

almauro · 01-13-2010, 03:13 PM

^His entire racist philosophy is completely intertwined with his music and music theory. His racist and violent persona is the music. Are you denying he encouraged hatred of people and destruction of property?

Scissorman · 01-13-2010, 03:18 PM

Not through his music. I am a Burzum fan and his music didn't make me hate people or destroy anyone's property. You can't find encouragement for these kind of actions in his songs and that is a fact. His burning the churches and killing that guy has nothing to do with his music or lyrics.

almauro · 01-13-2010, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scissorman

Not through his music. I am a Burzum fan and his music didn't make me hate people or destroy anyone's property. You can't find encouragement for these kind of actions in his songs and that is a fact. His burning the churches and killing that guy has nothing to do with his music or lyrics.

I think he very aggressively cultivated the image the he was the absolute most evil Mofo in Norway. In the process, he got rid of Euronymous, planned 4 church burnings (was convicted of three), and was part of Heathen Front, a group that practiced neo-Nazism, white supremacy and antisemitism. Saying sh__it is one thing, but IMO, when a musician actions result in such harm, I don't care how effin much I love the music, I'm gone.

Scissorman · 01-13-2010, 04:02 PM

As for Heathen Front they are not antisemitic organization, they are antichristian neopagan organization. Their goal is reastauration of paganism in Scandinavia. Varg never resented himself as he absolute most evil Mofo in Norway and fascist. He doesn't draw swastikas on himself like some other musicians, like Taake, do. I dare you to find where in his lyrics he is propagating nazism or antisemitism

Guybrush · 01-13-2010, 04:26 PM

What .. You don't believe Varg is a racist? He was also a member of White Aryan Resistance, a neo-nazi organization. As far as I know, his interpretations of the norse "heathen" religion are quite fascist.

I mean, okay - you're a fan, that's fine. But don't kid yourself, dude.

01-13-2010, 03:13 PM	#66 (permalink)
almauro Way Out There Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 850	^His entire racist philosophy is completely intertwined with his music and music theory. His racist and violent persona is the music. Are you denying he encouraged hatred of people and destruction of property? __________________ rock n music blog

01-13-2010, 03:18 PM	#67 (permalink)
Scissorman art is sold for money Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Belgrade, Serbia Posts: 730	Not through his music. I am a Burzum fan and his music didn't make me hate people or destroy anyone's property. You can't find encouragement for these kind of actions in his songs and that is a fact. His burning the churches and killing that guy has nothing to do with his music or lyrics. __________________ facebook Last.fm The Music I make http://www.indabamusic.com/opportuni...missions/52856

01-13-2010, 04:02 PM	#69 (permalink)
Scissorman art is sold for money Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Belgrade, Serbia Posts: 730	As for Heathen Front they are not antisemitic organization, they are antichristian neopagan organization. Their goal is reastauration of paganism in Scandinavia. Varg never resented himself as he absolute most evil Mofo in Norway and fascist. He doesn't draw swastikas on himself like some other musicians, like Taake, do. I dare you to find where in his lyrics he is propagating nazism or antisemitism __________________ facebook Last.fm The Music I make http://www.indabamusic.com/opportuni...missions/52856

01-13-2010, 04:26 PM	#70 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	What .. You don't believe Varg is a racist? He was also a member of White Aryan Resistance, a neo-nazi organization. As far as I know, his interpretations of the norse "heathen" religion are quite fascist. I mean, okay - you're a fan, that's fine. But don't kid yourself, dude. __________________ Something Completely Different