sunnuntai 15. tammikuuta 2012

666 'zine #1

666 'zine, issue 1 (1999)
Interviews:
Sadorass/The True Frost
Heretic
Carnage (us)
Maniac Butcher
Abattoir of Love
Adorior
Hyperion
HateSpawn 'zine
Drakkar Productions
Winter Funeral
Funeral Procession
Nachtkaiser
Grand Belial's Key [in French!]
Botulistum
Altar of Perversion
Frostdemonstorm
Evil
Celestia
Helwetti
Conqueror
Arkham
Prophecy (fra)
Noctis (fra)
Forge (fra) [in French!]
Puritas Virginum
Katharsis
Summum Malum
Nåstrond
+articles (some again in French), bios and flyers.

Reuploaded

Another contribution, this one was sent by comrade Kurgan and originally scanned by Vlad/Arma Satanica - thank you! 666 was a French black metal fanzine made by Sad and Spica who used to be members of S.V.E.S.T. and Cantus Bestiae together and individually were/are involved with a number of bands like Asmodee, Chemin de Haine and Drastus. A couple of features are taken from elsewhere but most is made by the two.

The foreword sets up a lofty goal for our authors, unfortunately they are only partially successful as this issue (like most first ones do) has a number of flaws and many of the interviews end up more shallow than the editors hoped for. This is natural and happens with every 'zine. However, some of the interviews are very informative, entertaining or both. I'd mention as highlights the interviews with Nachtkaiser, Altar of Perversion, Katharsis and Nåstrond. As for the flaws, they go a bit overboard experimenting with different fonts which combined with the uneven copy quality makes some parts barely readable. Next and much more annoying is having a few interviews/articles written in French. I'm strongly against mixing languages in one 'zine, it should be English OR your language (whatever it might be) not a combination of both. But enough of my rantings, you'll want to read this if you're into underground black metal.

10 kommenttia:

Nimetön kirjoitti...

Shame, how embarassing to read the shitty article that I wrote back in 1999!

- F

Velkaarn kirjoitti...

You must be referring to the Lucifer-Pentagram-Cabbala bit there? C'mon it wasn't that bad, don't be too hard on your past self! ;)

SP kirjoitti...

Hi man.

I don't know who's the "Kurgan" mentioned in this post, but the credit given to him is false. It's me who scanned this zine originally and I can prove it. This is not much of an issue for me, but I'd like to have things set staight.

Regards,

Vlad/Arma Satanica

(Satanic Panzer zine)

Velkaarn kirjoitti...

@SP/Vlad:

Thank you for the information, I've edited the text now. I unfortunately have to work with what information I am given. I presume the 2nd issue of 666 was scanned by you as well?

SP kirjoitti...

Thanks for the correction. Yes, I've scanned 666 #2 as well.

Dodon kirjoitti...

The link was dead, could you retrieve it back for me? I might be happy if you could put it back for me.

Thanks,

Don

Velkaarn kirjoitti...

@Dodon:

Ok, reuploading to another service.

Borderline1991 kirjoitti...

I've read this zine today, and the most interesting thing about it for me was the interview with Arkham, it got me thinking.
He was asked about the limits between Dark and Black Metal and his response was that BM has to be Satanic, and if it isn't - the band isn't playing BM but Dark Metal which Arkham is. It's just interesting how he put it, that BM can't be melodic or have synths. So, according to him Melodic Black Metal (epic, symphonic, pagan/heathen/viking/celtic, folk BM, black/doom, gothic BM, progressive BM, avant-garde BM, industrial BM, ambient/BM, atmospheric BM, dungeon synth/BM and so on) isn't BM at all but a different genre, Dark Metal? That's a weird way to look at it. So, I'm not a BM fan, I'm Dark Metal fan? :D What do you think about all this?

For me, BM can be two main sub-types - either it's melodic or it's brutal. But many bands play styles which are both, or are black mixed with other genres - which makes everything not so simple to cathegorize.

Velkaarn kirjoitti...

@Borderline:

Ugh, if you read old fanzines you'll run into this and such debates endlessly, "we" spent quite a lot of time bickering about what was true black metal and what was not and whether something was another subgenre or not and if they were actually even "valid" so to say. I do refer to this occasionally on my write-ups and yeah, Arkham's response of black metal needing to be Satanic is valid, otherwise it simply isn't black metal. Hence why all the pagan and viking and so on - metals that often do sound exactly like black metal were born. As for black metal can't be melodic or have synths, that's just poppycock and you're misreading him a little bit; he does say "...The music is not important here..." and later "..for me B.M. can't have a synth or shity melodic parts..." which is just a statement of his personal preferences there. Retconning everything that "sounds" black metal but is not Satanic is "convenient" but ultimately a bit questionable still as earliest users of the term Bethlehem and Thy Serpent slightly later had their own interpretations of what it constitutes, TS's definition being closer to this.

I'm kind of weary of the whole debate but it is understandable it should rise time and again and I for convenience's sake tend to brush all suitable under the black metal umbrella and just call some of it "black" metal and so forth. For example almost all NSBM is not proper black metal, nor are a big part of Polish bands as they focus on pagan themes. You sort of know eventually if something is "real black metal" or not. to end super-helpfully! :D

Nimetön kirjoitti...

I am of the opinion that the zine actually got very good answers, it is just that one has to know how to read them... you cannot expect them all to be information centers or erudite scholars. There is a lot of hidden confirmation or rejection even in the short answers, and the articles are not bad, I am not sure why "F" is embarrassed about that article, it is knowledgeable and shows a Traditional Satanist perspective with which most people are not acquainted, and which shows the truth of the matter when it comes to the distorted "mainstream" occultism based on Jewish mysticism that predominates today, still.

-Pelagius