Question:
song about spiritual warfare from an angel's point of view.
angelus: fidus defensor
[spoken intro]
since the creation of humanity they have been watching you
studying your habits, gaining insight into your motives
fuelling your rebellion wherever they can
but we have seen
we have resisted
and we will prevail
for the saints of God and for the Lamb!
[instrumental build up]
malodourous spectre of hellish visage
that coils and twists and winds
prowling around like a roaring lion
devouring hearts and minds
they watch
thriving on your sickness
their lusts
sated by your pains
they stalk
gouging out your eyes
their posion
burning thorugh your veins
planning your deaths
choking your hearts
tearing you apart
die die
hated beasts
deserters from the army of eternal light
burn burn
twisted beings
forever banished in eternal night
[instrumental]
numinous vision of radiant dawn
proclaiming triumph in the skies
the victory won, the prize secured
death and hell's demise
we wait
directed by the Spirit
your praise
entrusts us with our might
we stand
faithful to our Captain
your prayers
grant us strength to fight
[___________________]
[___________________]
[_______________]
die die
hated beasts
deserters from the army of eternal light
burn burn
twisted beings
forever banished in eternal night
Answer:
It's a little... err... over the top... yeah... I guess that's ok for "way hardcore," but still... yeah...
"Malodourous spectre of hellish visage," makes little sense (and, yes, I know what the words mean).
Answer:
Originally Posted by Nate It's a little... err... over the top... yeah... I guess that's ok for "way hardcore," but still... yeah...
"Malodourous spectre of hellish visage," makes little sense (and, yes, I know what the words mean).
you love it(!) yay(!)
uhm.
"malodourous spectre of hellish visage" actually makes perfect sense both
a. gramatically, as a clause. granted it isn't bound. but then so many songs use unbound clauses.
and
b. semantically.
it's OK for "way hardcore" in my opinion also. it seems we agree on something.
Answer:
1) How does a spectre, being non-corporeal, have an odor, let alone a foul one?
2) What does the odor have to do with the appearance? You can't smell a visage.
3) Is this a spectre "of" some particular visage or does the "of" convey a "having"?
Respectively, you have implausible adjectives, odd logic, and ambiguous prepositions.
I try to keep an open mind about different lyrical styles, but that one line is just too much.

Answer:
Originally Posted by Nate 1) How does a spectre, being non-corporeal, have an odor, let alone a foul one?
2) What does the odor have to do with the appearance? You can't smell a visage.
3) Is this a spectre "of" some particular visage or does the "of" convey a "having"?
Respectively, you have implausible adjectives, odd logic, and ambiguous prepositions.
I try to keep an open mind about different lyrical styles, but that one line is just too much.
1. the spectre in question is emitting a foul odour as based on some people's so called "experience" of the demonic. this is not odd logic, but rather writing a song lyric based on people's experience.
2. the odour has nothing to do with the appearance of the spectre, nor does the sentence suggest this. the two are not linked directly. the spectre is malodourous *as well* as being of hellish visage. it is the spectre, not the odour, which is of hellish visage. and it is the spectre, not the visage, which is malodourous. therefore, my adjective is not implausable. educate yourself, and get a better understanding of syntax, with regards to sentence structure.
3. a dictionary I have uses the expression "of stern viasge" when illustrating context for the word "visage", to mean "a person who has a stern looking face". how is, "of hellish visage" any different? it simply means "this spectre has a hellish looking face". when one describes an experience as hellish what does once mean? it is figure of speech... and similarly here also. figurative language.
the line stands.
Answer:
Originally Posted by ukhardcore 2. the odour has nothing to do with the appearance of the spectre, nor does the sentence suggest this. the two are not linked directly. the spectre is malodourous *as well* as being of hellish visage. it is the spectre, not the odour, which is of hellish visage. and it is the spectre, not the visage, which is malodourous. therefore, my adjective is not implausable. educate yourself, and get a better understanding of syntax, with regards to sentence structure.
Don't you dare tell me again to educate myself. I am one of the more learned people that I know, and I have an extraordinary passion for and understanding of the elements of written language. You've responded to my criticisms out of order; the reason I said the adjective was implausible was not because it referenced the odor (which it clearly does not), but because it referenced the spectre (something which, by definition, has no physical reality, which is a general necessity for having an odor). My second comment was indeed concerned with the link between the odor and the visage, as you've alluded to, but only because it makes little sense to bring up how something smells and then immediately talk about what it looks like. "I saw the most foul-smelling rose bush today" makes very little sense; no one talks like that. You don't talk about seeing a smell or smelling a sight, but your line is awfully close to doing just that.
3. a dictionary I have uses the expression "of stern viasge" when illustrating context for the word "visage", to mean "a person who has a stern looking face". how is, "of hellish visage" any different? it simply means "this spectre has a hellish looking face". when one describes an experience as hellish what does once mean? it is figure of speech... and similarly here also. figurative language.
I understand that the phrase "of blah blah blah" can mean "possessing a blah blah blah" or "having a blah blah blah," it's just that that manner of speaking is rather antiquated, and, thus, not known to many people. Because of this fact, using "of" as part of that phrase, but not crafting the phrase in such a way as to negate any other possible interpretation of the word "of" leaves the general reader hanging, wondering what you're actually trying to say. Some people might catch on to the phrase you intended, but most are just going to think, "Oh, so he's talking about a spectre of something he saw," (i.e. "a spectre of an old man," "a spectre of something hideous looking," etc), and not, "Oh, so the spectre possesses this certain quality of visage." In general, it is best to not leave your reader wondering which definition of a word you intended, but your phrase here can easily be interpreted two ways, and, thus, ambiguity arises.
Don't put "RC" in your titles in the future if you don't want the "ruthless criticism" it stands for.
Answer:
i do want the ruthless criticism. i just don't happen to agree with the points you made. thanks all the same though.
1. whether a spectre [being non-corporeal] can have an odour is not the issue. knowing that people say they have smelled bad odours when supposedly demonic activity occurs, is my basis for writing that part of the line.
2. i, and many people in my locality [the county of Yorkshire, in the United Kingdom] speak as you described. let's not get prescriptive over how people can or cannot talk. just becasue in our dialect people say things that sound strange to you [who i'm just hazarding a guess is not english, or at least not from around the north], it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense semantically. i have seen many rosebushes that smell odd... so why not say "i saw an odd smelling rosebush today"? I cannot see that it isn't semantically accurate. Can you help me understand it any other way?
3. i admit it's ambiguous... i didn't really think it would be so hard to work out. thanks for pointing out that other people are less able to understand my antiquated writing style. i shall try to bear this in mind in the future.
I am one of the more learned people that I know, and I have an extraordinary passion for and understanding of the elements of written language.
great! i am one of the more learned people i know too, and yet i made this particular song a little ambiguous. seems even learned people make mistakes. i'm glad your degree in music... something or other-ness [i looked but i forgot...] among other things no doubt, has helped you in your passion and understanding of written language. my english language & journalism BA is doing the same for me.
i offer apologies for sounding rude, it wasn't my intention. i was a little annoyed simply because, however antiquated the phrasing, the line actually makes sense.
Answer:
As long as the song is screamed and the guitars have enough gain to power NY city it should work fine. It might work extreemly emo acustic to, but it would have to sound erie and wierd.