Vampyrique

Religious belief will always prevail, whatever the form. And groups of people need to believe in something, don't they? There's a phenomenon that occurs in occult circles: the more abstruse, obscure and esoteric, the more impressive it appears to be, since it will seem that only the true initiate will grasp its true arcane wisdom and make use of it. It also adds to the psychodrama of the ritual. Which of Crowley's books have you got?

The mental makeup of a serial killer makes for a fascinating study. I think it's common that when one sees another person's side of the story, sympathy ensues, even a sense of identity or affinity. Everyone feels misunderstood or struggles in life, so it's easier for most to relate to a 'misunderstood' outsider. People are more likely to be turned off by those who are successful, or those praised for being beautiful and seemingly 'perfect'. But rebellious attitudes and a collective sense of nihilism and cynicism towards humanity are probably a huge part of it as well. And perhaps some mental issues.... Interesting to note that one of Richard Ramirez' faithful admirers was deathrocker Eva O.

This is true, but I think this only reflects the surface level. You're talking about persuasion but do not forget about the more insidious programming known as 'pre-suasion'. In other words, you set up the framework that guides people to the conclusion that you want them to reach; only, these people are convinced that they arrived at said conclusion by their own judgement. Thus, the emotional power in one's own belief takes hold. Whether it be organized religion, science and academia, or any standard cult, a hierarchical structure involving levels and compartmentalization is vital to controlling the management and flow of information. If each person only has a small piece of the puzzle, then nobody can actually put together the entire picture or even has the authority to question the veracity of another who is seemingly more qualified in a particular field outside of your own. There are examples of this everywhere. Cults are everywhere.

Crowley is fascinating. He has certainly left his imprint on today's culture in both good and bad ways. Hardly the 'wickedest man in the world', yet it seems The Great Beast fathered much of today's degeneracy and hedonism. Nevertheless, his legacy has endured the dull tedium of the modern mind; that mundanity of materialism that robs us of our imagination. Perhaps that's something worth praising. Most notably, how many bands have paid tribute to Crowley and put magic to music? Too many to name. Crowley was criticized relentlessly by the media so I can't blame him for firing back. I think he somewhat enjoyed the infamy even though that wasn't was he was striving for. I think he was an eccentric genius, but also a bit of charlatan. I rather like Crowley. Moonchild is an excellent novel, and his non-fiction is at least interesting to read though. Scientology is interesting as far as cults go. Incidentally, Hubbard knew Crowley and Jack Parsons. Parsons was a Thelemite/occultist too who worked with NASA developing rocket propulsion technology. Amazing that NASA was spearheaded by Nazis and occultists. But why am I not surprised...

This is somewhat similar to the What Are You Listening To? thread; only here you must provide a rating and, hopefully, a brief description why. Or comment on the issue of rating an album. I often read that reviewers dislike rating albums because it detracts from the content of the written review. However, I disagree, and I've always found ratings to be of interest. I find that adjectives are so liberally tossed around that they're of such little value; trust me, I would know. I would go as far as to say that a rating reveals the true impression of the listener within the context of their own unique music tastes. It's also a snapshot in time. And like a picture, a rating is worth a thousand words; to those who take offense at too high or low a rating, sometimes a thousand swords. And that's where things get interesting. Upon hearing it one more time, I'll post my rating for Tiamat's Judas Christ.

Cadaveria cast her spell on me in June of last year and she has yet to release me from it. Being mainly familiar with Opera IX's first three albums, I wondered how it was that I had never properly given her solo work its due. Witching hours by night and full moon were spent listening to The Shadow's Madame. Preceding this, I re-listened to said first Opera IX albums as well as Maleventum (the first to feature a new vocalist). Despite my devotion (get it:? how clever) to Cadaveria, it is possible that I like Maleventum more than the first three. Symawrath were a pleasant new find for me in spring of last year and their hold has persisted since. Namely, their debut album and split release for reasons listed in other threads. I didn't care to even listen to their industrial-whatever metal that they later attempted. The Cure are one of many favourites outside the world of metal. Wish and Disintegration made my playlist for a while. But everybody, their grandmother, and their dog like The Cure; only diseases and the pharmaceutical industry don't like The Cure. As you know, Tiamat has been on my mind with the effort being made to re-familiarize myself with their later works. I'm glad I did so, especially with regards to Judas Christ.

I have the proof. Years ago, I had pre-ordered Alpha Noir/Omega White (the edition with the Moonspell pendant), and it arrived on the day of some sort of (rare?) lunar phenomenon. I wish I could remember what it was.

I was attempting brevity for once. Terse verse for better or for worse.

Sometimes albums have poor track listings; superior b-sides are excluded in favour of inferior a-sides; there are times when weak album tracks should simply be omitted; or simply said, the tracks seem to be in the wrong order. I often tack on bonus tracks to complete the album experience but occasionally think, as blasphemous as the idea seems, that certain albums could be improved with some track listing modifications. In other words, I cannot always trust that the band knows best. I don't have the lists at hand, but once for fun I re-ordered the tracks to Dusk... and Her Embrace with the inclusion of Nocturnal Supremacy '96 and Carmilla's Masque. Also, I re-worked Thornography and Nymphetamine to improve both by utilizing b-sides at the expense of a-sides. I saw potential in Ancient's Mad Grandiose Bloodfiends but deemed it necessary to create order from chaos. I even edited a couple of tracks in Audacity to ensure the album flowed nicely. Here is the result: 1. Blackeyes 2. The Draining 3. Um Sonho Psycodelico 4. Sleeping Princess of the Arges 5. A Mad Blood Scenario 6. Her Northern Majesty 7. The Emerald Tablet 8. Willowthewisp 9. Neptune 10. Hecate, My Love and Lust I wonder if anyone else does the same? And with which albums?

Looking at it now.... Indeed, It seems legit, and It checks out with the one listed on discogs.

Most listened to bands lately: 1. Cadaveria 2. Symawrath 3. Opera IX 4. The Cure 5. Tiamat

Both are fascinating characters, both are flawed and misunderstood. Did Charlie really have control over them? Was he really a cult leader? I think there's more to the story than the accepted narrative. Charlie was a pimp and drug dealer for celebs. I wouldn't defend some of things he did, but I think he was also a scapegoat for a lot of the shady stuff that went on within certain circles.

I liked their first three, didn't care for the fourth. I haven't listened since.

There's magic in Moonspell.

See, now that I've re-listened to Judas Christ (as well as Prey and Amanethes) I've complicated things further. I'd imagine that Clouds is still number one. But you've listed two albums and there's only room for one on my list. Maybe Deinonychus has to go to make room for both bands...