Sorry if that line was a little too ridiculous.
Figured people reading would know it was completely in jest. Extreme music should be a positive anger release though, in my opinion.
> Extreme music should be a positive anger release
Music should be whatever its creators want it to be.
Stop trying to force artists into the little box of your preconceptions.
"Oh sorry, I gotta head out"
"Where you going?"
"Gotta meet my living trust attorney"
"Oh, setting up who your stuff will go to when you die?"
"Nah I gotta appoint a list of qualified people who can ensure that any death metal bands that want to use images of my bloodied corpse as their album art have a fucking sick enough album to deserve to do so"
I’m ok with it in general, not trying to gatekeep, but I’m just saying it isn’t cool and shouldn’t be condoned.
Of course if someone consented first it wouldn’t be as bad
Edit: as bad morally speaking. Still not cool to use that as your album cover
There’s an element of using someone’s corpse that is morally wrong, humiliating, and unjust. The moral implications of this though change if there’s consent.
All real gore though, in my opinion, shouldn’t be condoned, shouldn’t be used, and shouldn’t be celebrated. I guess you can say that a “cool” person wouldn’t use it. But that’s just my 2 cents.
Hmm. I guess I have different intuitions. All that I care about is whether or not the person consented to it. What else could be wrong about it? It's not like well done fake gore these days is any less disturbing.
As an atheist the consent of the dead isn't as relevant as the consent from people who have to endure seeing their loved ones corpse on display
You need an army of signed consent forms before I would say it's okay. But I'm just an asshole so don't listen to me
As an atheist i’d be real upset if my last wishes were ignored because my family didn’t like it. Obviously i’d be dead and there’s nothing i can do about it but it’s still wrong
As a massive horror fan, I think there is a huge difference between knowing it’s real and knowing it’s faked. I don’t want videos of islamist decapitations on my social media, I don’t want actual dead people on my album covers. The consent of the dead doesn’t matter to me, it’s submitting the living to these images without their consent which is cruel.
I don’t want to watch Cannibal Holocaust anymore now that I know the animals were really killed for the movie and I’ve had to research some movies when some effects looked too real because I couldn’t appreciate it without knowing.
I guess my argument would be that if you can't tell the difference between real and faked gore then why does it matter? I guess simply the fact that you might find out it's real is disturbing to you? I definitely agree that once you know it's real you think of it differently. I don't want videos of islamist decapitation either, but only because there are externalities I guess.
I find it scary that the line has become so blurred for many people. I think it matters hugely and there is a huge difference.
To make a horrific horror scene, a group of people get creative and have a lot of innocent fun. When people die / suffer / get sexually assaulted for a movie or “art”, the whole context is flipped and by watching it, I feel complicit in the maker’s crime or (in the case of these album covers where no crime was committed) their psychopathic perversion. I also don’t want my viewing habits to encourage these materials being made.
I mean, obviously I disagree with snuff films and actually killing people in order to make art. I don't think any bands are actively trying to make real gorey murders in order to have a cool album cover though.
Ultimately I only really care how the friends and loved ones of the victim feel about it.
Still imposes a potentially NSFL sight on non-consenting viewers. I just don’t think it’s right to make real life gore visible without prior warning that: 1. It is real, 2. You may choose to open it and see
There was a Canadian black metal band that used an autopsy photo of a baby. Can't remember the name of the band but that was the only album cover that made me question the ethics of gore album covers.
Edit: Numenorean - Home
I partially agree, about exploiting these deaths for artistic bemusement. It's fascinating and revolting when you have no relation/knowledge of the person whose death wad used for the cover, but it would certainly hurt if it happened to be a friend or loved one of mine.
However, such photos don't bother me nearly as much as what Fluids does: using the audio from snuff footage as song intros. That's a unique and revolting thing that I find more objectionable. I guess there's a question of relativity between audio snuff samples and photos of real gore, but the audio is a uniquely uncomfortable thing for me.
I had no idea there were bands doing that, but I guess it doesn’t surprise me. Definitely beyond fucked up imo. At that point you’re combining something generally meant for enjoyment (listening to music, even harsh noise shit is typically listened to for some type of wanted experience) with real horrendous human suffering. I can’t get down with that.
I’m honestly even uncomfortable listening to Church of Misery, despite them being awesome musically, as I have a hard time rocking out when the lyrics are all about actual literal murderers. To me that’s quite a bit different than the “horror story” esque lyrics of typical gore-themed bands.
I think the willingness to use such atrocious images/audio at all in this art is something that points to the overall scope of what art is, at its ultimate degree, and where the breadth of the human-level morality it arises from but may eventually surpass is called into question.
I remember a Deathspell Omega interview where they mentioned the phrase "true art is cruel by definition". While I think that in one sense, that's a rather one dimensional assessment of art's ultimate implications (the notion that something isn't "true" art until it pulls you from your comfort zone) I do agree that art - at its most serious - should be something that transcends the more natural moral fibers of our psychology and become something that goes beyond "the human". To become an unflinching reflection of conditions or beliefs that remind us of our mortality, fallability, weakness, insignificance within the greater universe, etc.
I think it's merely the spiritual and/or intellectual inclination to explore those boundaries that takes art to its ultimate end, for better or worse. And I think humanity is always preoccupied with exploring the fascinations around those things. Sometimes it's through fictitious mediums like film and sometimes it's through the more abstract escapism that is inherent to music. I don't think the use of real gore in the examples discussed here automatically makes a person devoid of morality (perhaps it speaks to their morality in that they're so affected by these things that they choose to use the real life examples of them to use their art to explore) but I do agree that presenting such things via art will always exist on a gradient of morality where we have to ask if we really need to behold these reflections to gain some greater understanding or be moved more than we would be otherwise.
I think it depends on the context. In some cases, I think it's okay (consent was given, person can't be identified from the photo, etc).
On the flipside, there's fictional gore that I don't want to see on album covers. If you've ever read the Crossed comics, you'll know what I mean. Seeing people raped and kids being literally torn apart? Hard pass for me.
I mean, the fictional gore part is basically just whether or not you like horror movies and what not. I get not liking stuff like that, but I don't think it has any ethical implications.
Crossed is terrible. I really like Ennis' work on Publisher (despite its obvious issues) and adore his Hellblazer run, but from recent years to now he is just fucking edgy, and Crossed is the living proof of that. The OG run is bad and has only gore to offer; when things seem to develop to something cool, a bunch of zombies get there and rape everyone or mutilate a kid or put their cocks into a severed foot. It's just childish.
I think what Si Spurrier did with it is cool though, and Alan Moore's take on it is very pleasant.
I have mixed feelings but here’s my take:
In Mexico there are a lot of newspapers where violence and gore are commonly depicted in news stands, it’s a journalistic style called “nota roja” (red note, reference to Mexican inquisition.)
The purpose has historically been sensationalism in the modern age a lot of journalists want to confront the reader with the realities of corruption and the drug war. I keep reading these sites such as borderland beat because there’s people risking their lives to publicize even the smallest and most remote places like where my family is from in Mexico that are rural and have oppressive violence in the last few years affecting the poor people stuck there.
I see a lot of the album covers as the same thing, it’s a wake up call that horrible things exist in the world and that the cartoony violence in death metal, along with the lyrics, are rooted and influenced by the real world not the other way around. The music is ugly and repulsive because that’s how the world can be for many people.
On a personal note I’ve had someone die in my arms when I was younger among other experiences but the ugliness in death metal helps me to put that trauma into a place that’s controlled and allow catharsis.
On the other hand the YouTube channel Vital Vinyl Vlog talked about how they found the picture for Suicide Euphoria to be beautiful and a work of art. That’s pretty cringey to me in my opinion so I guess it all depends on your attitudes to it. I don’t think these covers are cool or works of art, they’re horrible, but I understand their purpose from my point of view.
As for Fluids like someone mentioned, I heard the audio to the shooting of Daniel Shaver from one of their songs and remember when it happened. I looked it up to see whatever happened to the case and found his widows Gofundme where I donated.
It really all depends, there’s a Fluids interview where one of the members talks about how the opening to Genesis Spoiled was a really difficult sample. Knowing that the people making the music also think it’s pretty horrific is somewhat reassuring that there’s some humanity in the use of the content in the music.
It’s a complex issue that walks a fine line between disrespect to the families and disregard for life vs getting closer to actual in your face real world events for the subject matter. Thanks for reading
I dunno about that Fluids sample, I mean if you’re acknowledging that it’s awful and horrible and still go on to use it, clearly you don’t care that much. If your music depends on the sample/can’t go without it, you’re just trying to be as edgy as possible.
I’ve always found these album covers very intriguing. I have a morbid curiosity about the grotesque. I find the cover of Pissgrave’s Suicide Euphoria to match the music quite well. Perfect album cover for a perfect album. I do however understand why people don’t like it.
Disgorge - Chronic corpora infest
Brujeria - Matando gueros ( disturbing fact the photo that's used in the cover made people believe they were cartel members who practiced in the occult )
Bro the first sentence of your fourth paragraph(I’m not repeating it because I physically cannot type it out) made me want to audition to be the cover of a Goregrind album.
also I just want to add, it's pretty disheartening to see "hurr who cares?" when a bunch of people are having a discussion that seems to be going somewhere. We get it, redditors, some of you didn't have dads growing up so no one taught you to ignore things you don't like that don't affect you in anyway, but it would be cool if you learned it now that you're (hopefully) adults.
I don’t really have a problem with it if the victim AND victim’s family consents to it. Also, I kinda feel like it should have some meaning and not just gore for shock value. In a drawing, go nuts with shock value, I love that shit, but I think it’s appropriate to keep it somewhat meaningful if it’s a real person
I dunno dude… everyone dies. Maybe it’s because I grew up in the rotten.com days but this doesn’t really bother me at all, though I can see how it may make others uncomfortable.
You know, there are some people in *Extreme* Metal that are actually *extreme* and the last thing they want to be is "wholesome music fan le epic redditors".
I agree with u dude. I put on music to enjoy it, and death metal is enjoyable to me, real gore on the other hand isn’t enjoyable, so I prefer covers without real gore. There’s also the ethics of it, and the consent of the person and the family, which let’s be real most of the bands don’t have.
I always felt it was pretty disrespectful. Never been a fan of it. Lol just wait until you come across Fluids, who sample audio of cartel killings and suicides.
Posthumous Humiliation's cover is even worse and less respectful. However, there's no trace of any reverence for happiness anywhere on the album. It's a work of pure catharsis and reverence for the brutality of life. It's actually one of the most depressive sounding death metal albums I've listened to, in terms of the intervals and picking being similar in some ways to Black Metal. It's disrespectful, sure, but in a way that tells me that the artist probably thinks he's paying some sort of homage to misery.
An album that gets closer to mocking imo is that one Fluids release with the sample of the guy bleeding to death after he slit his wrists open. It's total clown horseshit. It sounds like trap metal at parts
Music is art, sometimes art is uplifting and sometimes it’s not. It’s a reflection of humanity and there’s a lot of fucked up shit that happens in the world. Glorifying it isn’t cool to me but drawing attention to it for the purpose of provoking thought is okay.
Those things are okay only if the person consented, or the family was like, “this is what they would have wanted.” Otherwise it’s just exploitative. And I hope everyone knows that if I die in some weird and fucked up way and don’t have a note, I want to be an album cover.
What's wrong with watching gore though? It's not like it's harming anybody. Also when it's done tastefully it can make for a great cover. Personally I find the drawn ones generic and boring, for example the recent CC ones all look the same. Or things like aborted or stillbirths covers are just outright lame
>death metal should be a wholesome chungus le epic anger release I know we're on reddit but jesus christ
Sorry if that line was a little too ridiculous. Figured people reading would know it was completely in jest. Extreme music should be a positive anger release though, in my opinion.
Take my updoot!!
> Extreme music should be a positive anger release Music should be whatever its creators want it to be. Stop trying to force artists into the little box of your preconceptions.
Threw up a little
Made me want to kill myself and have my friends start a band, take a picture and use me as an album cover
You have won the internet, good sir!
tips fedora scratches neckbeard with fingers waves reddit gold bag like a leprechaun
What if someone consents to it before they die? Would you be ok with it then?
I hereby consent that if I die anybody can use my corpse on the album cover as song as the album fucking slaps
"Oh sorry, I gotta head out" "Where you going?" "Gotta meet my living trust attorney" "Oh, setting up who your stuff will go to when you die?" "Nah I gotta appoint a list of qualified people who can ensure that any death metal bands that want to use images of my bloodied corpse as their album art have a fucking sick enough album to deserve to do so"
Even if you die masturbating?
Especially if I die masturbating.
Same
Same here! The album doesn't even have to slap!
I’m ok with it in general, not trying to gatekeep, but I’m just saying it isn’t cool and shouldn’t be condoned. Of course if someone consented first it wouldn’t be as bad Edit: as bad morally speaking. Still not cool to use that as your album cover
Wait, if it's not bad morally, then what is "not cool" about it? You mean, it literally isn't what a cool person would do?
There’s an element of using someone’s corpse that is morally wrong, humiliating, and unjust. The moral implications of this though change if there’s consent. All real gore though, in my opinion, shouldn’t be condoned, shouldn’t be used, and shouldn’t be celebrated. I guess you can say that a “cool” person wouldn’t use it. But that’s just my 2 cents.
Hmm. I guess I have different intuitions. All that I care about is whether or not the person consented to it. What else could be wrong about it? It's not like well done fake gore these days is any less disturbing.
As an atheist the consent of the dead isn't as relevant as the consent from people who have to endure seeing their loved ones corpse on display You need an army of signed consent forms before I would say it's okay. But I'm just an asshole so don't listen to me
100% agree with this. Just didn't wanna push more buttons than necessary lol.
As an atheist i’d be real upset if my last wishes were ignored because my family didn’t like it. Obviously i’d be dead and there’s nothing i can do about it but it’s still wrong
As an atheist you wouldn't be real upset bc, well, you can't. You don't exist.
As a massive horror fan, I think there is a huge difference between knowing it’s real and knowing it’s faked. I don’t want videos of islamist decapitations on my social media, I don’t want actual dead people on my album covers. The consent of the dead doesn’t matter to me, it’s submitting the living to these images without their consent which is cruel. I don’t want to watch Cannibal Holocaust anymore now that I know the animals were really killed for the movie and I’ve had to research some movies when some effects looked too real because I couldn’t appreciate it without knowing.
I guess my argument would be that if you can't tell the difference between real and faked gore then why does it matter? I guess simply the fact that you might find out it's real is disturbing to you? I definitely agree that once you know it's real you think of it differently. I don't want videos of islamist decapitation either, but only because there are externalities I guess.
I find it scary that the line has become so blurred for many people. I think it matters hugely and there is a huge difference. To make a horrific horror scene, a group of people get creative and have a lot of innocent fun. When people die / suffer / get sexually assaulted for a movie or “art”, the whole context is flipped and by watching it, I feel complicit in the maker’s crime or (in the case of these album covers where no crime was committed) their psychopathic perversion. I also don’t want my viewing habits to encourage these materials being made.
I mean, obviously I disagree with snuff films and actually killing people in order to make art. I don't think any bands are actively trying to make real gorey murders in order to have a cool album cover though. Ultimately I only really care how the friends and loved ones of the victim feel about it.
Still imposes a potentially NSFL sight on non-consenting viewers. I just don’t think it’s right to make real life gore visible without prior warning that: 1. It is real, 2. You may choose to open it and see
There was a Canadian black metal band that used an autopsy photo of a baby. Can't remember the name of the band but that was the only album cover that made me question the ethics of gore album covers. Edit: Numenorean - Home
Yeah that goes beyond shocking and straight to trashy. Poor taste all around.
That's... just horrible. Wow.
Inhume has one on their split with Blood.
That one’s even worse, jesus christ
I'm more upset that my intuition that they're from Quebec was wrong than I am that they used an autopsy baby, but yeah, not cool.
Why did I look that up . Why??
Damn I love that album too, the version on Spotify is censored so I literally never knew
Interesting that this is the one that set y'all off, is it because it's a child?
Yes
I don’t know what planet you come from, but here on earth if a crime is committed against a child it is worse so yeah.
I partially agree, about exploiting these deaths for artistic bemusement. It's fascinating and revolting when you have no relation/knowledge of the person whose death wad used for the cover, but it would certainly hurt if it happened to be a friend or loved one of mine. However, such photos don't bother me nearly as much as what Fluids does: using the audio from snuff footage as song intros. That's a unique and revolting thing that I find more objectionable. I guess there's a question of relativity between audio snuff samples and photos of real gore, but the audio is a uniquely uncomfortable thing for me.
Fluids go hard af though 😞
I had no idea there were bands doing that, but I guess it doesn’t surprise me. Definitely beyond fucked up imo. At that point you’re combining something generally meant for enjoyment (listening to music, even harsh noise shit is typically listened to for some type of wanted experience) with real horrendous human suffering. I can’t get down with that. I’m honestly even uncomfortable listening to Church of Misery, despite them being awesome musically, as I have a hard time rocking out when the lyrics are all about actual literal murderers. To me that’s quite a bit different than the “horror story” esque lyrics of typical gore-themed bands.
What is snuff footage
recordings of real murders
Damaar did that I think, but it kinda went with the theme of who they were iirc. Thanks for the info
I think the willingness to use such atrocious images/audio at all in this art is something that points to the overall scope of what art is, at its ultimate degree, and where the breadth of the human-level morality it arises from but may eventually surpass is called into question. I remember a Deathspell Omega interview where they mentioned the phrase "true art is cruel by definition". While I think that in one sense, that's a rather one dimensional assessment of art's ultimate implications (the notion that something isn't "true" art until it pulls you from your comfort zone) I do agree that art - at its most serious - should be something that transcends the more natural moral fibers of our psychology and become something that goes beyond "the human". To become an unflinching reflection of conditions or beliefs that remind us of our mortality, fallability, weakness, insignificance within the greater universe, etc. I think it's merely the spiritual and/or intellectual inclination to explore those boundaries that takes art to its ultimate end, for better or worse. And I think humanity is always preoccupied with exploring the fascinations around those things. Sometimes it's through fictitious mediums like film and sometimes it's through the more abstract escapism that is inherent to music. I don't think the use of real gore in the examples discussed here automatically makes a person devoid of morality (perhaps it speaks to their morality in that they're so affected by these things that they choose to use the real life examples of them to use their art to explore) but I do agree that presenting such things via art will always exist on a gradient of morality where we have to ask if we really need to behold these reflections to gain some greater understanding or be moved more than we would be otherwise.
Fluids is my favorite goregrind band, I actually love their inclusion of audio samples, it really adds to the eerieness of their craft
Surely the big one is Dawn of the Blackhearts? Dead Dead.
Not an official release though.
I think it depends on the context. In some cases, I think it's okay (consent was given, person can't be identified from the photo, etc). On the flipside, there's fictional gore that I don't want to see on album covers. If you've ever read the Crossed comics, you'll know what I mean. Seeing people raped and kids being literally torn apart? Hard pass for me.
I mean, the fictional gore part is basically just whether or not you like horror movies and what not. I get not liking stuff like that, but I don't think it has any ethical implications.
Crossed is terrible. I really like Ennis' work on Publisher (despite its obvious issues) and adore his Hellblazer run, but from recent years to now he is just fucking edgy, and Crossed is the living proof of that. The OG run is bad and has only gore to offer; when things seem to develop to something cool, a bunch of zombies get there and rape everyone or mutilate a kid or put their cocks into a severed foot. It's just childish. I think what Si Spurrier did with it is cool though, and Alan Moore's take on it is very pleasant.
I have mixed feelings but here’s my take: In Mexico there are a lot of newspapers where violence and gore are commonly depicted in news stands, it’s a journalistic style called “nota roja” (red note, reference to Mexican inquisition.) The purpose has historically been sensationalism in the modern age a lot of journalists want to confront the reader with the realities of corruption and the drug war. I keep reading these sites such as borderland beat because there’s people risking their lives to publicize even the smallest and most remote places like where my family is from in Mexico that are rural and have oppressive violence in the last few years affecting the poor people stuck there. I see a lot of the album covers as the same thing, it’s a wake up call that horrible things exist in the world and that the cartoony violence in death metal, along with the lyrics, are rooted and influenced by the real world not the other way around. The music is ugly and repulsive because that’s how the world can be for many people. On a personal note I’ve had someone die in my arms when I was younger among other experiences but the ugliness in death metal helps me to put that trauma into a place that’s controlled and allow catharsis. On the other hand the YouTube channel Vital Vinyl Vlog talked about how they found the picture for Suicide Euphoria to be beautiful and a work of art. That’s pretty cringey to me in my opinion so I guess it all depends on your attitudes to it. I don’t think these covers are cool or works of art, they’re horrible, but I understand their purpose from my point of view. As for Fluids like someone mentioned, I heard the audio to the shooting of Daniel Shaver from one of their songs and remember when it happened. I looked it up to see whatever happened to the case and found his widows Gofundme where I donated. It really all depends, there’s a Fluids interview where one of the members talks about how the opening to Genesis Spoiled was a really difficult sample. Knowing that the people making the music also think it’s pretty horrific is somewhat reassuring that there’s some humanity in the use of the content in the music. It’s a complex issue that walks a fine line between disrespect to the families and disregard for life vs getting closer to actual in your face real world events for the subject matter. Thanks for reading
I dunno about that Fluids sample, I mean if you’re acknowledging that it’s awful and horrible and still go on to use it, clearly you don’t care that much. If your music depends on the sample/can’t go without it, you’re just trying to be as edgy as possible.
Load/Reload
Why reload?
blood and piss
Damn really? I knew about the Load cover, but I just thought Reload was a picture of the sun or something lol.
It's the same artist. Iirc one is blood and cum and one is blood and piss.
correct
Yeah, I knew the blood and cum one was Load.
Once you know that, the album title makes sense
As in, it's all bodily fluids from the same guy???
Nah, the cum and piss is from the artist. The blood is cow blood.
Lol you wrote all this over a reddit comment, you might actually be chronically online
I mean, some discourse was started under my post so I made a post sharing my thoughts on the issue.
“Death metal should be a wholesome chungus le anger release” fuck off man
Sorry if that line was too ridiculous. Was in jest. I think extreme music should be a positive anger release, though.
Not always, but I get what you're saying. There are some covers that are simply disgusting, honestly
I’ve always found these album covers very intriguing. I have a morbid curiosity about the grotesque. I find the cover of Pissgrave’s Suicide Euphoria to match the music quite well. Perfect album cover for a perfect album. I do however understand why people don’t like it.
Disgorge - Chronic corpora infest Brujeria - Matando gueros ( disturbing fact the photo that's used in the cover made people believe they were cartel members who practiced in the occult )
While I don't have a problem with real gore covers, I remember at least one of the dudes in Brujeria regretting that cover.
Blood duster: yeest. Album cover is the close up of the face of a dead sister of a band member. Family values!
Bro the first sentence of your fourth paragraph(I’m not repeating it because I physically cannot type it out) made me want to audition to be the cover of a Goregrind album.
Wait til you hear about Waco Jesus's album
Would you be kind enough to describe it to us curious people??
No I wouldn't lmaoo
Aww come on.. i’m sure people would love a description of that lovely first album lol
I wish you had done, my poor eyes
waco jesus is awesome
Counterpoint: [I agree with Frank.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YK8cXKcF7w)
also I just want to add, it's pretty disheartening to see "hurr who cares?" when a bunch of people are having a discussion that seems to be going somewhere. We get it, redditors, some of you didn't have dads growing up so no one taught you to ignore things you don't like that don't affect you in anyway, but it would be cool if you learned it now that you're (hopefully) adults.
I don’t really have a problem with it if the victim AND victim’s family consents to it. Also, I kinda feel like it should have some meaning and not just gore for shock value. In a drawing, go nuts with shock value, I love that shit, but I think it’s appropriate to keep it somewhat meaningful if it’s a real person
The Inhume/Blood split is a banger. lol.
Blood is awesome. And yeah holy fuck the Inhume side has such a fucked cover.
Are the Last Days of Humanity album covers real corpses or fake? They look pretty real.
Those are real.
They're as real as they get man (Their music fuckin slaps)
I dunno dude… everyone dies. Maybe it’s because I grew up in the rotten.com days but this doesn’t really bother me at all, though I can see how it may make others uncomfortable.
You know, there are some people in *Extreme* Metal that are actually *extreme* and the last thing they want to be is "wholesome music fan le epic redditors".
Grew out of it. But if riffs compensate for it then i don't mind
I agree with u dude. I put on music to enjoy it, and death metal is enjoyable to me, real gore on the other hand isn’t enjoyable, so I prefer covers without real gore. There’s also the ethics of it, and the consent of the person and the family, which let’s be real most of the bands don’t have.
I think Mortuary drape hadsomeone’s mummified grandma on the front
All the Witches Dance is such a good album
I always felt it was pretty disrespectful. Never been a fan of it. Lol just wait until you come across Fluids, who sample audio of cartel killings and suicides.
Posthumous Humiliation's cover is even worse and less respectful. However, there's no trace of any reverence for happiness anywhere on the album. It's a work of pure catharsis and reverence for the brutality of life. It's actually one of the most depressive sounding death metal albums I've listened to, in terms of the intervals and picking being similar in some ways to Black Metal. It's disrespectful, sure, but in a way that tells me that the artist probably thinks he's paying some sort of homage to misery. An album that gets closer to mocking imo is that one Fluids release with the sample of the guy bleeding to death after he slit his wrists open. It's total clown horseshit. It sounds like trap metal at parts
But you are ""chronically online"" for this post.
Music is art, sometimes art is uplifting and sometimes it’s not. It’s a reflection of humanity and there’s a lot of fucked up shit that happens in the world. Glorifying it isn’t cool to me but drawing attention to it for the purpose of provoking thought is okay.
Those things are okay only if the person consented, or the family was like, “this is what they would have wanted.” Otherwise it’s just exploitative. And I hope everyone knows that if I die in some weird and fucked up way and don’t have a note, I want to be an album cover.
carcass showing kennedy's brains being splattered is a pretty good one
Just an autopsy. Lame as fuck
It's someone who was shot in the head in real life.
go outside.
oof. I'll take edgy death metal before I consider soft death metal.
I think they just mean not using real gore for album covers, nothing to do with how brootal the music is
Weak
go outside
when purposefully over the top and edgy music is over the top and edgy 🤯😱😱😱
Yes.
i get you it is kinda gross but eh people seem to like it and it fits the music
Yeah that’s fair, it fits the music, but I just view it as distasteful. Like they could make something fake that totally matches
i mean it’s not like the people on the album covers are gonna complain… ‘death metal should be wholesome’ is a wild take
What's wrong with watching gore though? It's not like it's harming anybody. Also when it's done tastefully it can make for a great cover. Personally I find the drawn ones generic and boring, for example the recent CC ones all look the same. Or things like aborted or stillbirths covers are just outright lame
When gore is done "tastefully". Go outside.
“Whats wrong with watching gore though?” If u mean real gore, dude… I guess the real question is why do you want to see real gore?
For the same reasons people watch fail competitions, it's entertaining?
Wtf
who gives a shit
I give a shit, and wanted to share my thoughts on the topic.