On May 17 2010 10:35 SoManyDeadLings wrote: God this music is absolutely terrible. I forced myself to listen to a whole min. of Holy Diver before I couldn't bare it any longer.
One less "artist" of this "music" in the world.
Even if you don't like his music, a person just died, grow up. I don't care if you're a troll, just...go away.
For once, I am not trolling.
His music is absolutely terrible. Sad that I am a person has died, I was merely expressing my distaste for such shitty tunes.
This thread is in no need of your ignorance.
On topic. I am very sad to see Dio pass away. Such a great vocalist and frontman. R.I.P. Ronnie James Dio
On May 17 2010 16:14 Auronz wrote:
Seriously this guy should be banned... Fuck him!
I lol'ed hard in contempt and pity.
Just because an old musician dies there's no need to put him on a pedestal. Rachmaninoff died too, yet people are free to express their dislike for his music. If 50 Cent were to die in place of Ronnie today, I'm sure people would mourn for him and act with much hostility towards anyone who says anything negative about "Candy Shop", but you and I both know what a pitiful joke this "artist" really is.
I apologize for I am about to burst precious little bubbles, but only arrogant tone-deafs could so firmly believe others to be ignorant simply because they do not appreciate certain styles of "music".
Popular music in general has very little musicality in terms of harmony, dynamics, tonal variations and other musical elements. Heavy Metal is a bit better in this regard, as there are a few semi-decent songs that are bearable because they have been written by classical-turned-metal musicians but nonetheless, the genre overall still fits into the popular music category and what I have said applies 99.99% of the time. This is coming from someone who holds his ARCT performers in Piano so my neutrality is naturally questioned, but I listen to just about every style of music and occasionally enjoy the catchy hit songs, but ultimately popular music offers almost no musicality whatsoever.
Let's start with R.A.P. music, but since everyone already knows about the Retards Attempting Poetry, I rest my case.
Then there's J-K-C pop. Sure they arouse certain emotions and are interesting due to the often catchy melodies, but this only applies to the first 30 seconds of the songs heard. Just try and tell me how the ladies in Brown Eyed Girls are great musicians. Exceptions are always present, and the exception here is selected songs by the Chinese artist Jay Chou (#1 Pop artist in China); again, he is a capable classical pianist / cellist and employs an impressive variety of instruments in his songs.
Heavy metal, in general, puts a heavy emphasis on the speed of the music, mashes in a bunch of the simplest chords (the majority of power cords are merely just one interval, normally just the perfect fifth), employs hideously repetitive melodies and rhythms throughout entire songs and sings about the same and boring musical themes (often death, violence, and aggression).
It frustrates me when a certain upbring instills so much damage on one's ability to appreciate real music that they are blind-sighted into a such distasteful genres.
I'd like to throw in an analogy that a SC player could potentially empathize with. On TL you hear all the BW veterans crying about SC2 being dumbed down, while hordes of SC2 fanboys are there to lash out and defend Blizzard's new game. Why? If it's true that SC2 has been dumbed down so much, then why do people still enjoy it? Why would Blizzard implement the changes in the first place? The answer is simple; Blizzard chose to make SC2 more accessible to new players, sacrificing depth for increased revenue but in the end, people who never played BW would become accustomed to the SC2 mechanics and have a very hard time playing and enjoying BW. They would still enjoy SC2 immensely, however oblivious to all the map control concept, multitasking and sexy micro that defined BW. A similar story holds true for Popular Music vs. Classical Music. Sure Popular Music has been dumbed down immensely, but people who have never had proper musical training still enjoy popular songs despite being unaware of all the truly amazing aspects of Classical Music. The trend has only become worse and worse through time, with increasingly dumbed down songs gaining more and more popularity. To illustrate, the first search result on youtube for "Tik Tok" has a view count of over 20 million, in unfortunate comparison to the first hit for "Beethoven's 5th Symphony" which returns a meager result of under 1 million view count. Hell, there are more Tik Tok parodies on youtube than all the renditions of the 5th Symphony combined. Popular "Music" is no longer music, but rather carefully engineered sound waves designed solely to alter the listener's emotion by means of controversial themes and catchy but terribly repetitive melody/rhythm. Add flashy music videos, ridiculous stage choreography, and auto-tune for recent songs.
I guess my point is that the vast majority of popular music will not stand the test of time. People still listen to classical music hundreds of years old, just as how dedicated BW players still play a 12-year old game simply because both aforementioned things are fucking amazing. Yet, out of my somewhat impressive friend circle, I know NO ONE that still listen to older metal music, but I do know a friend who deleted his entire K-pop collection because he was “tired of this shit”. Think people will still listen to Genie or Holy Diver 200 years from now on? It is a possibility, but one that I’m willing to bet my life against.
“Leave me alone, I know my taste is shitty but it’s what I enjoy, so fuck off”. Quote the posts defending SC2 and half the posts in the K-pop discussion thread. Well, just as it would take time and effort to learn and properly appreciate BW, the same thing applies perfectly for Classical Music.
Listen to the piece in its entirety and maybe even the other movements, then if your brain jizzes in euphoria due to the overwhelming harmonies, dynamic contrasts, mood variations and heavenly melodies, then there may be hope music’s future after all.
I think you're missing the issue here. The issue isn't what you reckon the best music is, or the best way to masturbate or if watching TV at a certain angle makes shit better.
You simply brought some bullshit that wasn't necessary in a thread about someone's recent death, and you got called out on it. Sometimes you just need to keep your opinions to yourself.
You dont have a clue what you are talking about when you talk about heavy metal, dio or this community. Just nullified your whole post with a few idiotic statements.
lolz, I only listen to classical music while i'm studying.... helps me concentrate... i think. but besides that, i love any other genre of more. sorry = (
LOL you say real music and then link to beethoven. So you are saying that just because people listen to it 200 years later, then it is by default better than other music? Anything you have to have "training" in order to like is not automatically better than something else. I could make the most pointlessly complicated game that requires years of study to even understand what to do, and that doesn't make it awesome. If nobody studied classical music, would it still be so "great"? Would it even be listened to? Besides, modern songwriter's goals aren't nearly the same as classical composers. If beethoven wrote lyrics to his symphonies, and sang them himself, would his music have the same effect nowadays?
Most of your respondents will flame you (and with some good cause), and won't even except your fundamental premise (that classical music is far richer then other styles).
Having got more and more into classical myself, I think you are right - by most benchmarks, it is simply superior. The starting point for a classical composer is an orchestra of masters and a absolute understanding of music itself. The starting point for a rock musician is 'I'd quite like to be in a band, and I can play some songs well''. I could go on...
However, despite me agreeing with your premise, I still think you're an idiot. Firstly, despite it's simplicity, there is still a lot of brilliance in non-classical music. There are many moments on a led zeppelin/radiohead/bob dylan/miles davis record which you simply do not find in classical music, and which are well worth hearing. It's also easier to share experiences with non-classical music. To listen to a classical piece properly, you need to focus in a way you can't often do with friends. It's also much harder to discuss classical with people who don't have a lot of specialist knowledge.
Most importantly, even if you were right that non-classical is worthless, that's no excuse for posting in the Dio RIP thread like that. Do you really think the best place to make your ill-advised stand is in a thread mourning a dead singer?
Also, even if you don't like his music, his impact on rock culture was huge, and he had an undeniably unique voice. I'm not personally a fan of most of his work, but I can see he deserves respect.
As someone who listens to both classical music (a lot of it, with a passion) and heavy metal, I regretfully inform you that your opinion is wrong.
I kind of agreed with your point until you said Jay Chou was legit. I lol'ed. What, because he used to play classical piano and cello, it automatically makes him "better?" Terrible, terrible damage.
First of all, you're completely distasteful about a man who has just died and who is obviously well liked by a large amount of people here. You insult him when it is completely unnecessary. I don't care how true it is, you keep that stuff to yourself because it is a horrible thing to say. It serves no purpose.
Then you go on to complain about what is wrong with different genres of music. You can't see past your own view of what you enjoy about music. It's completely ignorant. People like music for different reasons. I listen to/watch k-pop because the girls are hot and the songs are fun. Does that mean I can't enjoy prog rock? No.
You're trying to objectively argue that some music is bad. You can't do that. You can only do that if you set up some completely arbitrary features to judge it on, and therefore your argument completely falls down.
Try and see things from other people's perspectives instead of just judging everything by your set of rules, which hold no more merit than anyone else's.
i fucking hate metal but some of my friends love it, but i'm not gonna put down their taste in music because i don't like it... cos in all seriousness what would i get out of that?
Seriously can't you just accept some people have different tastes to you? Just because you listen to classical music doesn't make you better than someone who enjoys pop music.
On May 17 2010 20:05 snotboogie wrote: I think you're missing the issue here. The issue isn't what you reckon the best music is, or the best way to masturbate or if watching TV at a certain angle makes shit better.
You simply brought some bullshit that wasn't necessary in a thread about someone's recent death, and you got called out on it. Sometimes you just need to keep your opinions to yourself.
Learn what an opinion is. No music is superior because different people enjoy different things. Just like how you probably think receiving anal sex is absolutely inferior to giving anal sex, although some guys tend to disagree. You can't tell them they are wrong because they enjoy something different.
As much as i agree with you that Rap/hip hop music is trash you have no right to speak of someone who recently died like that, even though i didn't listen to Dio there are people who did and are mourning him.
On May 17 2010 20:28 SCC-Faust wrote: This is all opinionated.
Learn what an opinion is. No music is superior because different people enjoy different things. Just like how you probably think receiving anal sex is absolutely inferior to giving anal sex, although some guys tend to disagree. You can't tell them they are wrong because they enjoy something different.
On May 17 2010 20:28 SCC-Faust wrote: This is all opinionated.
Learn what an opinion is. No music is superior because different people enjoy different things. Just like how you probably think receiving anal sex is absolutely inferior to giving anal sex, although some guys tend to disagree. You can't tell them they are wrong because they enjoy something different.
QFT.
It's all about taste. You can't say "X is better than Y" because in someone elses ears it will sound completely different. Going on about your musical expertise is irrelevant. I've played several instruments over the past years but it does not make me more qualified to judge what is good and what is bad.
On May 17 2010 20:24 Wohmfg wrote: This is actually the worst blog I've ever seen.
First of all, you're completely distasteful about a man who has just died and who is obviously well liked by a large amount of people here. You insult him when it is completely unnecessary. I don't care how true it is, you keep that stuff to yourself because it is a horrible thing to say. It serves no purpose.
Then you go on to complain about what is wrong with different genres of music. You can't see past your own view of what you enjoy about music. It's completely ignorant. People like music for different reasons. I listen to/watch k-pop because the girls are hot and the songs are fun. Does that mean I can't enjoy prog rock? No.
You're trying to objectively argue that some music is bad. You can't do that. You can only do that if you set up some completely arbitrary features to judge it on, and therefore your argument completely falls down.
Try and see things from other people's perspectives instead of just judging everything by your set of rules, which hold no more merit than anyone else's.
that's pretty spot on
It's also absolutely retarded to say music like this won't stand the test of time. Of course it will, there will always be people that like this kind of stuff because it's AWESOME, sure classical is nice once in a while, but heavy metal just has it's own kind of magic to it that there is no way you could get from any classical song.
I also laughed at how he called it "music" in quotes, which is pretty accurate, i think good music is anything that can make you happy, and dio makes me happier than any classical stuff so it's therefore better to me.
On May 17 2010 21:14 flamewheel91 wrote: Also people there's no need to be abrasive. He's entitled to his opinion just like we are entitled to ours.
He's shitting on everyone else's opinion based on his personal taste. Being entitled to an opinion is different from broadcasting it over a dead person. OP's contempt is reciprocated.
You know it's funny I didn't see who the OP was before reading the quotes from the other thread and about half the OP. And this meant I totally misread the following:
I apologize for I am about to burst precious little bubbles, but only arrogant tone-deafs could so firmly believe others to be ignorant simply because they do not appreciate certain styles of "music".
What amuses me coming back to it is that the way I initially read it is fine. It can be read both ways. Only someone as 'arrogantly tone-deaf' as the OP could believe others ignorant for not appreciating his belief in what is superior music.
Also the whole analogy between bw and sc2 is pretty bad. Gaming is akin to sports, as eSPORTS is the chosen name. Not eART. Music is often enjoyed because of the emotional response it triggers in the listener, much like any form of art. So comparing music to games is pretty bad. A better example would be to compare masterpieces of films with very popular films (sometimes these are the same of course). But really, a popular blockbuster is trying to achieve a whole different set of goals compared to an art-house movie. Comparing the two, which have such vastly different goals and just happen to be using the same medium, is as silly as comparing Beethoven's Fifth (which is awesome as art) with Kesha's Tik Tok (which is awesome because we got the starcraft parody out of it). No it's awesome because people can play it like alot of K-pop or rock or metal and feel something from it. You don't put classical music on at most parties, it's not going to work.
Anyway I think the OP is mistaking the intentions of the producers of such music, just as he is mistaking why people enjoy these types of music. He should perhaps save such 'contempt and pity' for long diatribes with his 'impressive group of friends' and save the rest of us his bile
On May 17 2010 20:22 Vegetarian Wolf wrote: As someone who listens to both classical music (a lot of it, with a passion) and heavy metal, I regretfully inform you that your opinion is wrong.
I kind of agreed with your point until you said Jay Chou was legit. I lol'ed. What, because he used to play classical piano and cello, it automatically makes him "better?" Terrible, terrible damage.
Agreed. The OP seems like one of those faux hoity toity guys who listen to classical music on super expensive sound systems while drinking wine.
OP, you're an idiot. I'm pretty sure not a single person in the world cares about your taste in music and even though you're free to let us know, it doesn't give you the right of doing so in a thread about the said musician's death. I don't even care if you're an idiot and think your musical taste is superior to anyone else's, just don't be an asshole, okay?
On May 17 2010 20:28 SCC-Faust wrote: This is all opinionated.
Learn what an opinion is. No music is superior because different people enjoy different things. Just like how you probably think receiving anal sex is absolutely inferior to giving anal sex, although some guys tend to disagree. You can't tell them they are wrong because they enjoy something different.
Epic post :D
on topic: Well, classical music is nice and Bethooven is surely great, but neglecting every other kind of music (no matter how inferior it might be) is very limiting and makes you miss on some good stuff.
The only thing I have to agree with is that rap is incredibly dumb. All those cool dudes just make me sick... The only bearable one is Eminem for the reason that he is more of a stand up comedian than a singer.
If Mona Lisa was painted today, do you think it would be the most famous painting in a few hundred years? What about Beethoven? You and your point are dumb.
The only thing worse than a classical music elitist is a metal elitist. But Dio was a fucking baller.
On May 17 2010 19:59 SoManyDeadLings wrote: Let's start with R.A.P. music, but since everyone already knows about the Retards Attempting Poetry, I rest my case.
I'm no hip hop connoisseur but statements like this just...
I'm betting you haven't investigated the genre at all. I put on some Public Enemy just for you, bro.
I guess my point is that the vast majority of popular music will not stand the test of time.
But this isn't news to anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of music.
On May 17 2010 19:59 SoManyDeadLings wrote: Let's start with R.A.P. music, but since everyone already knows about the Retards Attempting Poetry, I rest my case.
This is the exact moment when I stopped caring about your narrow minded opinion.
Regardless of the quality of music you listen to vs. the general quality of modern pop music (which I agree is poor), you greatly disrespected a man's life work on the day of his death, which is unacceptable.
Not only did you interpret your opinion as the truth, you did it in an absurdly pompous and disrespectful way.
Also, it's worth noting that if you are just trolling, you wasted a much larger portion of your life on it than anyone else in this thread.
i know this sounds excessive but i feel like saying any way of thinking is superior to another way of thinking is superior to another is kind of ridiculous, though there is a certain poetic beauty in accepting certain things as truths.
so i can't agree with your classification of classical music as the uber-genre, but i can respect your willingness to force sweet, beautiful ignorance upon yourself at only the cost of making yourself look like a massively pretentious douche.
Your blog makes as much sense as a rant about which colour is better than which.
You are the contemptible one.
On May 17 2010 21:14 flamewheel91 wrote: Also people there's no need to be abrasive.
o rly
On May 17 2010 19:59 SoManyDeadLings wrote: I lol'ed hard in contempt and pity. arrogant tone-deafs certain upbring instills so much damage on one's ability to appreciate real music
I have to agree with what OP's saying about Dio. It didn't really bother me at all that he died. Sure, a man died, that's all very sad. But 1.8 people die every second, so I'm not going to spend a day mourning about one person who's music I never listened to anyway, just because he's a well known musician.
I do, however, respect that other people are sad because of it. Of course, musicians and actors I really like have died, and I'm saddened because I know they won't make any new great songs, or star in more great movies or TV-series, but that's how life is. I'm pretty sure noone on TL knew Dio personally, and if someone here did: I'm sorry for their loss, because a friend or family member of theirs died, which really sucks for them.
Now, on the music front, I understand what OP's saying. I used to do the same thing, spend all my time at parties trying to make people give jazz and classical music a chance. I mostly don't like today's pop music, rap, rock and metal, but there are of course exceptions. Though from my experience, I'll rarely like a new musician or composer if it's not within my favorite sub-genres of the music I like. I'm then better off not listening to this music, because that'll mean that I'll have to spend most of my time listening to music I don't like - just to have a small chance of maybe finding a new song or artist I'll like.
I mostly listen to jazz, because that's music that I, as a jazz musician and fan can really appreciate. When I sit down and listen to how the great jazz musicians play, I feel all these emotions. I hear all these small strokes of genius in their playing, and understand that they've reached a level of skill few others share, and are able to explore the music as they improvise. While most music is rehearsed, and then played just the way it's written down on a piece of paper (this goes for classical music too), jazz musicians have to work from a starting point, within a large and open frame and explore the music either alone or together. That is what I like about jazz, because I can never know where the music will go. I can also say with absolute certainty that most of today's greatest jazz and classical musicians are among the masters of their instruments, at a much higher level than most pop, rock and metal artists are. This still doesn't make jazz or classical music better than any other genre, because the only person that can say what music is best - in their mind, is people themselves.
You obviously have no idea what rap and hip hop is.
You also obviously have no idea about classical music and are just a huge ... superficial airhead.
I dont see why people care if other people care that someone died. I dont expect you to care when my family members die, they dont have any meaning to you. I dont care about Dio's death, but I'll be sad when Leonard Cohen dies.
Then again, I listen to this song everyday on repeat before I start my day..
Lyrics
In the summertime when the weather is high You can stretch right up and touch the sky When the weather's fine You got women, you got women on your mind Have a drink, have a drive Go out and see what you can find
If her daddy's rich take her out for a meal If her daddy's poor just do what you feel Speed along the lane Do a ton or a ton an' twenty-five When the sun goes down You can make it, make it good in a lay-by
You're not actually trying to convince anyone, you're just venting and trying to express your feelings of superiority because of the music you listen to. Basically, you're just being a jerk. Then again, this is blogs, so whatever =o
On May 17 2010 20:33 Finskie wrote: It's all about taste. You can't say "X is better than Y" because in someone elses ears it will sound completely different.
Sure you can.
It is no different than judging the taste of two burgers: one that I made vs one that a successful chef made.
One burger is made by someone who has spent years learning the intricacies of how to blend various ingredients to create a wonderful tasting experience.
The other burger is made by a guy that can barely start a grill.
You may enjoy the simple, cheap, lowbrow burger that I made for you... but there are others that pay extra close attention to how their burgers taste, that will obviously prefer the other.
On May 17 2010 20:33 Finskie wrote: It's all about taste. You can't say "X is better than Y" because in someone elses ears it will sound completely different.
Sure you can.
I'm really glad you said that you _can_ say some music is better, because I think it really can be, it just largely depends on what you need it for.
You do understand that the two theses of your argument, (A. people don't like classical because they don't understand it or try to, and B. dio was bad even though you only gave one of their songs 60 seconds) are directly contradictory, right?
Edit: Also, you are just defining music in such a way that the music you listen to is the 'best'. To me that seems like an oversimplification.
Hold on a second, you say that "only arrogant tone-deafs could so firmly believe others to be ignorant simply because they do not appreciate certain styles of music" and then you go into a nine-paragraph-rant about how classical music is the greatest thing of all time and every other genre is utter bullshit in comparison.
So, does that mean you are the prime example of an arrogant tone-deaf?
On May 17 2010 20:33 Finskie wrote: It's all about taste. You can't say "X is better than Y" because in someone elses ears it will sound completely different.
Sure you can.
It is no different than judging the taste of two burgers: one that I made vs one that a successful chef made.
One burger is made by someone who has spent years learning the intricacies of how to blend various ingredients to create a wonderful tasting experience.
The other burger is made by a guy that can barely start a grill.
You may enjoy the simple, cheap, lowbrow burger that I made for you... but there are others that pay extra close attention to how their burgers taste, that will obviously prefer the other.
that comparison doesn't really apply but i guesssssssss if they big clause is the word can then whatever the comparison is doesn't really matter since it's opinion lol
Logically, this blog is a train wreck. You'd be better off posting opinions without trying to justify them. When you reveal your reasoning and it doesn't make sense, it looks like you were trying to prove a point or persuade someone and failed. At least with opinions, you just give your opinion and that's it. Take it or leave it.
Lemnowalrus pointed out a few major problems. The other thing I don't like is the classical-music-lover's favorite argument of "we're listening to it 200+ years later" and yet there's never any attempt to show that a die hard following proves superiority. You've got to prove that that means something. There are plenty of examples of large groups of people being wrong for hundreds of years. I'm sure some sociologists and psychologists could go on and on about why classical music has the status it does today and their explanations would have nothing to do with the music being superior to all else.
The attack on rap also kinda hurts. It's really ignorant of the genre and, to the extent that rappers do try to be poetic, I bet their success rate is similar to that of poets. If you want to participate in an exercise that will challenge your willpower, seek out some poetry web sites (I mean where anyone can submit their poetry) and try to read as much of that shit as you can without swearing off poetry for the rest of your life. Anyway, how much do you know about poetry? Have you ever had a PhD teach you any poetry? Even if you did, did you study much from 20th century? Poetry has evolved quite a bit. While poetic rappers aren't writing poetry, they're certainly doing things that are legitimate in poetry.
On May 17 2010 20:33 Finskie wrote: It's all about taste. You can't say "X is better than Y" because in someone elses ears it will sound completely different.
Sure you can.
It is no different than judging the taste of two burgers: one that I made vs one that a successful chef made.
One burger is made by someone who has spent years learning the intricacies of how to blend various ingredients to create a wonderful tasting experience.
The other burger is made by a guy that can barely start a grill.
You may enjoy the simple, cheap, lowbrow burger that I made for you... but there are others that pay extra close attention to how their burgers taste, that will obviously prefer the other.
that's a poor comparison that doesn't really apply to music, even if food does incorporate the word taste as well!
Of course it works.
You can apply the same analogy to any of the arts. The point is that there is an artist that has more talent, more experience, more creativity than me - and he made a better burger. Sure, which burger you prefer is up to you... but a knowledgeable critic can judge the quality.
For the record, I do not agree with the OP. I think he's completely clueless.
On May 17 2010 19:59 SoManyDeadLings wrote: Let's start with R.A.P. music, but since everyone already knows about the Retards Attempting Poetry, I rest my case.
How do you expect people to take you seriously when you write off an entire genre? Are you trying to tell me that you've scoured the earth for quality rap and weren't able to find any? Here are some good albums from last year in case you ever take your head out of the sand:
Raekwon - Only Built 4 Cuban Linx, Pt. 2 The People Under the Stairs - Carried Away Doom - Born Like This Madlib - Beat Konducta Vol. 5-6: A Tribute to... Dälek - Gutter Tactics
On May 17 2010 19:59 SoManyDeadLings wrote: Heavy metal, in general, puts a heavy emphasis on the speed of the music, mashes in a bunch of the simplest chords (the majority of power cords are merely just one interval, normally just the perfect fifth), employs hideously repetitive melodies and rhythms throughout entire songs and sings about the same and boring musical themes (often death, violence, and aggression).
You are so incredibly ignorant its hilarious. Metal is all about the speed of the music? Well which genre? There are LOTS of different types of metal. Drone, Sludge, or Doom are all usually slower paced. Sunn O))) has songs at 5 BPM. Most subgenres of metal employ violent or agressive themes, but not all. And there are definately acts out there with arrangements that would pique a classical composer's interest.
Quite honestly, you sound like the very person you despise: someone without much knowledge or interest in good music.
On May 17 2010 20:33 Finskie wrote: It's all about taste. You can't say "X is better than Y" because in someone elses ears it will sound completely different.
Sure you can.
It is no different than judging the taste of two burgers: one that I made vs one that a successful chef made.
One burger is made by someone who has spent years learning the intricacies of how to blend various ingredients to create a wonderful tasting experience.
The other burger is made by a guy that can barely start a grill.
You may enjoy the simple, cheap, lowbrow burger that I made for you... but there are others that pay extra close attention to how their burgers taste, that will obviously prefer the other.
that's a poor comparison that doesn't really apply to music, even if food does incorporate the word taste as well!
Of course it works.
You can apply the same analogy to any of the arts. The point is that there is an artist that has more talent, more experience, more creativity than me - and he made a better burger. Sure, which burger you prefer is up to you... but a knowledgeable critic can judge the quality.
For the record, I do not agree with the OP. I think he's completely clueless.
But you can't objectively say that the Mona Lisa was a better painting then Starry Night. Or any painting for that matter. It can be more realistic, more abstract, more complicated, more skillfully painted, more this, more that - but that's all it is. It is not "better" unless you consider those the tenets of a good painting. What everyone considers makes a "good" painting is different, and as such "good" cannot be objectively defined.
On May 17 2010 20:33 Finskie wrote: It's all about taste. You can't say "X is better than Y" because in someone elses ears it will sound completely different.
Sure you can.
It is no different than judging the taste of two burgers: one that I made vs one that a successful chef made.
One burger is made by someone who has spent years learning the intricacies of how to blend various ingredients to create a wonderful tasting experience.
The other burger is made by a guy that can barely start a grill.
You may enjoy the simple, cheap, lowbrow burger that I made for you... but there are others that pay extra close attention to how their burgers taste, that will obviously prefer the other.
that's a poor comparison that doesn't really apply to music, even if food does incorporate the word taste as well!
Of course it works.
You can apply the same analogy to any of the arts. The point is that there is an artist that has more talent, more experience, more creativity than me - and he made a better burger. Sure, which burger you prefer is up to you... but a knowledgeable critic can judge the quality.
For the record, I do not agree with the OP. I think he's completely clueless.
But you can't objectively say that the Mona Lisa was a better painting then Starry Night. Or any painting for that matter. It can be more realistic, more abstract, more complicated, more skillfully painted, more this, more that - but that's all it is. It is not "better" unless you consider those the tenets of a good painting. What everyone considers makes a "good" painting is different, and as such "good" cannot be objectively defined.
I tried writing the same thing, but I ended up not posting. You said it way better than I would have!
Umm I like classical music too, but I think you've too hastily dismissed every other genre. Good quality timeless music occur that trump shallow bs occur everywhere.
On May 17 2010 19:59 SoManyDeadLings wrote: Let's start with R.A.P. music, but since everyone already knows about the Retards Attempting Poetry, I rest my case.
You know less about poetry than you do about hip-hop and I would gladly pay for your immediate castration.
There is an objective truth to judging merits of art. However, these usualy involve diving into aesthetic and artistic philosophy etc (Adorno would be an example of someone who talks about this) and it's very difficult. Certainly, on a internet forum, it would not likely happen.
While I agree with the OP that classical music is vastly superior to other forms of music, trying to prove that objectively/logically to people with far less exposure to classical music is going to be extremely difficult and something that even seasoned thinkers would struggle to.
But there is a problem with notion that everything in art is subjective and "up to taste." While personal experiences would predispose people to certain flavors of music, there is also a distinct and objective aspect of judging the merit of art (is it important? is it "good" art?)
On May 17 2010 20:33 Finskie wrote: It's all about taste. You can't say "X is better than Y" because in someone elses ears it will sound completely different.
Sure you can.
It is no different than judging the taste of two burgers: one that I made vs one that a successful chef made.
One burger is made by someone who has spent years learning the intricacies of how to blend various ingredients to create a wonderful tasting experience.
The other burger is made by a guy that can barely start a grill.
You may enjoy the simple, cheap, lowbrow burger that I made for you... but there are others that pay extra close attention to how their burgers taste, that will obviously prefer the other.
that's a poor comparison that doesn't really apply to music, even if food does incorporate the word taste as well!
Of course it works.
You can apply the same analogy to any of the arts. The point is that there is an artist that has more talent, more experience, more creativity than me - and he made a better burger. Sure, which burger you prefer is up to you... but a knowledgeable critic can judge the quality.
For the record, I do not agree with the OP. I think he's completely clueless.
But you can't objectively say that the Mona Lisa was a better painting then Starry Night. Or any painting for that matter. It can be more realistic, more abstract, more complicated, more skillfully painted, more this, more that - but that's all it is. It is not "better" unless you consider those the tenets of a good painting. What everyone considers makes a "good" painting is different, and as such "good" cannot be objectively defined.
On May 17 2010 20:33 Finskie wrote: It's all about taste. You can't say "X is better than Y" because in someone elses ears it will sound completely different.
Sure you can.
It is no different than judging the taste of two burgers: one that I made vs one that a successful chef made.
One burger is made by someone who has spent years learning the intricacies of how to blend various ingredients to create a wonderful tasting experience.
The other burger is made by a guy that can barely start a grill.
You may enjoy the simple, cheap, lowbrow burger that I made for you... but there are others that pay extra close attention to how their burgers taste, that will obviously prefer the other.
that's a poor comparison that doesn't really apply to music, even if food does incorporate the word taste as well!
Of course it works.
You can apply the same analogy to any of the arts. The point is that there is an artist that has more talent, more experience, more creativity than me - and he made a better burger. Sure, which burger you prefer is up to you... but a knowledgeable critic can judge the quality.
For the record, I do not agree with the OP. I think he's completely clueless.
But you can't objectively say that the Mona Lisa was a better painting then Starry Night. Or any painting for that matter. It can be more realistic, more abstract, more complicated, more skillfully painted, more this, more that - but that's all it is. It is not "better" unless you consider those the tenets of a good painting. What everyone considers makes a "good" painting is different, and as such "good" cannot be objectively defined.
Comparing classical to modern pop is like comparing the Mona Lisa to the art portfolio i made in 1st grade. It's not really a matter of opinion, one is just more complex than the other.
And I feel like the OP's sc2/BW comparison makes perfect sense.
Stop drinkin the hatorade, all music has intrinsic value and should be loved by someone, somewhere
On May 17 2010 20:33 Finskie wrote: It's all about taste. You can't say "X is better than Y" because in someone elses ears it will sound completely different.
Sure you can.
It is no different than judging the taste of two burgers: one that I made vs one that a successful chef made.
One burger is made by someone who has spent years learning the intricacies of how to blend various ingredients to create a wonderful tasting experience.
The other burger is made by a guy that can barely start a grill.
You may enjoy the simple, cheap, lowbrow burger that I made for you... but there are others that pay extra close attention to how their burgers taste, that will obviously prefer the other.
that's a poor comparison that doesn't really apply to music, even if food does incorporate the word taste as well!
Of course it works.
You can apply the same analogy to any of the arts. The point is that there is an artist that has more talent, more experience, more creativity than me - and he made a better burger. Sure, which burger you prefer is up to you... but a knowledgeable critic can judge the quality.
For the record, I do not agree with the OP. I think he's completely clueless.
But you can't objectively say that the Mona Lisa was a better painting then Starry Night. Or any painting for that matter. It can be more realistic, more abstract, more complicated, more skillfully painted, more this, more that - but that's all it is. It is not "better" unless you consider those the tenets of a good painting. What everyone considers makes a "good" painting is different, and as such "good" cannot be objectively defined.
I agree that it is very much subjective when comparing two of the greatest pieces of art that humanity has produced. What answer did you expect from me?
But let me ask you this... why is the Mona Lisa on display at the Louvre museum in Paris within climate controlled conditions in a bullet-proof glass case - while your own crayon portrait of the family dog is hung on the fridge at your private residence?
It is difficult (and perhaps impossible) to compare da Vinci and van Gogh, but it becomes easier to distinguish in cases when the gap in quality is greater.
Burial - Untrue is "BETTER" than Wondergirls - So Hot
Maybe your definition of "better" does not exactly match mine... but the Louvre museum agrees with me more.
But you can't objectively say that the Mona Lisa was a better painting then Starry Night. Or any painting for that matter. It can be more realistic, more abstract, more complicated, more skillfully painted, more this, more that - but that's all it is. It is not "better" unless you consider those the tenets of a good painting. What everyone considers makes a "good" painting is different, and as such "good" cannot be objectively defined.
Since people seem to be so engrossed with this post: I have to object strongly to this notion. You are merely pointing out the superficial parameters (realism, abstraction, complexity etc) of art and saying those don't matter. Of course, they don't! No one (well the OP does, but he hasn't really thought deeply enough imo) said they do. However, this is not what we (as academics who study, analyze, and canonize art) point to to assess merit of an artwork or music. The majority of people aren't capable/don't bother to think about what really matters, because these aspects tend to be much more abstract, profound, and subtle.
So what exactly is it then? Of course, there isn't a clean consensus (there rarely is) among philosophers/academics about what it is that makes art great, but there are significant ideas that don't necessarily clash and I, also, have put much thought into it, synthesizing both what I have read and what I have experienced. Here is what I stick with at the moment: 1) Art has to say or express something. (To add a subpoint, the creator of this should earnestly believe in what he is saying, unless he is deliberately trying to create some irony etc) 2) How meaningful/interesting/original is this something? (How many times do we have to hear about a rapper croon about the "ghettos"? Was it ever meaningful for begin with?) 3) Perhaps, most important, how coherently is this something expressed? (Other ways of putting this: how effective is the rhetoric? how does it "sound" or "look" -- does it manage to communicate its message deeply and strongly to the beholder?)
Keep it mind, the third point should be perceived with great flexibility, as to cover all mediums and eras of art. For example, take an avante garde musical work expressing the confusion and illogic of the modern society. To coherently/effectively express this, ironically, we may need to express it incoherently (atonality? chance (aleatoric) music? etc)
The important point is that the most apparent parameters (music: harmony, musical style, instrumentation etc // visual art: realism, medium etc) of art only plays a part at the third part of the theory (is it coherent?) and, even then, is dependent and subjugated to the first two points.
Even with this outlined, judgment of art remains difficult. Since I am much more versed in music than in the visual arts, I can attempt this assessment on most music but struggle to do so in any other forms of art. Why is this the case? To evaluate what the art is trying to say (point 1), you need first to understand its language (the musical language = music theory + context.... the visual arts have a completely different language). This is why modern classical music is especially difficult to understand and assess; the language is complex and super-abstract (atonality, serialism etc) Second, to judge whether if that's meaningful (point 2) (once you have managed to decipher its language), you need a full understanding of its compositional background (is it important in the context of history of msuic?) and philosophy. Finally, to judge whether it is coherent (point 3), you need carefully look at its construction/details/everything to see how they culminate aesthetically/logically to express something. This requires not only deep musical analysis but also aesthetic judgments (ala Kant etc)
This great difficulty of both defining what makes art great and, then, evaluating it based on the definitions results in the majority of people completely oblivious to these profound, subtler, yet the most critical aspects of art. And this is why most people choose to just listen to "what sounds good" or look at "what looks cool." Often, what sounds beautiful happen to be good works of art (Beethoven, Mozart, arguably some Rock, electronica, jazz etc). This, of course, is not a coincidence, because art often attempts to express/speak about beauty and the sublime human experience. Unfortunately, however, this is not always the case. Often in popular music, "artists" produce soemthing that sounds cool -- due to its style, visual effect/shock/loudness/speed ("superficial parameters" referred to earlier) -- but is otherwise empty; no real meaning, no real originality, no real coherence etc.
what are you talking about... i think you have popular music and POP music grossly confused
for one example:
On May 17 2010 19:59 SoManyDeadLings wrote: Popular music in general has very little musicality in terms of harmony, dynamics, tonal variations and other musical elements.
you're a JOKE have you ever even listened to jazz? it's popular music
To the OP: I understand and sympathize with your frustration, but you are not going to convince anyone by slamming down their current favorite music. You need to reason calmly and open their eyes slowly.
But you can't objectively say that the Mona Lisa was a better painting then Starry Night. Or any painting for that matter. It can be more realistic, more abstract, more complicated, more skillfully painted, more this, more that - but that's all it is. It is not "better" unless you consider those the tenets of a good painting. What everyone considers makes a "good" painting is different, and as such "good" cannot be objectively defined.
Since people seem to be so engrossed with this post: I have to object strongly to this notion. You are merely pointing out the superficial parameters (realism, abstraction, complexity etc) of art and saying those don't matter. Of course, they don't! No one (well the OP does, but he hasn't really thought deeply enough imo) said they do. However, this is not what we (as academics who study, analyze, and canonize art) point to to assess merit of an artwork or music. The majority of people aren't capable/don't bother to think about what really matters, because these aspects tend to be much more abstract, profound, and subtle.
So what exactly is it then? Of course, there isn't a clean consensus (there rarely is) among philosophers/academics about what it is that makes art great, but there are significant ideas that don't necessarily clash and I, also, have put much thought into it, synthesizing both what I have read and what I have experienced. Here is what I stick with at the moment: 1) Art has to say or express something. (To add a subpoint, the creator of this should earnestly believe in what he is saying, unless he is deliberately trying to create some irony etc) 2) How meaningful/interesting/original is this something? (How many times do we have to hear about a rapper croon about the "ghettos"? Was it ever meaningful for begin with?) 3) Perhaps, most important, how coherently is this something expressed? (Other ways of putting this: how effective is the rhetoric? how does it "sound" or "look" -- does it manage to communicate its message deeply and strongly to the beholder?)
Keep it mind, the third point should be perceived with great flexibility, as to cover all mediums and eras of art. For example, take an avante garde musical work expressing the confusion and illogic of the modern society. To coherently/effectively express this, ironically, we may need to express it incoherently (atonality? chance (aleatoric) music? etc)
The important point is that the most apparent parameters (music: harmony, musical style, instrumentation etc // visual art: realism, medium etc) of art only plays a part at the third part of the theory (is it coherent?) and, even then, is dependent and subjugated to the first two points.
Even with this outlined, judgment of art remains difficult. Since I am much more versed in music than in the visual arts, I can attempt this assessment on most music but struggle to do so in any other forms of art. Why is this the case? To evaluate what the art is trying to say (point 1), you need first to understand its language (the musical language = music theory + context.... the visual arts have a completely different language). This is why modern classical music is especially difficult to understand and assess; the language is complex and super-abstract (atonality, serialism etc) Second, to judge whether if that's meaningful (point 2) (once you have managed to decipher its language), you need a full understanding of its compositional background (is it important in the context of history of msuic?) and philosophy. Finally, to judge whether it is coherent (point 3), you need carefully look at its construction/details/everything to see how they culminate aesthetically/logically to express something. This requires not only deep musical analysis but also aesthetic judgments (ala Kant etc)
This great difficulty of both defining what makes art great and, then, evaluating it based on the definitions results in the majority of people completely oblivious to these profound, subtler, yet the most critical aspects of art. And this is why most people choose to just listen to "what sounds good" or look at "what looks cool." Often, what sounds beautiful happen to be good works of art (Beethoven, Mozart, arguably some Rock, electronica, jazz etc). This, of course, is not a coincidence, because art often attempts to express/speak about beauty and the sublime human experience. Unfortunately, however, this is not always the case. Often in popular music, "artists" produce soemthing that sounds cool -- due to its style, visual effect/shock/loudness/speed ("superficial parameters" referred to earlier) -- but is otherwise empty; no real meaning, no real originality, no real coherence etc.
You're still judging things subjectively. You can't get away from that. Your 3 points that you say make great art are completely arbitrary. You cannot tell me that deepness/feeling/emotion/coherence in music is better than what sounds good to my ears. You could educate me about the finer points of classical music and I might come around to your way of thinking but that still doesn't make that music any better than pop, objectively.
Let me clarify a few things here: I am saying these criteria need to be met to be judged better art (whether it is music or visual art). And, when people throw out the word "better," this is what they usually intend to mean: Is it better art? This is why I did not always bother to qualify "better" as to mean "better art."
However, that's as far as it goes. If you mean "better" to only imply that its better for YOU to listen to, because you prize "what sounds good" over everything, then i agree with you. It IS better for you. However, I, and many other people, care most about whether music constitutes a great/profound art. And here, there is an aspect of subjectivity. People seek for different purposes in music.
To summarize: I believe we can objectively judge whether music is superior in terms of artistic worth. Many people seem to deny this, and that's what I have responded against in my long post. If you only value music for it's drug-like effect or purely on "what sounds good," while that's kind of sad (music can offer so much more), I cannot legitimately argue that a certain piece of classical music is better than something else (in the non-artistic sense) for you.
What OP doesn't know is that Mozart is a headbanger like no other. He wouldn't be proud of a fan like him.
What's even more complex than appreciating classical music is expressing feelings and opinions without causing rage.
Edit:
On May 18 2010 05:53 phosphorylation wrote: To the OP: I understand and sympathize with your frustration, but you are not going to convince anyone by slamming down their current favorite music. You need to reason calmly and open their eyes slowly.
the RAP joke was so uncalled for.
I'm interested in what OP know about metal. Start by listing those bearable semi-decent songs.
On May 18 2010 06:14 phosphorylation wrote: To summarize: I believe we can objectively judge whether music is superior in terms of artistic worth. Many people seem to deny this, and that's what I have responded against in my long post. If you only value music for it's drug-like effect or purely on "what sounds good," while that's kind of sad (music can offer so much more), I cannot legitimately argue that a certain piece of classical music is better (in the non-artistic sense) for you.
To make my points easier to understand: why does the Louvre take in certain pieces of art? Because they judge it to have better artistic merit. And that's what they, art critics, academics etc care about.
If you care only about what looks good or cool to you, we have a disagreement in goals and your going to the Louvre is pointless because our goals don't match in the first place. You are better (yes, better) off gawking at the colorful HDR pictures on flickr (pardon my elitism).
Somehow, your personal background -- enter "subjectivity" -- has predisposed you to care merely about the outward aesthetics of the visual medium. We pity you (because we feel that you are missing out on great things) but we acknowledge that as your preference and approach to things.
However, once you start trying to argue that your doodles are better works of art (not just, better) than that of the masters -- or worse, argue that judgment of artistic merit is all subjective or arbitrary -- then we will strike you down with all of our vengeful erudition.
On May 18 2010 06:14 phosphorylation wrote: Let me clarify a few things here: I am saying these criteria need to be met to be judged better art (whether it is music or visual art). And, when people throw out the word "better," this is what they usually intend to mean: Is it better art? This is why I did not always bother to qualify "better" as to mean "better art."
However, that's as far as it goes. If you mean "better" to only imply that its better for YOU to listen to, because you prize "what sounds good" over everything, then i agree with you. It IS better for you. However, I, and many other people, care most about whether music constitutes a great/profound art. And here, there is an aspect of subjectivity. People seek for different purposes in music.
To summarize: I believe we can objectively judge whether music is superior in terms of artistic worth. Many people seem to deny this, and that's what I have responded against in my long post. If you only value music for it's drug-like effect or purely on "what sounds good," while that's kind of sad (music can offer so much more), I cannot legitimately argue that a certain piece of classical music is better than something else (in the non-artistic sense) for you.
Ah I see. I thought you were saying that because something has artistic worth it is better than something that didn't have artistic merit, but I agree that you can judge how good a piece of art is as long as you define the criteria.
On May 18 2010 04:36 phosphorylation wrote: There is an objective truth to judging merits of art. However, these usualy involve diving into aesthetic and artistic philosophy etc (Adorno would be an example of someone who talks about this) . . .
While I agree with the OP that classical music is vastly superior to other forms of music, trying to prove that objectively/logically to people with far less exposure to classical music is going to be extremely difficult and something that even seasoned thinkers would struggle to.
But there is a problem with notion that everything in art is subjective and "up to taste." While personal experiences would predispose people to certain flavors of music, there is also a distinct and objective aspect of judging the merit of art (is it important? is it "good" art?)
If you delve into aesthetic philosophy, you'll see how antiquated Adorno and Kant's point of views are. Adorno wrote in line with Cage and Stockhausen, two very experimental composers who did so much to alter definitions of what makes music/auditory art "art," and yet committed so much ink to keeping this within a composer-performer hierarchy. Let me address your next post:
On May 18 2010 05:20 phosphorylation wrote: . . .However, this is not what we (as academics who study, analyze, and canonize art) point to to assess merit of an artwork or music. The majority of people aren't capable/don't bother to think about what really matters, because these aspects tend to be much more abstract, profound, and subtle.
So what exactly is it then? Of course, there isn't a clean consensus (there rarely is) among philosophers/academics about what it is that makes art great, but there are significant ideas that don't necessarily clash and I, also, have put much thought into it, synthesizing both what I have read and what I have experienced. Here is what I stick with at the moment: 1) Art has to say or express something. (To add a subpoint, the creator of this should earnestly believe in what he is saying, unless he is deliberately trying to create some irony etc) 2) How meaningful/interesting/original is this something? (How many times do we have to hear about a rapper croon about the "ghettos"? Was it ever meaningful for begin with?) 3) Perhaps, most important, how coherently is this something expressed? (Other ways of putting this: how effective is the rhetoric? how does it "sound" or "look" -- does it manage to communicate its message deeply and strongly to the beholder?)
Keep it mind, the third point should be perceived with great flexibility, as to cover all mediums and eras of art. For example, take an avante garde musical work expressing the confusion and illogic of the modern society. To coherently/effectively express this, ironically, we may need to express it incoherently (atonality? chance (aleatoric) music? etc)
The important point is that the most apparent parameters (music: harmony, musical style, instrumentation etc // visual art: realism, medium etc) of art only plays a part at the third part of the theory (is it coherent?) and, even then, is dependent and subjugated to the first two points.
Even with this outlined, judgment of art remains difficult. Since I am much more versed in music than in the visual arts, I can attempt this assessment on most music but struggle to do so in any other forms of art. Why is this the case? To evaluate what the art is trying to say (point 1), you need first to understand its language (the musical language = music theory + context.... the visual arts have a completely different language). This is why modern classical music is especially difficult to understand and assess; the language is complex and super-abstract (atonality, serialism etc) Second, to judge whether if that's meaningful (point 2) (once you have managed to decipher its language), you need a full understanding of its compositional background (is it important in the context of history of msuic?) and philosophy. Finally, to judge whether it is coherent (point 3), you need carefully look at its construction/details/everything to see how they culminate aesthetically/logically to express something. This requires not only deep musical analysis but also aesthetic judgments (ala Kant etc)
This great difficulty of both defining what makes art great and, then, evaluating it based on the definitions results in the majority of people completely oblivious to these profound, subtler, yet the most critical aspects of art. And this is why most people choose to just listen to "what sounds good" or look at "what looks cool." Often, what sounds beautiful happen to be good works of art (Beethoven, Mozart, arguably some Rock, electronica, jazz etc). This, of course, is not a coincidence, because art often attempts to express/speak about beauty and the sublime human experience. Unfortunately, however, this is not always the case. Often in popular music, "artists" produce soemthing that sounds cool -- due to its style, visual effect/shock/loudness/speed ("superficial parameters" referred to earlier) -- but is otherwise empty; no real meaning, no real originality, no real coherence etc.
This argument seems really similar to Immanuel Kant's argument in The Judgement of Taste, which is that, yes, taste is subjective and mandated largely by one's experiences, class, etc., but if everyone studied music, diversified their palette enough, they would all come to the same conclusions and like the same things. For Kant, this meant that you would be a wealthy 18th-century aristocrat living in Konigsburg, and for you it seems to be that they'd listen to and/or approve of classical, some rock, jazz, and "electronica" (not to be snooty or anything, but I can assure you that nobody who takes electronic music seriously uses the word "electronica"; "electronica" was mostly a buzz-word coined by the music industry in that brief period around the mid-'90s when songs like "I Got the Power" got really big).
i.e., your argument is both elitist and circular. On one hand, you gripe about rappers constantly talking about ghettos (betraying two levels of misunderstanding, because there's a lot of hip-hop that doesn't talk about ghettos, and there's a lot of meaning when rappers do talk about where they come from), implying that this effectively renders hip-hop/rap as not art. But you evoke classical music, itself a synecdoche of a larger aristocratization of art over countless centuries, where art was produced by artists in patronage to the aristocracy and for their immediate pleasure - poetic, musical, or otherwise. I mean, the counterpoint to your argument would be Slim Thug saying, Man, how long do I have to listen to Hendel, read Keats, and look at Monet play, write about, and paint nature? Damn, how long do I gotta read Shakespeare, listen to Mozart, and look at [here my relative ignorance to visual art before modernism betrays me] write about, play, and paint drama between kings and queens and kingdoms?
i.e. it betrays a staggering generalization on your part. These same criteria for what makes art "art," or what makes music "art," were applied to jazz from the 1920s onward by Adorno, Cage, and Stockhausen. Cage and Stockhausen put so much ink and thought into stating just why their aleatoric works, their visual scores, were not "improvised." They were "scores" given by a "composer" to the "performer" who played the composer's score, thereby retaining the same centuries-old hierarchy as before. Even if said score was an abstract-impressionist painting and Cage handed it to a pianist and said, "play that." Cage argues that this is still his score, that the performer is not improvising, and that the work in question is "a score that is indeterminate with respect to its performance."
If your whole argument on the existence of an objective standard of taste hinges on a certain method that is itself reliant on the listener making aesthetic judgements, then your whole method of objectivity falls apart. Pierrot lunaire, yes, is highly original, says something very significant with its atonal gestures, and says it so coherently because the entire piece is atonal. Bingo! Work of art. In a Silent Way, sure, is original in its usage of studio manipulation, gestures explicitly towards a future of jazz fusion, and is a coherent work of art in its nearly undetectable studio synthesis. Bingo! Work of art. And "Biology" by Girls Aloud is highly original in its polytonal composition and synthesis of musical genres, is highly coherent (it's like Charles Ives producing the Spice Girls if the Spice Girls could actually emote), and is highly original as a result. "The Int'l Player's Anthem (I Choose You)" by UGK featuring OutKast takes a familiar sample and transforms it into a piece of heraldry with significance outside the work (e.g. UGK is back on a track with OutKast and Three 6 Mafia; the kings of southern hip-hop are together), combining a beatless introductory verse from Andre 3000, a chopped and screwed verse from Big Boi, and boistrous, untouched, strong verses from Bun B and Pimp C, and combines this all into a track that's less than five minutes in length. And there's nothing there about the ghetto.
There is no objective standard of taste. Pierre Bourdieu wrote in Distinction: A Critique of the Judgement of Taste that art functions as cultural capital, to be combined with social and fiscal capital, in one's construction of their identity. People will like what they like, but they will be inclined towards liking one thing over another thing based on their faculties of "distinction." e.g. those kids over there are dumb gangsters whose parents have a six-figure income. Who are they fooling? They like 50 Cent .: I do not like 50 Cent. In that situation, I have distinguished between what I want to be and who I don't want to be, and 50 Cent functions as cultural capital there.
Here's a better example: I am a waifish kid in the 9th grade who really likes Celine Dion. Like, seriously likes Celine Dion. 4GB of my 8GB iPod Nano are made up of Celine Dion albums, live and in studio. She is my top played artist on last.fm by a few thousand tracks. I can sing "It's All Coming Back To Me Now" like it's my last name. It's the first day of high school, and I notice the kids with piercings, black hair, torn black denim jackets with Slayer patches on them, and I think "whoa, those kids are cool." However, I also realize that they probably don't like Celine Dion, and that the fact that I do would likely result in many months of weggieing and stolen lunch money. As a result, I start to dress like them, listen to Slayer, and talk like them; I also stop listening to Celine Dion.
That is not to say that everything is just a pose, or that taste entirely reinforces social and economic class systems (Bourdieu, a Marxist, argues this), but this is how people tend to construct notions of good taste versus bad taste.
(Disclaimer: what I just wrote is a very, very, very, very simplified and generalized depiction of Bourdieu's theories. Please read them yourself rather than solely taking my word for it.)
On May 18 2010 05:10 ProTech_MediC wrote: . . .But let me ask you this... why is the Mona Lisa on display at the Louvre museum in Paris within climate controlled conditions in a bullet-proof glass case - while your own crayon portrait of the family dog is hung on the fridge at your private residence?
It is difficult (and perhaps impossible) to compare da Vinci and van Gogh, but it becomes easier to distinguish in cases when the gap in quality is greater.
Burial - Untrue is "BETTER" than Wondergirls - So Hot
Maybe your definition of "better" does not exactly match mine... but the Louvre museum agrees with me more.
Not much to say beyond what I just said, but I wanted to point out that in even elementary logic this is fallacious reasoning. It's an appeal to authority.
The reason why the "Mona Lisa" is in the Louvre museum is because it's a museum and therefore will probably not care very much about my friend's year old photography/painting/visual art/performance art/whatever that was installation.
But maybe in two hundred years we'll get to see the liner notes to the Gee single on display in some museum in Seoul.
On May 18 2010 06:38 jon arbuckle wrote: But maybe in two hundred years we'll get to see the liner notes to the Gee single on display in some museum in Seoul.
I don't think the chances are very good for a respectable museum to preserve that track for future generations on the basis of its artistic merit.
On May 18 2010 04:36 phosphorylation wrote: There is an objective truth to judging merits of art. However, these usualy involve diving into aesthetic and artistic philosophy etc (Adorno would be an example of someone who talks about this) . . .
While I agree with the OP that classical music is vastly superior to other forms of music, trying to prove that objectively/logically to people with far less exposure to classical music is going to be extremely difficult and something that even seasoned thinkers would struggle to.
But there is a problem with notion that everything in art is subjective and "up to taste." While personal experiences would predispose people to certain flavors of music, there is also a distinct and objective aspect of judging the merit of art (is it important? is it "good" art?)
If you delve into aesthetic philosophy, you'll see how antiquated Adorno and Kant's point of views are. Adorno wrote in line with Cage and Stockhausen, two very experimental composers who did so much to alter definitions of what makes music/auditory art "art," and yet committed so much ink to keeping this within a composer-performer hierarchy. Let me address your next post:
On May 18 2010 05:20 phosphorylation wrote: . . .However, this is not what we (as academics who study, analyze, and canonize art) point to to assess merit of an artwork or music. The majority of people aren't capable/don't bother to think about what really matters, because these aspects tend to be much more abstract, profound, and subtle.
So what exactly is it then? Of course, there isn't a clean consensus (there rarely is) among philosophers/academics about what it is that makes art great, but there are significant ideas that don't necessarily clash and I, also, have put much thought into it, synthesizing both what I have read and what I have experienced. Here is what I stick with at the moment: 1) Art has to say or express something. (To add a subpoint, the creator of this should earnestly believe in what he is saying, unless he is deliberately trying to create some irony etc) 2) How meaningful/interesting/original is this something? (How many times do we have to hear about a rapper croon about the "ghettos"? Was it ever meaningful for begin with?) 3) Perhaps, most important, how coherently is this something expressed? (Other ways of putting this: how effective is the rhetoric? how does it "sound" or "look" -- does it manage to communicate its message deeply and strongly to the beholder?)
Keep it mind, the third point should be perceived with great flexibility, as to cover all mediums and eras of art. For example, take an avante garde musical work expressing the confusion and illogic of the modern society. To coherently/effectively express this, ironically, we may need to express it incoherently (atonality? chance (aleatoric) music? etc)
The important point is that the most apparent parameters (music: harmony, musical style, instrumentation etc // visual art: realism, medium etc) of art only plays a part at the third part of the theory (is it coherent?) and, even then, is dependent and subjugated to the first two points.
Even with this outlined, judgment of art remains difficult. Since I am much more versed in music than in the visual arts, I can attempt this assessment on most music but struggle to do so in any other forms of art. Why is this the case? To evaluate what the art is trying to say (point 1), you need first to understand its language (the musical language = music theory + context.... the visual arts have a completely different language). This is why modern classical music is especially difficult to understand and assess; the language is complex and super-abstract (atonality, serialism etc) Second, to judge whether if that's meaningful (point 2) (once you have managed to decipher its language), you need a full understanding of its compositional background (is it important in the context of history of msuic?) and philosophy. Finally, to judge whether it is coherent (point 3), you need carefully look at its construction/details/everything to see how they culminate aesthetically/logically to express something. This requires not only deep musical analysis but also aesthetic judgments (ala Kant etc)
This great difficulty of both defining what makes art great and, then, evaluating it based on the definitions results in the majority of people completely oblivious to these profound, subtler, yet the most critical aspects of art. And this is why most people choose to just listen to "what sounds good" or look at "what looks cool." Often, what sounds beautiful happen to be good works of art (Beethoven, Mozart, arguably some Rock, electronica, jazz etc). This, of course, is not a coincidence, because art often attempts to express/speak about beauty and the sublime human experience. Unfortunately, however, this is not always the case. Often in popular music, "artists" produce soemthing that sounds cool -- due to its style, visual effect/shock/loudness/speed ("superficial parameters" referred to earlier) -- but is otherwise empty; no real meaning, no real originality, no real coherence etc.
This argument seems really similar to Immanuel Kant's argument in The Judgement of Taste, which is that, yes, taste is subjective and mandated largely by one's experiences, class, etc., but if everyone studied music, diversified their palette enough, they would all come to the same conclusions and like the same things. For Kant, this meant that you would be a wealthy 18th-century aristocrat living in Konigsburg, and for you it seems to be that they'd listen to and/or approve of classical, some rock, jazz, and "electronica" (not to be snooty or anything, but I can assure you that nobody who takes electronic music seriously uses the word "electronica"; "electronica" was mostly a buzz-word coined by the music industry in that brief period around the mid-'90s when songs like "I Got the Power" got really big).
i.e., your argument is both elitist and circular. On one hand, you gripe about rappers constantly talking about ghettos (betraying two levels of misunderstanding, because there's a lot of hip-hop that doesn't talk about ghettos, and there's a lot of meaning when rappers do talk about where they come from), implying that this effectively renders hip-hop/rap as not art. But you evoke classical music, itself a synecdoche of a larger aristocratization of art over countless centuries, where art was produced by artists in patronage to the aristocracy and for their immediate pleasure - poetic, musical, or otherwise. I mean, the counterpoint to your argument would be Slim Thug saying, Man, how long do I have to listen to Hendel, read Keats, and look at Monet play, write about, and paint nature? Damn, how long do I gotta read Shakespeare, listen to Mozart, and look at [here my relative ignorance to visual art before modernism betrays me] write about, play, and paint drama between kings and queens and kingdoms?
i.e. it betrays a staggering generalization on your part. These same criteria for what makes art "art," or what makes music "art," were applied to jazz from the 1920s onward by Adorno, Cage, and Stockhausen. Cage and Stockhausen put so much ink and thought into stating just why their aleatoric works, their visual scores, were not "improvised." They were "scores" given by a "composer" to the "performer" who played the composer's score, thereby retaining the same centuries-old hierarchy as before. Even if said score was an abstract-impressionist painting and Cage handed it to a pianist and said, "play that." Cage argues that this is still his score, that the performer is not improvising, and that the work in question is "a score that is indeterminate with respect to its performance."
If your whole argument on the existence of an objective standard of taste hinges on a certain method that is itself reliant on the listener making aesthetic judgements, then your whole method of objectivity falls apart. Pierrot lunaire, yes, is highly original, says something very significant with its atonal gestures, and says it so coherently because the entire piece is atonal. Bingo! Work of art. In a Silent Way, sure, is original in its usage of studio manipulation, gestures explicitly towards a future of jazz fusion, and is a coherent work of art in its nearly undetectable studio synthesis. Bingo! Work of art. And "Biology" by Girls Aloud is highly original in its polytonal composition and synthesis of musical genres, is highly coherent (it's like Charles Ives producing the Spice Girls if the Spice Girls could actually emote), and is highly original as a result. "The Int'l Player's Anthem (I Choose You)" by UGK featuring OutKast takes a familiar sample and transforms it into a piece of heraldry with significance outside the work (e.g. UGK is back on a track with OutKast and Three 6 Mafia; the kings of southern hip-hop are together), combining a beatless introductory verse from Andre 3000, a chopped and screwed verse from Big Boi, and boistrous, untouched, strong verses from Bun B and Pimp C, and combines this all into a track that's less than five minutes in length. And there's nothing there about the ghetto.
There is no objective standard of taste. Pierre Bourdieu wrote in Distinction: A Critique of the Judgement of Taste that art functions as cultural capital, to be combined with social and fiscal capital, in one's construction of their identity. People will like what they like, but they will be inclined towards liking one thing over another thing based on their faculties of "distinction." e.g. those kids over there are dumb gangsters whose parents have a six-figure income. Who are they fooling? They like 50 Cent .: I do not like 50 Cent. In that situation, I have distinguished between what I want to be and who I don't want to be, and 50 Cent functions as cultural capital there.
Here's a better example: I am a waifish kid in the 9th grade who really likes Celine Dion. Like, seriously likes Celine Dion. 4GB of my 8GB iPod Nano are made up of Celine Dion albums, live and in studio. She is my top played artist on last.fm by a few thousand tracks. I can sing "It's All Coming Back To Me Now" like it's my last name. It's the first day of high school, and I notice the kids with piercings, black hair, torn black denim jackets with Slayer patches on them, and I think "whoa, those kids are cool." However, I also realize that they probably don't like Celine Dion, and that the fact that I do would likely result in many months of weggieing and stolen lunch money. As a result, I start to dress like them, listen to Slayer, and talk like them; I also stop listening to Celine Dion.
That is not to say that everything is just a pose, or that taste entirely reinforces social and economic class systems (Bourdieu, a Marxist, argues this), but this is how people tend to construct notions of good taste versus bad taste.
(Disclaimer: what I just wrote is a very, very, very, very simplified and generalized depiction of Bourdieu's theories. Please read them yourself rather than solely taking my word for it.)
On May 18 2010 05:10 ProTech_MediC wrote: . . .But let me ask you this... why is the Mona Lisa on display at the Louvre museum in Paris within climate controlled conditions in a bullet-proof glass case - while your own crayon portrait of the family dog is hung on the fridge at your private residence?
It is difficult (and perhaps impossible) to compare da Vinci and van Gogh, but it becomes easier to distinguish in cases when the gap in quality is greater.
Burial - Untrue is "BETTER" than Wondergirls - So Hot
Maybe your definition of "better" does not exactly match mine... but the Louvre museum agrees with me more.
Not much to say beyond what I just said, but I wanted to point out that in even elementary logic this is fallacious reasoning. It's an appeal to authority.
The reason why the "Mona Lisa" is in the Louvre museum is because it's a museum and therefore will probably not care very much about my friend's year old photography/painting/visual art/performance art/whatever that was installation.
But maybe in two hundred years we'll get to see the liner notes to the Gee single on display in some museum in Seoul.
Your rebuttal is pretty thoughtfully written but I object to almost everything in it. I am pretty tired (and really should be studying for a chem midterm instead) so I will only quickly respond to few things that stand out to me: Not really an objection, but I am actually surprised and almost proud that my argument is similar to that of Kant in that book that mentioned, because I have never read that book (or read much of Kant at all). Hell, if I am unconsciously thinking along the similar lines as Cage, Stockhausen, Adorno, or Kant as you say, even if my notions are wrong (I don't think they are), that's a pretty good company to be with! You keep getting hinged on specific examples I provide and criticize the narrow, bourgeoisie context it roots from. However, philosophers aren't that myopic (they are great thinkers after all) and neither am I. These criteria can be fairly used to judge anything, ranging from the classical canon of the 18 and 19th century; to the experimental music of Cage, Stockhausen etc; and to rap and hip hop.
When I provided my examples about ghetto rap, for the convenience, I simplified my general criticism of it and that was picked up by you. I agree with you: rap doesn't always talk about the ghettos and there can be important things that can be said about where the rappers come from. However, I was providing a specific example of ghetto rap (therefore, nullifying your first criticism) and pointing out that they, almost always, have nothing original or meaningful to say about the ghettos, not to mention, how naively and carelessly they express their message.
Funny thing is, I really like Outkast and Andre 3000 that you mention as a counter example. And, as you have conveniently done for me, his music often can be judged favorably (ie it is good art) in the criteria I have provided, unlike most other rap. So, frankly, I am not really sure what you are arguing against here. My (and other philosopher's) criteria may seem like they have elitist roots (well, but no one else really bothers to think about these stuff) but the ideas spawned have a universal truth to them.
You refer to Bourdieu. I won't really bother arguing against his critique because I need to reserve my brain power for the upcoming midterm. But I would like to point out that he is also a critic and a thinker just like Kant and Adorno are. If you are going to argue that his views are more legitimate because they are more recent.... well, that's just stupid.
On May 18 2010 07:14 phosphorylation wrote: Not really an objection, but I am actually surprised and almost proud that my argument is similar to that of Kant in that book that mentioned, because I have never read that book (or read much of Kant at all). Hell, if I am unconsciously thinking along the similar lines as Cage, Stockhausen, Adorno, or Kant as you say, even if my notions are wrong (I don't think they are), that's a pretty good company to be with! You keep getting hinged on specific examples I provide and criticize the narrow, bourgeoisie context it roots from. However, philosophers aren't that myopic (they are great thinkers after all) and neither am I. These criteria can be fairly used to judge anything, ranging from the classical canon of the 18 and 19th century; to the experimental music of Cage, Stockhausen etc; and to rap and hip hop.
Just because it's Kant, Cage, Stockhausen, or Adorno arguing something doesn't necessarily mean that it's a great argument, or that it's not stupid, boneheaded, and wrong.
Your criteria isn't great if it intends to postulate an objective process by which to judge something. If you want to use it to critique art from your own perspective, keeping in mind the tenuousness and subjectivity involved in doing that kind of qualitative, good/bad assessment, go for it. But don't use it to insist that there is an objective standard in play (you certainly haven't introduced one, especially to support the notion of classical music standing above all other forms of music).
On May 18 2010 07:14 phosphorylation wrote: When I provided my examples about ghetto rap, for the convenience, I simplified my general criticism of it and that was picked up by you. I agree with you: rap doesn't always talk about the ghettos and there can be important things that can be said about where the rappers come from. However, I was providing a specific example of ghetto rap (therefore, nullifying your first criticism) and pointing out that they, almost always, have nothing original or meaningful to say about the ghettos, not to mention, how naively and carelessly they express their message.
No, see, you didn't provide a specific example. You said "how many times do we have to hear rappers croon [?] about ghettos? Was it ever meaningful to begin with?" Carelessness and naivete never played into it. And you haven't nullified anything when you say things like:
On May 18 2010 07:14 phosphorylation wrote: Funny thing is, I really like Outkast and Andre 3000 that you mention as a counter example. And, as you have conveniently done for me, his music often can be judged favorably (ie it is good art) in the criteria I have provided, unlike most other rap.
Give me some examples about what you mean when you discuss mediocre "ghetto rap."
On May 18 2010 07:14 phosphorylation wrote: So, frankly, I am not really sure what you are arguing against here. My (and other philosopher's) criteria may seem like they have elitist roots (well, but no one else really bothers to think about these stuff) but the ideas spawned have a universal truth to them.
I'm arguing against the idea that classical is to be judged as greater than hip-hop or rock or whatever on some objective scale that you say exists and I say doesn't. You're backpedalling on your argument.
I would also advise you drop the elitism; a lot of people think of these things, as evidence by this topic and the general frequency of blogs about music on TL.net, not to mention other areas of the Internet.
On May 18 2010 07:14 phosphorylation wrote: You refer to Bourdieu. I won't really bother arguing against his critique because I need to reserve my brain power for the upcoming midterm. But I would like to point out that he is also a critic and a thinker just like Kant and Adorno are. If you are going to argue that his views are more legitimate because they are more recent.... well, that's just stupid.
Oh, I didn't know he was also a critic and a thinker. Thanks for pointing that out.
On May 18 2010 07:14 phosphorylation wrote: Not really an objection, but I am actually surprised and almost proud that my argument is similar to that of Kant in that book that mentioned, because I have never read that book (or read much of Kant at all). Hell, if I am unconsciously thinking along the similar lines as Cage, Stockhausen, Adorno, or Kant as you say, even if my notions are wrong (I don't think they are), that's a pretty good company to be with! You keep getting hinged on specific examples I provide and criticize the narrow, bourgeoisie context it roots from. However, philosophers aren't that myopic (they are great thinkers after all) and neither am I. These criteria can be fairly used to judge anything, ranging from the classical canon of the 18 and 19th century; to the experimental music of Cage, Stockhausen etc; and to rap and hip hop.
Just because it's Kant, Cage, Stockhausen, or Adorno arguing something doesn't necessarily mean that it's a great argument, or that it's not stupid, boneheaded, and wrong.
Your criteria isn't great if it intends to postulate an objective process by which to judge something. If you want to use it to critique art from your own perspective, keeping in mind the tenuousness and subjectivity involved in doing that kind of qualitative, good/bad assessment, go for it. But don't use it to insist that there is an objective standard in play (you certainly haven't introduced one, especially to support the notion of classical music standing above all other forms of music).
On May 18 2010 07:14 phosphorylation wrote: When I provided my examples about ghetto rap, for the convenience, I simplified my general criticism of it and that was picked up by you. I agree with you: rap doesn't always talk about the ghettos and there can be important things that can be said about where the rappers come from. However, I was providing a specific example of ghetto rap (therefore, nullifying your first criticism) and pointing out that they, almost always, have nothing original or meaningful to say about the ghettos, not to mention, how naively and carelessly they express their message.
No, see, you didn't provide a specific example. You said "how many times do we have to hear rappers croon [?] about ghettos? Was it ever meaningful to begin with?" Carelessness and naivete never played into it. And you haven't nullified anything when you say things like:
On May 18 2010 07:14 phosphorylation wrote: Funny thing is, I really like Outkast and Andre 3000 that you mention as a counter example. And, as you have conveniently done for me, his music often can be judged favorably (ie it is good art) in the criteria I have provided, unlike most other rap.
Give me some examples about what you mean when you discuss mediocre "ghetto rap."
On May 18 2010 07:14 phosphorylation wrote: So, frankly, I am not really sure what you are arguing against here. My (and other philosopher's) criteria may seem like they have elitist roots (well, but no one else really bothers to think about these stuff) but the ideas spawned have a universal truth to them.
I'm arguing against the idea that classical is to be judged as greater than hip-hop or rock or whatever on some objective scale that you say exists and I say doesn't. You're backpedalling on your argument.
I would also advise you drop the elitism; a lot of people think of these things, as evidence by this topic and the general frequency of blogs about music on TL.net, not to mention other areas of the Internet.
On May 18 2010 07:14 phosphorylation wrote: You refer to Bourdieu. I won't really bother arguing against his critique because I need to reserve my brain power for the upcoming midterm. But I would like to point out that he is also a critic and a thinker just like Kant and Adorno are. If you are going to argue that his views are more legitimate because they are more recent.... well, that's just stupid.
Oh, I didn't know he was also a critic and a thinker. Thanks for pointing that out.
Good luck on your midterm.
Um, you are starting to sound more elitist than I am. Forget your indignation about how people say classical is superior to rap; although I believe that pieces from the classical repertoire, by and large, tend to be worth more artistically than rap songs, that wasn't my point and I wasn't even arguing for that in my posts.
I presented a theory that I have -- yes, personally -- carefully devised from my reception from all kinds of music and arts; this happens to be quite similar, as you admit, to ideas put forth by many philosophers and musicologists from different times and backgrounds. This is why I am more convinced that there is a universal truth to what I have proposed.
This seems to be your main argument questioning the objectivity of the criteria I put forth: "Your criteria isn't great if it intends to postulate an objective process by which to judge something. If you want to use it to critique art from your own perspective, keeping in mind the tenuousness and subjectivity involved in doing that kind of qualitative, good/bad assessment, go for it." Despite the rather convoluted, awkward syntax, you aren't actualyl saying very much here. Let me paraphrase that for you. "Your criteria is not good because it tries to objectively judge something." Hmm, so what exactly is bad about trying to objectively judge something? You aren't really arguing against me, rather just flat out denying what I have proposed. Next, "Go ahead critque art from your perspective, if you keep in mind the "baselessness" and subjectivity involved in this kind of critique."
Again, there is barely an argument to be formed here. I propose a fairly logical -- which also happens to be consistent with what is often considered good art music, stuff in the museums, textbooks etc -- argument sculpted carefully from my experiences as a musician, student learning philosophy, music etc. I have already admitted my criteria are more abstract, subtle, and difficult to grasp than the most obvious parameters , but there is still something objective and universal to hold on to there -- and many thinkers share a similar view. In other words, the whole history of music and arts is my evidence, plus the theories that branched from important thinkers (ie it's not tenuous). Any problem of the kind of subjectivity that you caution against roots from a weakness of knowledge, but this is why people study and why I and, other better-learned thinkers, attempt hard to formulate an objective criteria despite the inevitably imperfect (less imperfect than others, however) knowledge of music and the arts that one has
This is actually starting to sound a lot like the Kant theory that you described, which is fine, because you haven't really provided a satisfactory objection to it. You argue that the definition comes from bourgeois context and is too narrow and therefore automatically disqualifies rap/hip hop as not-art. Um, that's maybe what Kant was suggesting (I doubt it) but certainly, my definitions are much more universal and general than what you are fretting over. In other words, rap and hiphop can be art and sometimes are (for example, you provided Andre 3000, which I agreed that it was decent art)
Also, you misunderstand me when I said I provided "examples of ghetto rap." Admittedly, I was slightly careless with the words there but I meant to just point to ghetto rap as an example of a genre that oftens spews trite message (and hence fails to be good art) Do you still want literal examples? Basically almost any mainstream rap from around 2003 fit the bill.
i get more enjoyment from hip hop guys like fat jon, mf doom, nujabes etc. than i do from classical guys, so why should i listen to 'real music?' people can argue the artistic perspective all day, and it may have merit, but personally i just want something nice to listen to. im not going to abandon something that sounds nice to me because it's not real or artistic enough
On May 18 2010 09:31 JohnColtrane wrote: i get more enjoyment from hip hop guys like fat jon, mf doom, nujabes etc. than i do from classical guys, so why should i listen to 'real music?' people can argue the artistic perspective all day, and it may have merit, but personally i just want something nice to listen to. im not going to abandon something that sounds nice to me because it's not real or artistic enough
Completely legitimate view. As I mentioned in my post, I sort of pity of you because I feel like you are missing out on better musical experience, but if this is what you seek in music, so be it.
i think the difference for me is that i see music as an accompaniment to other things in life, whether that be gaming or exercise or just buzzing out on msn. its not really the focus, its just something that sounds nice in the background - something simple and uncomplicated, like this:
phosphorylation - it's really comforting to see you fighting the good fight in this thread. For a while it looked like the thread was going to totally disintegrate into 'I like what I what I like and everything's utterly subjective'.
Someone said that just because Kant and Adorno said something doesn't mean it's right. Well of course it doesn't. But it's not just them...nearly every philosopher or serious thinker on art puts artists like Shakespeare, Mozart or Picasso far above your average 'pop artists' for many many compelling reasons. I'm happy to make an 'appeal to the authority' of the greatest thinkers in human history - I certainly trust them more then anyone I've met who's still alive. And actually, all the smartest people I've met agree with the philosophers...
People describe elitists as very proud people, but I think it's the opposite. I'm rejecting my own pride, and admitting my teenage self was unsurprisingly, very wrong about what the important things in life are. Sticking to my ill-thought out principles would have been stupid.
On May 18 2010 09:31 JohnColtrane wrote: i get more enjoyment from hip hop guys like fat jon, mf doom, nujabes etc. than i do from classical guys, so why should i listen to 'real music?' people can argue the artistic perspective all day, and it may have merit, but personally i just want something nice to listen to. im not going to abandon something that sounds nice to me because it's not real or artistic enough
Completely legitimate view. As I mentioned in my post, I sort of pity of you because I feel like you are missing out on better musical experience, but if this is what you seek in music, so be it.
Yayayaya so?.. music is music.. who care what is better or worse.. stop being so elitist.. and also the 5th is pritty shitty in terms of classical music.. there are much more complex and amazing stuff out there..
No problem with last few posts. I just hope that you recognize there exists music that can do a lot more than "pump you up before playing sports", make you feel good etc.. and perhaps, sometime, you can spare some time to delve into it. You will be rewarded.
Calling the 5th beethoven symphony "pritty shitty." Hmm, it's still pretty damn good in my opinion although, yes, Beethoven has composed more complex and arguably superior works later in his life.
On May 18 2010 12:48 phosphorylation wrote: No problem with last few posts. I just hope that you recognize there exists music that can do a lot more than "pump you up before playing sports", make you feel good etc.. and perhaps, sometime, you can spare some time to delve into it. You will be rewarded.
Calling the 5th beethoven symphony "pritty shitty." Hmm, it's still pretty damn good in my opinion although, yes, Beethoven has composed more complex and arguably superior works later in his life.
I think you are ignoring the repeated argument that just because you feel like the reasons you like the music you like are 'more' important than that of others doesn't make it so, it just makes you condescending.
On May 18 2010 11:45 Tal wrote: phosphorylation - it's really comforting to see you fighting the good fight in this thread. For a while it looked like the thread was going to totally disintegrate into 'I like what I what I like and everything's utterly subjective'.
Someone said that just because Kant and Adorno said something doesn't mean it's right. Well of course it doesn't. But it's not just them...nearly every philosopher or serious thinker on art puts artists like Shakespeare, Mozart or Picasso far above your average 'pop artists' for many many compelling reasons. I'm happy to make an 'appeal to the authority' of the greatest thinkers in human history - I certainly trust them more then anyone I've met who's still alive. And actually, all the smartest people I've met agree with the philosophers...
People describe elitists as very proud people, but I think it's the opposite. I'm rejecting my own pride, and admitting my teenage self was unsurprisingly, very wrong about what the important things in life are. Sticking to my ill-thought out principles would have been stupid.
So you let other people decide what artforms are worth your attention on the grounds that they're smart and know better? Thats fucking spineless
If you agree with their thoughts on what constitutes worthwhile art, well excellent, but if you're too stupid to make your own call on the matter... Then who are you to judge at all about who is a good authority on the subject
What's in it for YOU to follow these Serious Thinkers (whoever they are) on what makes art good?
Also - I'm a preetty serious thinker and I'm telling you that Rainbow is far above your average pop artists, so listen to Rainbow
But, my reasons for liking music IS arguably more "legitimate" than merely liking the music for catchiness, helping you fall asleep, how it makes you feel -- at the instinctual level (music as drug), etc Why? Because most composers (who actually devote their lives to creating music) have this goal -- to create good pieces of art, not some musical drug -- in mind when they create their work. Listeners should respect that; and certainly, I do and so did the academics and philosophers over history.
On May 18 2010 11:45 Tal wrote: phosphorylation - it's really comforting to see you fighting the good fight in this thread. For a while it looked like the thread was going to totally disintegrate into 'I like what I what I like and everything's utterly subjective'.
Someone said that just because Kant and Adorno said something doesn't mean it's right. Well of course it doesn't. But it's not just them...nearly every philosopher or serious thinker on art puts artists like Shakespeare, Mozart or Picasso far above your average 'pop artists' for many many compelling reasons. I'm happy to make an 'appeal to the authority' of the greatest thinkers in human history - I certainly trust them more then anyone I've met who's still alive. And actually, all the smartest people I've met agree with the philosophers...
People describe elitists as very proud people, but I think it's the opposite. I'm rejecting my own pride, and admitting my teenage self was unsurprisingly, very wrong about what the important things in life are. Sticking to my ill-thought out principles would have been stupid.
So you let other people decide what artforms are worth your attention on the grounds that they're smart and know better? Thats fucking spineless
If you agree with their thoughts on what constitutes worthwhile art, well excellent, but if you're too stupid to make your own call on the matter... Then who are you to judge at all about who is a good authority on the subject
What's in it for YOU to follow these Serious Thinkers (whoever they are) on what makes art good?
Also - I'm a preetty serious thinker and I'm telling you that Rainbow is far above your average pop artists, so listen to Rainbow
You actually don't have much of an argument here. If Tal does admit that he is not smart enough to formulate a thorough philosophy/aesthetic judgment on the matter(I don't think he says this but to prove a point) and instead reads and believes the ideas of the famous thinkers, as stupid as he may seem to you, he is still much smarter than the fools who attempt to formulate their own aesthetic theory (and they will usually miss the mark completely) just for the sake of avoiding seeming "spineless."
On May 18 2010 13:05 Lemonwalrus wrote: You are an asshat.
I wrote out a long response at first, but the above is really the only thing that wasn't beating a dead horse.
cheers.
Nice one. I gave you a legitimate objection (that creators of music strive to create good art) and you hurl an insult like a schoolboy. Are you admitting defeat?
I don't think respecting expertise is spineless. I respect the expertise of doctors, scientists and professional chefs, why not philosophers? They know more than I know.
To use your language, I was too stupid to realise that classical music was superior. Now, through following these thinkers advice, I feel very different. Whats in it for me? Well I never enjoyed music as much as I do know. To use language which is ill-suited for an internet forum, I often feel profound joy when listening to these great works. Even though I love rock/pop/jazz music, they never did that for me.
On May 18 2010 13:05 Lemonwalrus wrote: You are an asshat.
I wrote out a long response at first, but the above is really the only thing that wasn't beating a dead horse.
cheers.
Nice one. I gave you a legitimate objection (that creators of music strive to create good art) and you hurl an insult like a schoolboy. Are you admitting defeat?
You gave an objection that has been addressed several times in the thread and that nobody has offered a response to on your side of the argument. Why do you get to arbitrarily choose the definition of what makes good music just so that it suits your personal taste? And I'm sure you will just quote some critic on mozart or end with the sentence about how academics and philosophers like the music you do more than rap (or any genre, i just picked this one because of the op) so it is obviously better, which is just avoiding the question yet again. I hurled an insult because at this point you are either trolling or too elitist in your beliefs for anything else to get any response that has any meaning, so the only thing I had left to voice was my opinion of you. I shouldn't have gotten involved in this thread and I regret it.
On May 18 2010 13:05 Lemonwalrus wrote: You are an asshat.
I wrote out a long response at first, but the above is really the only thing that wasn't beating a dead horse.
cheers.
Nice one. I gave you a legitimate objection (that creators of music strive to create good art) and you hurl an insult like a schoolboy. Are you admitting defeat?
You gave an objection that has been addressed several times in the thread and that nobody has offered a response to on your side of the argument. Why do you get to arbitrarily choose the definition of what makes good music just so that it suits your personal taste? And I'm sure you will just quote some critic on mozart or end with the sentence about how academics and philosophers like the music you do more than rap so it is obviously better, which is just avoiding the question yet again. I hurled an insult because at this point you are either trolling or too elitist in your beliefs for anything else to get any response that has any meaning, so the only thing I had left to voice was my opinion of you. I shouldn't have gotten involved in this thread and I regret it.
You haven't been reading my posts carefully. I never said certain music is objectively better for everyone; different people seek different things in music. And i respect that. What I have said, however, is that certain music is objectively better as a work of art than others. To me and many other people, this (artistic merit) is the most important thing about music, because most composers strive to create good art. And I was hoping more people will start seeing music this way -- as opposed to the common attitude nowadays (music as musical drug, background noise etc)
On May 18 2010 13:05 Lemonwalrus wrote: You are an asshat.
I wrote out a long response at first, but the above is really the only thing that wasn't beating a dead horse.
cheers.
Nice one. I gave you a legitimate objection (that creators of music strive to create good art) and you hurl an insult like a schoolboy. Are you admitting defeat?
You gave an objection that has been addressed several times in the thread and that nobody has offered a response to on your side of the argument. Why do you get to arbitrarily choose the definition of what makes good music just so that it suits your personal taste? And I'm sure you will just quote some critic on mozart or end with the sentence about how academics and philosophers like the music you do more than rap so it is obviously better, which is just avoiding the question yet again. I hurled an insult because at this point you are either trolling or too elitist in your beliefs for anything else to get any response that has any meaning, so the only thing I had left to voice was my opinion of you. I shouldn't have gotten involved in this thread and I regret it.
You haven't been reading my posts carefully. I never said certain music is objectively better for everyone; different people seek different things in music. And i respect that. What I have said, however, is that certain music is objectively better as a work of art than others. To me and many other people, this (artistic merit) is the most important thing about music, because most composers strive to create good art. And I was hoping more people will start seeing music this way -- as opposed to the common attitude nowadays (music as musical drug, background noise etc)
upon re-evaluation of your earlier posts I guess I was pushing your argument further than you were so that I could attack it (making a straw-man out of it) and this last post, although I don't agree with it 100% I definitely am not going to argue with it....oh and sorry about the asshat business.+ Show Spoiler +
am i the first guy to publicly admit to being wrong on the internet? is there like an award or something?
On May 18 2010 13:19 phosphorylation wrote: I was hoping more people will start seeing music this way -- as opposed to the common attitude nowadays (music as musical drug, background noise etc)
Same applies to movies, books, food, drinks, any easily consumable media really. Not everyone is a connoiseur, and a lot of people just want something to enjoy listening to, not some 'art' they have to pay close attention to and think about in order to get anything out of it. Also, there's no reason people can't see it both ways. Photojournalism serves a purpose, and fine art photography serves a different purpose. Some people enjoy one, some the other, and some both.
I don't disagree with you at all. I just want to point out that there is this very important (arguably the most) side of music and arts that most people are completely ignorant of.
Hmm? people watch porn to get off. that's porn's primary purpose. i think people should listen to music to be inspired by its artistry etc but music's primary purpose is definitely less black and white
Art has any meaning to any number of people to influence their feelings in one manner or another. To claim that the way to defining "better" art is through a more deeper investigation of the mechanics and techniques is an insult to art's ultimate goal. The deep emotional connection a person feels to a piece of music or art is what makes it art.
There is no such thing as "good" art or "bad" art. Art is 100% subjective. People who attempt to claim an objective standpoint are borderline intellectually dishonest (mind you I said borderline, it's more so they're caught up in an ultimately futile attempt to change 99.9% of the population's mind). If you wish to compare individual aspects of a song to another; that is fine. The minute a judgment is rendered in which any song/book/music is "better" than another is when it will fall upon deaf ears.
On May 18 2010 13:59 I_Love_Bacon wrote: Art has any meaning to any number of people to influence their feelings in one manner or another. To claim that the way to defining "better" art is through a more deeper investigation of the mechanics and techniques is an insult to art's ultimate goal. The deep emotional connection a person feels to a piece of music or art is what makes it art.
There is no such thing as "good" art or "bad" art. Art is 100% subjective. People who attempt to claim an objective standpoint are borderline intellectually dishonest (mind you I said borderline, it's more so they're caught up in an ultimately futile attempt to change 99.9% of the population's mind). If you wish to compare individual aspects of a song to another; that is fine. The minute a judgment is rendered in which any song/book/music is "better" than another is when it will fall upon deaf ears.
I firmly believe in everything what I said.. certainly not trying to be the rebel of sort. And frankly, way more than 0.1% of population share my view. The majority of philosophers and musicologists have similar ideas about the arts.
On May 18 2010 13:59 I_Love_Bacon wrote: Art has any meaning to any number of people to influence their feelings in one manner or another. To claim that the way to defining "better" art is through a more deeper investigation of the mechanics and techniques is an insult to art's ultimate goal. The deep emotional connection a person feels to a piece of music or art is what makes it art.
There is no such thing as "good" art or "bad" art. Art is 100% subjective. People who attempt to claim an objective standpoint are borderline intellectually dishonest (mind you I said borderline, it's more so they're caught up in an ultimately futile attempt to change 99.9% of the population's mind). If you wish to compare individual aspects of a song to another; that is fine. The minute a judgment is rendered in which any song/book/music is "better" than another is when it will fall upon deaf ears.
I firmly believe in everything what I said.. certainly not trying to be the rebel of sort. And frankly, way more than 0.1% of population share my view. The majority of philosophers and musicologists have similar ideas about the arts.
To them and to you. Attempting to tell other people about art is a fool's errand. You can say a piece is more mechanically difficult. Or the brush strokes and amount of detail put into a painting are extreme and beautiful. To tell others that art A is better than art B, and others should share your opinion because yours is correct, is an insult to what art means to them...
Funny how the thread circles back. Someone shared a similar view to yours and I answered them with a long post on start of page 4. Please do look at it.
On May 18 2010 14:09 phosphorylation wrote: Funny how the thread circles back. Someone shared a similar view to yours and I answered them with a long post on start of page 4. Please do look at it.
I did read it; thanks for reminding me why I don't like "sophisticated" stances upon art. You claim that similar thinkers of both the philosophical and artistic world look for a way to judge; and do so. Art should not be judged or defined from any scale other than your own. It isn't something that has to be done. Then, taking the stance that those who don't agree with your collective analysis are wrong (even if you don't word it so harshly) is a further insult. It's like arguing what sport is more enjoyable to watch. It's an argument that is equivilent to mental masterbation.
On May 17 2010 10:35 SoManyDeadLings wrote: God this music is absolutely terrible. I forced myself to listen to a whole min. of Holy Diver before I couldn't bare it any longer.
One less "artist" of this "music" in the world.
Even if you don't like his music, a person just died, grow up. I don't care if you're a troll, just...go away.
For once, I am not trolling.
His music is absolutely terrible. Sad that I am a person has died, I was merely expressing my distaste for such shitty tunes.
This thread is in no need of your ignorance.
On topic. I am very sad to see Dio pass away. Such a great vocalist and frontman. R.I.P. Ronnie James Dio
Just because an old musician dies there's no need to put him on a pedestal. Rachmaninoff died too, yet people are free to express their dislike for his music. If 50 Cent were to die in place of Ronnie today, I'm sure people would mourn for him and act with much hostility towards anyone who says anything negative about "Candy Shop", but you and I both know what a pitiful joke this "artist" really is.
I apologize for I am about to burst precious little bubbles, but only arrogant tone-deafs could so firmly believe others to be ignorant simply because they do not appreciate certain styles of "music".
Popular music in general has very little musicality in terms of harmony, dynamics, tonal variations and other musical elements. Heavy Metal is a bit better in this regard, as there are a few semi-decent songs that are bearable because they have been written by classical-turned-metal musicians but nonetheless, the genre overall still fits into the popular music category and what I have said applies 99.99% of the time. This is coming from someone who holds his ARCT performers in Piano so my neutrality is naturally questioned, but I listen to just about every style of music and occasionally enjoy the catchy hit songs, but ultimately popular music offers almost no musicality whatsoever.
Let's start with R.A.P. music, but since everyone already knows about the Retards Attempting Poetry, I rest my case.
Then there's J-K-C pop. Sure they arouse certain emotions and are interesting due to the often catchy melodies, but this only applies to the first 30 seconds of the songs heard. Just try and tell me how the ladies in Brown Eyed Girls are great musicians. Exceptions are always present, and the exception here is selected songs by the Chinese artist Jay Chou (#1 Pop artist in China); again, he is a capable classical pianist / cellist and employs an impressive variety of instruments in his songs.
Heavy metal, in general, puts a heavy emphasis on the speed of the music, mashes in a bunch of the simplest chords (the majority of power cords are merely just one interval, normally just the perfect fifth), employs hideously repetitive melodies and rhythms throughout entire songs and sings about the same and boring musical themes (often death, violence, and aggression).
It frustrates me when a certain upbring instills so much damage on one's ability to appreciate real music that they are blind-sighted into a such distasteful genres.
I'd like to throw in an analogy that a SC player could potentially empathize with. On TL you hear all the BW veterans crying about SC2 being dumbed down, while hordes of SC2 fanboys are there to lash out and defend Blizzard's new game. Why? If it's true that SC2 has been dumbed down so much, then why do people still enjoy it? Why would Blizzard implement the changes in the first place? The answer is simple; Blizzard chose to make SC2 more accessible to new players, sacrificing depth for increased revenue but in the end, people who never played BW would become accustomed to the SC2 mechanics and have a very hard time playing and enjoying BW. They would still enjoy SC2 immensely, however oblivious to all the map control concept, multitasking and sexy micro that defined BW. A similar story holds true for Popular Music vs. Classical Music. Sure Popular Music has been dumbed down immensely, but people who have never had proper musical training still enjoy popular songs despite being unaware of all the truly amazing aspects of Classical Music. The trend has only become worse and worse through time, with increasingly dumbed down songs gaining more and more popularity. To illustrate, the first search result on youtube for "Tik Tok" has a view count of over 20 million, in unfortunate comparison to the first hit for "Beethoven's 5th Symphony" which returns a meager result of under 1 million view count. Hell, there are more Tik Tok parodies on youtube than all the renditions of the 5th Symphony combined. Popular "Music" is no longer music, but rather carefully engineered sound waves designed solely to alter the listener's emotion by means of controversial themes and catchy but terribly repetitive melody/rhythm. Add flashy music videos, ridiculous stage choreography, and auto-tune for recent songs.
I guess my point is that the vast majority of popular music will not stand the test of time. People still listen to classical music hundreds of years old, just as how dedicated BW players still play a 12-year old game simply because both aforementioned things are fucking amazing. Yet, out of my somewhat impressive friend circle, I know NO ONE that still listen to older metal music, but I do know a friend who deleted his entire K-pop collection because he was “tired of this shit”. Think people will still listen to Genie or Holy Diver 200 years from now on? It is a possibility, but one that I’m willing to bet my life against.
“Leave me alone, I know my taste is shitty but it’s what I enjoy, so fuck off”. Quote the posts defending SC2 and half the posts in the K-pop discussion thread. Well, just as it would take time and effort to learn and properly appreciate BW, the same thing applies perfectly for Classical Music.
Listen to the piece in its entirety and maybe even the other movements, then if your brain jizzes in euphoria due to the overwhelming harmonies, dynamic contrasts, mood variations and heavenly melodies, then there may be hope music’s future after all.
I think generalizing without qualification is bad
I listen mostly to progressive metal. This is quite the opposite of your description of metal as a mishmash of bland power chords... you get odd time signatures, lots of tempo and signature variation, a variety of unusual instruments, sometimes orchestral passages, mix of clean/growl vox, a huge mix of genres...
I generally don't like k-pop, but I do listen regularly to a few artists whose talents I really enjoy, ie, those that stand out even without all the stereotypical flashiness associated with k-pop.
I don't listen to much else, but I'm sure every genre, whether it is stigmatized by society, or by people like you, has redeeming artists that have true talent to show.
I don't listen to much else, but there are always exceptions to the generalizations you make.
On May 18 2010 14:09 phosphorylation wrote: Funny how the thread circles back. Someone shared a similar view to yours and I answered them with a long post on start of page 4. Please do look at it.
I did read it; thanks for reminding me why I don't like "sophisticated" stances upon art. You claim that similar thinkers of both the philosophical and artistic world look for a way to judge; and do so. Art should not be judged or defined from any scale other than your own. It isn't something that has to be done. Then, taking the stance that those who don't agree with your collective analysis are wrong (even if you don't word it so harshly) is a further insult. It's like arguing what sport is more enjoyable to watch. It's an argument that is equivilent to mental masterbation.
Please provide us legitimate arguments why "art should not be judged or defined from any scale other than your own."
No one is forcing anyone to judge art at all (referring to the second part of bolded part). People (and i) have just found it fitting to do so. (Why? because composers often envisioned their works that way)
Comparing judgment of 1) artistic worth and 2) how enjoyable a sport is to watch? Hmm, that is just a terrible comparison.
You are basically calling the works (aesthetic theories about art) of many philosophers (Adorno, Kant etc) mental masterbation (sic). That is way more insulting than any offense I may have incurred here.
Anyway, thanks TL, you are going to make me fail my midterm. I will refrain from commenting on this thread as much as possible from now on.
if what you are saying is that some pieces/genres are more artistic/better pieces of art than others, then i agree. i dont pretend to think the majority of popular music is more artistic than the majority of classical stuff
On May 18 2010 14:09 phosphorylation wrote: Funny how the thread circles back. Someone shared a similar view to yours and I answered them with a long post on start of page 4. Please do look at it.
I did read it; thanks for reminding me why I don't like "sophisticated" stances upon art. You claim that similar thinkers of both the philosophical and artistic world look for a way to judge; and do so. Art should not be judged or defined from any scale other than your own. It isn't something that has to be done. Then, taking the stance that those who don't agree with your collective analysis are wrong (even if you don't word it so harshly) is a further insult. It's like arguing what sport is more enjoyable to watch. It's an argument that is equivilent to mental masterbation.
Please provide us legitimate arguments why "art should not be judged or defined from any scale other than your own."
No one is forcing anyone to judge art at all (referring to the second part of bolded part). People (and i) have just found it appropriate to do so.
Comparing judgment of 1) artistic worth and 2) how enjoyable a sport is to watch? Hmm, that is just a terrible comparison.
You are basically calling the works (aesthetic theories about art) of many philosophers (Adorno, Kant etc) mental masterbation (sic). That is way more insulting than any offense I may have incurred here.
Wait; I have to give legitimate arguments why art is purely subjective and attempting to say one person's opinion on an issue that effects them differently is better than a different person's opinion on the same topic? Awesome.
It's only a terrible comparison because you disagree with it. You, while standing upon high, will decree what is better and what is not. This is no different than a drunk hooligan claiming soccer is a better sport that baseball. Both will claim various facts about time spent on the field/pitch, athletic prowess of competitors, and discussion of great achievements by various teams.
Philosophy is mental masturbation. I'd say that's the best definition of it that I could think of off the top of my head. I don't even mean it as an insult; it simply is what it is. Interesting as it is.
On May 18 2010 14:23 phosphorylation wrote:You are basically calling the works (aesthetic theories about art) of many philosophers (Adorno, Kant etc) mental masterbation (sic). That is way more insulting than any offense I may have incurred here.
And to an extent they are just that, so is this discussion here
On May 18 2010 14:09 phosphorylation wrote: Funny how the thread circles back. Someone shared a similar view to yours and I answered them with a long post on start of page 4. Please do look at it.
I did read it; thanks for reminding me why I don't like "sophisticated" stances upon art. You claim that similar thinkers of both the philosophical and artistic world look for a way to judge; and do so. Art should not be judged or defined from any scale other than your own. It isn't something that has to be done. Then, taking the stance that those who don't agree with your collective analysis are wrong (even if you don't word it so harshly) is a further insult. It's like arguing what sport is more enjoyable to watch. It's an argument that is equivilent to mental masterbation.
Please provide us legitimate arguments why "art should not be judged or defined from any scale other than your own."
No one is forcing anyone to judge art at all (referring to the second part of bolded part). People (and i) have just found it appropriate to do so.
Comparing judgment of 1) artistic worth and 2) how enjoyable a sport is to watch? Hmm, that is just a terrible comparison.
You are basically calling the works (aesthetic theories about art) of many philosophers (Adorno, Kant etc) mental masterbation (sic). That is way more insulting than any offense I may have incurred here.
Wait; I have to give legitimate arguments why art is purely subjective and attempting to say one person's opinion on an issue that effects them differently is better than a different person's opinion on the same topic? Awesome.
It's only a terrible comparison because you disagree with it. You, while standing upon high, will decree what is better and what is not. This is no different than a drunk hooligan claiming soccer is a better sport that baseball. Both will claim various facts about time spent on the field/pitch, athletic prowess of competitors, and discussion of great achievements by various teams.
Philosophy is mental masturbation. I'd say that's the best definition of it that I could think of off the top of my head. I don't even mean it as an insult; it simply is what it is. Interesting as it is.
art is subjective.. evaluation of its artistic merit is really not if there exists discrepancy on aesthetic judgment of art, then one person is necessarily wrong this is DIFFERENT from saying people respond to art differently.. of course they do and they should
On May 18 2010 14:09 phosphorylation wrote: Funny how the thread circles back. Someone shared a similar view to yours and I answered them with a long post on start of page 4. Please do look at it.
I did read it; thanks for reminding me why I don't like "sophisticated" stances upon art. You claim that similar thinkers of both the philosophical and artistic world look for a way to judge; and do so. Art should not be judged or defined from any scale other than your own. It isn't something that has to be done. Then, taking the stance that those who don't agree with your collective analysis are wrong (even if you don't word it so harshly) is a further insult. It's like arguing what sport is more enjoyable to watch. It's an argument that is equivilent to mental masterbation.
Please provide us legitimate arguments why "art should not be judged or defined from any scale other than your own."
No one is forcing anyone to judge art at all (referring to the second part of bolded part). People (and i) have just found it appropriate to do so.
Comparing judgment of 1) artistic worth and 2) how enjoyable a sport is to watch? Hmm, that is just a terrible comparison.
You are basically calling the works (aesthetic theories about art) of many philosophers (Adorno, Kant etc) mental masterbation (sic). That is way more insulting than any offense I may have incurred here.
Wait; I have to give legitimate arguments why art is purely subjective and attempting to say one person's opinion on an issue that effects them differently is better than a different person's opinion on the same topic? Awesome.
It's only a terrible comparison because you disagree with it. You, while standing upon high, will decree what is better and what is not. This is no different than a drunk hooligan claiming soccer is a better sport that baseball. Both will claim various facts about time spent on the field/pitch, athletic prowess of competitors, and discussion of great achievements by various teams.
Philosophy is mental masturbation. I'd say that's the best definition of it that I could think of off the top of my head. I don't even mean it as an insult; it simply is what it is. Interesting as it is.
art is subjective.. evaluation of its artistic merit is really not if there exists discrepancy on aesthetic judgment of art, then one person is necessarily wrong this is DIFFERENT from saying people respond to art differently.. of course they do and they should
And this is the my entire point; and I'm glad we've boiled it down to this.
What you just said that I bolded is ALL that matters. The judging of art on any merit other than how it effects a person individually is colored bubbles. If you wish to talk about mechanics going into the creation of whatever art is being discussed is completely a-okay. But art at its core is the basis on how an individual feels about the experience of hearing/reading/seeing the piece of art; not even necessarily dealing with aesthetics. I'm sorry, but anything beyond that falls under mental masturbation.
just because something is created subjectively does not mean it cannot be evaluated objectively i don't see how that's hard to fathom edit: really fucking done arguing here.. gotta study everything i wanted to say is on the 4th page
On May 18 2010 15:03 phosphorylation wrote: just because something is created subjectively does not mean it cannot be evaluated objectively i don't see how that's hard to fathom
Because the goal is to force, even if gently, your evaluation upon others. It becomes didactic; which is the last thing discussing art should become. No matter what you will say, the ultimate feeling I or others have about a piece of art will not be swayed. It shouldn't be judged objectively because of this.
On May 18 2010 14:09 phosphorylation wrote: Funny how the thread circles back. Someone shared a similar view to yours and I answered them with a long post on start of page 4. Please do look at it.
I did read it; thanks for reminding me why I don't like "sophisticated" stances upon art. You claim that similar thinkers of both the philosophical and artistic world look for a way to judge; and do so. Art should not be judged or defined from any scale other than your own. It isn't something that has to be done. Then, taking the stance that those who don't agree with your collective analysis are wrong (even if you don't word it so harshly) is a further insult. It's like arguing what sport is more enjoyable to watch. It's an argument that is equivilent to mental masterbation.
Please provide us legitimate arguments why "art should not be judged or defined from any scale other than your own."
No one is forcing anyone to judge art at all (referring to the second part of bolded part). People (and i) have just found it appropriate to do so.
Comparing judgment of 1) artistic worth and 2) how enjoyable a sport is to watch? Hmm, that is just a terrible comparison.
You are basically calling the works (aesthetic theories about art) of many philosophers (Adorno, Kant etc) mental masterbation (sic). That is way more insulting than any offense I may have incurred here.
Wait; I have to give legitimate arguments why art is purely subjective and attempting to say one person's opinion on an issue that effects them differently is better than a different person's opinion on the same topic? Awesome.
It's only a terrible comparison because you disagree with it. You, while standing upon high, will decree what is better and what is not. This is no different than a drunk hooligan claiming soccer is a better sport that baseball. Both will claim various facts about time spent on the field/pitch, athletic prowess of competitors, and discussion of great achievements by various teams.
Philosophy is mental masturbation. I'd say that's the best definition of it that I could think of off the top of my head. I don't even mean it as an insult; it simply is what it is. Interesting as it is.
art is subjective.. evaluation of its artistic merit is really not if there exists discrepancy on aesthetic judgment of art, then one person is necessarily wrong this is DIFFERENT from saying people respond to art differently.. of course they do and they should
And this is the my entire point; and I'm glad we've boiled it down to this.
What you just said that I bolded is ALL that matters. The judging of art on any merit other than how it effects a person individually is colored bubbles. If you wish to talk about mechanics going into the creation of whatever art is being discussed is completely a-okay. But art at its core is the basis on how an individual feels about the experience of hearing/reading/seeing the piece of art; not even necessarily dealing with aesthetics. I'm sorry, but anything beyond that falls under mental masturbation.
Games are something that were created to entertain people. People like all different sorts of games. Video games, board games, sports games, and on and on. Even within individual categories, there is tons and tons of variety.
"art is subjective" just like fun is subjective. However, that doesn't mean you can't talk about how starcraft is a more complicated, deep, and difficult video game than age of empires.
No one saying that any type of music is better than the rest. We're just trying to point out that classical music is more developed, sophisticated, and complex.
But art at its core is the basis on how an individual feels about the experience of hearing/reading/seeing the piece of art; not even necessarily dealing with aesthetics. I'm sorry, but anything beyond that falls under mental masturbation.
Video games at the core is how an individual feels about the experience of playing/reading/competing/hearing/seeing the game. But if you think talking about things "beyond that" is mental masturbation, then you're on the wrong site
Games are something that were created to entertain people. People like all different sorts of games. Video games, board games, sports games, and on and on. Even within individual categories, there is tons and tons of variety.
"art is subjective" just like fun is subjective. However, that doesn't mean you can't talk about how starcraft is a more complicated, deep, and difficult video game than age of empires.
No one saying that any type of music is better than the rest. We're just trying to point out that classical music is more developed, sophisticated, and complex.
And, as I stated, I have no issue with discussion or judgments upon those merits. My issue is saying any piece of art is "better" than another based upon those. I think a great example is actually from the movie Mr. Holland's Opus. He is talking about classical music then talks about how Louie Louie is "fun". That should be all that matters. The intricacies and details can be discussed, but ultimately don't matter (and they don't to the overwhelmingly majority of people)
Video games at the core is how an individual feels about the experience of playing/reading/competing/hearing/seeing the game. But if you think talking about things "beyond that" is mental masturbation, then you're on the wrong site
Does not compute. Please try again since I'm curious to what you were attempting to say.
On May 18 2010 15:03 phosphorylation wrote: just because something is created subjectively does not mean it cannot be evaluated objectively i don't see how that's hard to fathom
Because the goal is to force, even if gently, your evaluation upon others. It becomes didactic; which is the last thing discussing art should become. No matter what you will say, the ultimate feeling I or others have about a piece of art will not be swayed. It shouldn't be judged objectively because of this.
There are so many blogs that go something like
"Oh help me TL, my friends think Battle of Middle Earth 2 is a more strategical and difficult game than starcraft, how can I show them the depth of starcraft?"
Yea we're trying to force our evaluation upon others. Because it's fact. I love rap music, despite being a classical musician. One of my favorite artists is Taylor Swift. I hate Kpop. I'm not trying to force any of those opinions on you. None of my opinions changes the fact that classical music is more difficult to analyze, write, and understand.
On May 18 2010 15:03 phosphorylation wrote: just because something is created subjectively does not mean it cannot be evaluated objectively i don't see how that's hard to fathom
Because the goal is to force, even if gently, your evaluation upon others. It becomes didactic; which is the last thing discussing art should become. No matter what you will say, the ultimate feeling I or others have about a piece of art will not be swayed. It shouldn't be judged objectively because of this.
There are so many blogs that go something like
"Oh help me TL, my friends think Battle of Middle Earth 2 is a more strategical and difficult game than starcraft, how can I show them the depth of starcraft?"
Yea we're trying to force our evaluation upon others. Because it's fact. I love rap music, despite being a classical musician. One of my favorite artists is Taylor Swift. I hate Kpop. I'm not trying to force any of those opinions on you. None of my opinions changes the fact that classical music is more difficult to analyze, write, and understand.
More difficult != better
And, once again, as I've stated several times; I never said discussing techniques or amount put into a piece of art is wrong, but it is not "worth" more than the subjective view point. I might be taller than my friend Scott, but that doesn't make me a better person. Just taller.
On May 18 2010 15:03 phosphorylation wrote: just because something is created subjectively does not mean it cannot be evaluated objectively i don't see how that's hard to fathom
Because the goal is to force, even if gently, your evaluation upon others. It becomes didactic; which is the last thing discussing art should become. No matter what you will say, the ultimate feeling I or others have about a piece of art will not be swayed. It shouldn't be judged objectively because of this.
Are you suggesting we should dismiss all sorts of academic theory because they are didactic? If they can teach you something true, so be it. I am not suggesting that everyone -- even with my criteria of artistic merit on page 4 -- would end up evaluating the value of art the exactly the same way; they will use similar methods (such as my criteria) but they might come up with different conclusions. For example, referring to point 2 of my criteria, people may have different ideas about how important the message the art is trying to convey. Trying to absolutely confirm that the message is important by a certain amount IS difficult and probably impossible. Along the same lines, even scholars are going to argue about (and they do all the time) about point 3; some may think the artist was more successful in being coherent than others. That being said, however -- despite the possible subjective variation here -- learned philosophers, musicians, and scholars tend to agree, more often than disagree, about the general merit of an artwork (they could still disagree about the finer points)
On May 18 2010 15:03 phosphorylation wrote: just because something is created subjectively does not mean it cannot be evaluated objectively i don't see how that's hard to fathom
Because the goal is to force, even if gently, your evaluation upon others. It becomes didactic; which is the last thing discussing art should become. No matter what you will say, the ultimate feeling I or others have about a piece of art will not be swayed. It shouldn't be judged objectively because of this.
Are you suggesting we should dismiss all sorts of academic theory because they are didactic? If they can teach you something true, so be it. I am not suggesting that everyone -- even with my criteria of artistic merit on page 4 -- would end up evaluating the value of art the exactly the same way; they will use similar methods (such as my criteria) but they might come up with different conclusions. For example, referring to point 2 of my criteria, people may have different ideas about how important the message the art is trying to convey. Trying to absolutely confirm that the message is important by a certain amount IS difficult and probably impossible. Along the same lines, even scholars are going to argue about (and they do all the time) about point 3; some may think the artist was more successful in being coherent than others. That being said, however -- despite the possible subjective variation here -- learned philosophers, musicians, and scholars tend to agree, more often than disagree, about the general merit of an artwork (they could still disagree about the finer points)
In short.... yes. I'd actually argue that they teach irrelevant, or even nonexistent, "facts." Beethoven's 5th might be more musically complicated than Louie Louie, but that still doesn't make it "better".
I suppose I could've saved many paragraphs of debate by stating this particular position in a more articulate fashion: You can evaluate art in any form in any damn well you please. You can pass judgment on them in any damn way you please. However, the minute you become didactic in claiming your way is superior to anybody else's is when it has gone too far. How an individual feels about a piece of art is all that matters to them.
On May 18 2010 15:03 phosphorylation wrote: just because something is created subjectively does not mean it cannot be evaluated objectively i don't see how that's hard to fathom
Because the goal is to force, even if gently, your evaluation upon others. It becomes didactic; which is the last thing discussing art should become. No matter what you will say, the ultimate feeling I or others have about a piece of art will not be swayed. It shouldn't be judged objectively because of this.
Are you suggesting we should dismiss all sorts of academic theory because they are didactic? If they can teach you something true, so be it. I am not suggesting that everyone -- even with my criteria of artistic merit on page 4 -- would end up evaluating the value of art the exactly the same way; they will use similar methods (such as my criteria) but they might come up with different conclusions. For example, referring to point 2 of my criteria, people may have different ideas about how important the message the art is trying to convey. Trying to absolutely confirm that the message is important by a certain amount IS difficult and probably impossible. Along the same lines, even scholars are going to argue about (and they do all the time) about point 3; some may think the artist was more successful in being coherent than others. That being said, however -- despite the possible subjective variation here -- learned philosophers, musicians, and scholars tend to agree, more often than disagree, about the general merit of an artwork (they could still disagree about the finer points)
In short.... yes. I'd actually argue that they teach irrelevant, or even nonexistent, "facts." Beethoven's 5th might be more musically complicated than Louie Louie, but that still doesn't make it "better".
I suppose I could've saved many paragraphs of debate by stating this particular position in a more articulate fashion: You can evaluate art in any form in any damn well you please. You can pass judgment on them in any damn way you please. However, the minute you become didactic in claiming your way is superior to anybody else's is when it has gone too far. How an individual feels about a piece of art is all that matters to them.
I still feel like you haven't really understood (alternately, did not read) my post on the 4th page. I specifically mention superficial parameters (such as complexity) and proceed to mention that they don't matter (at least, not initially) in our judgment of art. I have also gone to lengths to clarify what I have meant by "better." I cannot say Beethoven is "better" for everyone than Louie Louie; people listen to music with different purposes. I can say, however, Beethoven is a "better" art form than Louie Louie.
On May 18 2010 15:09 Xenocide_Knight wrote: Games are something that were created to entertain people. People like all different sorts of games. Video games, board games, sports games, and on and on. Even within individual categories, there is tons and tons of variety.
"art is subjective" just like fun is subjective. However, that doesn't mean you can't talk about how starcraft is a more complicated, deep, and difficult video game than age of empires.
No one saying that any type of music is better than the rest. We're just trying to point out that classical music is more developed, sophisticated, and complex.
Oh my god, my mind has actually been changed by an internet forum post... Didn't realize that was possible.
The Age of Empires to SC comparison was pure genius, very well said.
On May 18 2010 15:03 phosphorylation wrote: just because something is created subjectively does not mean it cannot be evaluated objectively i don't see how that's hard to fathom
Because the goal is to force, even if gently, your evaluation upon others. It becomes didactic; which is the last thing discussing art should become. No matter what you will say, the ultimate feeling I or others have about a piece of art will not be swayed. It shouldn't be judged objectively because of this.
Are you suggesting we should dismiss all sorts of academic theory because they are didactic? If they can teach you something true, so be it. I am not suggesting that everyone -- even with my criteria of artistic merit on page 4 -- would end up evaluating the value of art the exactly the same way; they will use similar methods (such as my criteria) but they might come up with different conclusions. For example, referring to point 2 of my criteria, people may have different ideas about how important the message the art is trying to convey. Trying to absolutely confirm that the message is important by a certain amount IS difficult and probably impossible. Along the same lines, even scholars are going to argue about (and they do all the time) about point 3; some may think the artist was more successful in being coherent than others. That being said, however -- despite the possible subjective variation here -- learned philosophers, musicians, and scholars tend to agree, more often than disagree, about the general merit of an artwork (they could still disagree about the finer points)
In short.... yes. I'd actually argue that they teach irrelevant, or even nonexistent, "facts." Beethoven's 5th might be more musically complicated than Louie Louie, but that still doesn't make it "better".
I suppose I could've saved many paragraphs of debate by stating this particular position in a more articulate fashion: You can evaluate art in any form in any damn well you please. You can pass judgment on them in any damn way you please. However, the minute you become didactic in claiming your way is superior to anybody else's is when it has gone too far. How an individual feels about a piece of art is all that matters to them.
I still feel like you haven't really understood (alternately, did not read) my post on the 4th page. I specifically mention superficial parameters (such as complexity) and proceed to mention that they don't matter (at least, not initially) in our judgment of art. I have also gone to lengths to clarify what I have meant by "better." I cannot say Beethoven is "better" for everyone than Louie Louie; people listen to music with different purposes. I can say, however, Beethoven is a "better" art form than Louie Louie.
I'm tempted to upload a picture of me facepalming. We're not debating the bulk of that paragraph. I understand your view point entirely, and I was pointing out that you can even do so upon the grounds you choose not to by using those parameters... but you still miss the ending in epic fashion.
I'll end it here with you because clearly your view can not be swayed or even made to understand that you can't define a piece of art to another individual. Best o' luck studying.
On May 18 2010 15:09 Xenocide_Knight wrote: Games are something that were created to entertain people. People like all different sorts of games. Video games, board games, sports games, and on and on. Even within individual categories, there is tons and tons of variety.
"art is subjective" just like fun is subjective. However, that doesn't mean you can't talk about how starcraft is a more complicated, deep, and difficult video game than age of empires.
No one saying that any type of music is better than the rest. We're just trying to point out that classical music is more developed, sophisticated, and complex.
Oh my god, my mind has actually been changed by an internet forum post... Didn't realize that was possible.
The Age of Empires to SC comparison was pure genius, very well said.
Starcraft might be 10x better graphics and more difficult than Super Mario Brothers 3; but that doesn't make it "better". Or use Pokemon as the example instead of Super Mario Brothers 3 given the huge poke-fetish around these parts.
You're not even really arguing the same points as Phos. I agree 100% that you can compare games (or art/music/literature) based upon their difficulty, graphics, length, etc.... But you can't then use your position to claim that the game you chose is better than the game your friend chose TO THEM.
On May 18 2010 15:09 Xenocide_Knight wrote: Games are something that were created to entertain people. People like all different sorts of games. Video games, board games, sports games, and on and on. Even within individual categories, there is tons and tons of variety.
"art is subjective" just like fun is subjective. However, that doesn't mean you can't talk about how starcraft is a more complicated, deep, and difficult video game than age of empires.
No one saying that any type of music is better than the rest. We're just trying to point out that classical music is more developed, sophisticated, and complex.
Oh my god, my mind has actually been changed by an internet forum post... Didn't realize that was possible.
The Age of Empires to SC comparison was pure genius, very well said.
Starcraft might be 10x better graphics and more difficult than Super Mario Brothers 3; but that doesn't make it "better". Or use Pokemon as the example instead of Super Mario Brothers 3 given the huge poke-fetish around these parts.
You're not even really arguing the same points as Phos. I agree 100% that you can compare games (or art/music/literature) based upon their difficulty, graphics, length, etc.... But you can't then use your position to claim that the game you chose is better than the game your friend chose TO THEM.
wtf man, I agree we cannot say any art is "better" to them. I already said this a million times. But, for now, let's just agree to disagree.
On May 18 2010 15:37 I_Love_Bacon wrote: In short.... yes. I'd actually argue that they teach irrelevant, or even nonexistent, "facts." Beethoven's 5th might be more musically complicated than Louie Louie, but that still doesn't make it "better".
I suppose I could've saved many paragraphs of debate by stating this particular position in a more articulate fashion: You can evaluate art in any form in any damn well you please. You can pass judgment on them in any damn way you please. However, the minute you become didactic in claiming your way is superior to anybody else's is when it has gone too far. How an individual feels about a piece of art is all that matters to them.
I think you're missing their point. I mean, we can all agree that no form of art is better than another, it is up to the individual to decide. However, arguing that classical music may be a more developed and complex art form than Hannah Montana seems valid to me. (Though the whole idea of pop culture and how it drives popular music could be seen as an equally sophisticated idea from a sociologists point of view.)
I mean the grand comparison was made already: classical music=sc:bw hannah montana=age of empires (sry AoE you're not really THAT bad)
That said, we can still look down upon people who talk about their love of classical music too often as being snobs or posers.
Ad hominem arguement that I have to note: Your user ID references bacon, a subject often reference by Homer Simpson. The other guy's ID that I can't spell but that I google defined is a chemical process, a subject discussed by smart scientist people.
On May 18 2010 15:09 Xenocide_Knight wrote: Games are something that were created to entertain people. People like all different sorts of games. Video games, board games, sports games, and on and on. Even within individual categories, there is tons and tons of variety.
"art is subjective" just like fun is subjective. However, that doesn't mean you can't talk about how starcraft is a more complicated, deep, and difficult video game than age of empires.
No one saying that any type of music is better than the rest. We're just trying to point out that classical music is more developed, sophisticated, and complex.
Oh my god, my mind has actually been changed by an internet forum post... Didn't realize that was possible.
The Age of Empires to SC comparison was pure genius, very well said.
Starcraft might be 10x better graphics and more difficult than Super Mario Brothers 3; but that doesn't make it "better". Or use Pokemon as the example instead of Super Mario Brothers 3 given the huge poke-fetish around these parts.
You're not even really arguing the same points as Phos. I agree 100% that you can compare games (or art/music/literature) based upon their difficulty, graphics, length, etc.... But you can't then use your position to claim that the game you chose is better than the game your friend chose TO THEM.
I don't want to be rude and call you a troll if you're actually not. But really, you keep making the argument that no form of "art" is better than another... which is specifically agreed upon in countless posts by Xenocide and phosphorylation.
For the love of god, for the last time: no art is "better" for everyone. However, some art IS objectively better as a work of art. But some people might not care about that, that's why it cannot be said it's "better" for everyone.
On May 18 2010 15:37 I_Love_Bacon wrote: In short.... yes. I'd actually argue that they teach irrelevant, or even nonexistent, "facts." Beethoven's 5th might be more musically complicated than Louie Louie, but that still doesn't make it "better".
I suppose I could've saved many paragraphs of debate by stating this particular position in a more articulate fashion: You can evaluate art in any form in any damn well you please. You can pass judgment on them in any damn way you please. However, the minute you become didactic in claiming your way is superior to anybody else's is when it has gone too far. How an individual feels about a piece of art is all that matters to them.
I think you're missing their point. I mean, we can all agree that no form of art is better than another, it is up to the individual to decide. However, arguing that classical music may be a more developed and complex art form than Hannah Montana seems valid to me. (Though the whole idea of pop culture and how it drives popular music could be seen as an equally sophisticated idea from a sociologists point of view.)
I mean the grand comparison was made already: classical music=sc:bw hannah montana=age of empires (sry AoE you're not really THAT bad)
That said, we can still look down upon people who talk about their love of classical music too often as being snobs or posers.
Ad hominem arguement that I have to note: Your user ID references bacon, a subject often reference by Homer Simpson. The other guy's ID that I can't spell but that I google defined is a chemical process, a subject discussed by smart scientist people.
Therefore... well you know.
My base argument has more to do with the fact that such judgments and discussion serve no real purpose (back to mental masturbation comments) other than to claim your opinion is superior to another's. The only thing, the only only only only only thing that should ultimately matter; is how enjoyable one's experience with the game/music/art/literature is.
You can choose to put lesser value in that and instead focus your attention on what makes good art; but don't impose your views on others in any way. You can never dictate taste, regardless of how much you wrap it in reasons. It's hard to really get this particular point across, because when people put so much effort and time into debating semantics and philosophy, it becomes difficult to point out the irrelevancy of it all.
If I mention how I'm working on my masters, does my love of Bacon still outweigh that? Damn pork products in all of their glory... Forever will I be doomed to mockery.
On May 18 2010 16:20 phosphorylation wrote: For the love of god, for the last time: no art is "better" for everyone. However, some art IS objectively better as a work of art. But some people might not care about that, that's why it cannot be said it's "better" for everyone.
No, not better as a work of art. Better as a... - impressionist landscape painting - piece of music by conservatory standards - etc And even then it's hard to say 'better' unless the difference is obvious
On May 18 2010 16:20 phosphorylation wrote: For the love of god, for the last time: no art is "better" for everyone. However, some art IS objectively better as a work of art. But some people might not care about that, that's why it cannot be said it's "better" for everyone.
No, not better as a work of art. Better as a... - impressionist landscape painting - piece of music by conservatory standards - etc And even then it's hard to say 'better' unless the difference is obvious
On May 18 2010 16:20 phosphorylation wrote: For the love of god, for the last time: no art is "better" for everyone. However, some art IS objectively better as a work of art. But some people might not care about that, that's why it cannot be said it's "better" for everyone.
stop trying to say that classical music is better than popular music dude, it's obvious that not everyone agrees with you. i mean, if you compare it as being more sophisticated and a better work of art maybe, then maybe, but that doesn't make it better
On May 18 2010 16:20 phosphorylation wrote: For the love of god, for the last time: no art is "better" for everyone. However, some art IS objectively better as a work of art. But some people might not care about that, that's why it cannot be said it's "better" for everyone.
i tend to agree with this.... then i open the kpop thread.... what the fuck people, what the fuck?
On May 18 2010 16:20 phosphorylation wrote: For the love of god, for the last time: no art is "better" for everyone. However, some art IS objectively better as a work of art. But some people might not care about that, that's why it cannot be said it's "better" for everyone.
stop trying to say that classical music is better than popular music dude, it's obvious that not everyone agrees with you. i mean, if you compare it as being more sophisticated and a better work of art maybe, then maybe, but that doesn't make it better
On May 17 2010 19:59 SoManyDeadLings wrote: I lol'ed hard in contempt and pity.
Just because an old musician dies there's no need to put him on a pedestal. Rachmaninoff died too, yet people are free to express their dislike for his music. If 50 Cent were to die in place of Ronnie today, I'm sure people would mourn for him and act with much hostility towards anyone who says anything negative about "Candy Shop", but you and I both know what a pitiful joke this "artist" really is.
I apologize for I am about to burst precious little bubbles, but only arrogant tone-deafs could so firmly believe others to be ignorant simply because they do not appreciate certain styles of "music".
Popular music in general has very little musicality in terms of harmony, dynamics, tonal variations and other musical elements. Heavy Metal is a bit better in this regard, as there are a few semi-decent songs that are bearable because they have been written by classical-turned-metal musicians but nonetheless, the genre overall still fits into the popular music category and what I have said applies 99.99% of the time. This is coming from someone who holds his ARCT performers in Piano so my neutrality is naturally questioned, but I listen to just about every style of music and occasionally enjoy the catchy hit songs, but ultimately popular music offers almost no musicality whatsoever.
Let's start with R.A.P. music, but since everyone already knows about the Retards Attempting Poetry, I rest my case.
Then there's J-K-C pop. Sure they arouse certain emotions and are interesting due to the often catchy melodies, but this only applies to the first 30 seconds of the songs heard. Just try and tell me how the ladies in Brown Eyed Girls are great musicians. Exceptions are always present, and the exception here is selected songs by the Chinese artist Jay Chou (#1 Pop artist in China); again, he is a capable classical pianist / cellist and employs an impressive variety of instruments in his songs.
Heavy metal, in general, puts a heavy emphasis on the speed of the music, mashes in a bunch of the simplest chords (the majority of power cords are merely just one interval, normally just the perfect fifth), employs hideously repetitive melodies and rhythms throughout entire songs and sings about the same and boring musical themes (often death, violence, and aggression).
It frustrates me when a certain upbring instills so much damage on one's ability to appreciate real music that they are blind-sighted into a such distasteful genres.
I'd like to throw in an analogy that a SC player could potentially empathize with. On TL you hear all the BW veterans crying about SC2 being dumbed down, while hordes of SC2 fanboys are there to lash out and defend Blizzard's new game. Why? If it's true that SC2 has been dumbed down so much, then why do people still enjoy it? Why would Blizzard implement the changes in the first place? The answer is simple; Blizzard chose to make SC2 more accessible to new players, sacrificing depth for increased revenue but in the end, people who never played BW would become accustomed to the SC2 mechanics and have a very hard time playing and enjoying BW. They would still enjoy SC2 immensely, however oblivious to all the map control concept, multitasking and sexy micro that defined BW. A similar story holds true for Popular Music vs. Classical Music. Sure Popular Music has been dumbed down immensely, but people who have never had proper musical training still enjoy popular songs despite being unaware of all the truly amazing aspects of Classical Music. The trend has only become worse and worse through time, with increasingly dumbed down songs gaining more and more popularity. To illustrate, the first search result on youtube for "Tik Tok" has a view count of over 20 million, in unfortunate comparison to the first hit for "Beethoven's 5th Symphony" which returns a meager result of under 1 million view count. Hell, there are more Tik Tok parodies on youtube than all the renditions of the 5th Symphony combined. Popular "Music" is no longer music, but rather carefully engineered sound waves designed solely to alter the listener's emotion by means of controversial themes and catchy but terribly repetitive melody/rhythm. Add flashy music videos, ridiculous stage choreography, and auto-tune for recent songs.
I guess my point is that the vast majority of popular music will not stand the test of time. People still listen to classical music hundreds of years old, just as how dedicated BW players still play a 12-year old game simply because both aforementioned things are fucking amazing. Yet, out of my somewhat impressive friend circle, I know NO ONE that still listen to older metal music, but I do know a friend who deleted his entire K-pop collection because he was “tired of this shit”. Think people will still listen to Genie or Holy Diver 200 years from now on? It is a possibility, but one that I’m willing to bet my life against.
“Leave me alone, I know my taste is shitty but it’s what I enjoy, so fuck off”. Quote the posts defending SC2 and half the posts in the K-pop discussion thread. Well, just as it would take time and effort to learn and properly appreciate BW, the same thing applies perfectly for Classical Music.
I have to agree with the fact that Classical music is in general better than "Tik Tok", not better as in an opinion like everyone seems to think here, but better in the way that the composition is tons better, the musicality is also way better, and it's much deeper.
However I think you are just lucky to get that spot on, because you are obviously a cocky delusional close-minded guy. You lost me when you started flaming rap, which is imo the most underrated good music (not 50 cents, real rap).
On May 18 2010 16:20 phosphorylation wrote: For the love of god, for the last time: no art is "better" for everyone. However, some art IS objectively better as a work of art. But some people might not care about that, that's why it cannot be said it's "better" for everyone.
Right, and I kept telling you how you're wrong, and you kept arguing nebulously and circuituously, oftentimes by revising what it is you said and/or bringing up shit completely and entirely unrelated to the conversation, until you presented what is the same ho-hum, simple argument that you presented on page like four. So, because you've proven yourself at the very least incapable of close reading, one last thing and I will avoid this topic permanently:
"Some art IS objectively better as a work of art" presumes that "art" can be given a definite standard objective shape to which all other things may be compared. You are then making the tacit assumption that, say, a piece of baroque or romantic or classical composition from centuries ago may be compared to a pop song written a year ago usinfg the same rubric. You are comparing two pieces of music vastly different in their composition, in their uses (in their given times), in their audience, and in the materials available to these people. This method of criticism in practice is akin to the following:
Dear 50 Cent, You suck because Scriabin wrote in the octotonic scales and because Mozart wrote Italian opera. Sincerely, phosphorylation
or, alternately,
Dear Alexander Scriabin, You suck because 50 Cent spits hot fire. Sincerely, phosphorylation
You're comparing apples with dodos.
When I said you argued nebulously, it's because you've left undefined what it is that makes "true" "artistic" form. By your criteria, I must say something meaningful and/or I can say something deceptive because it's ironic. Or I must produce something original and/or I can do something intentionally unoriginal in order to be ironic or engage in postmodern pastiche. Or I must produce something cohesive and/or I can be purposefully and intentionally self-interrupting and schizophrenic. Great theory. Really clears things up.
In such a situation, there is no standard against which I may determine artistic value. All there is, instead, is the incredibly vague idea of what "art" is, looks like, and sounds like, coming from people who think there's no scholarly debate on Shakespeare, that there aren't accomplished musicians and composers who think Beethoven is uninspired tripe (like, I dunno, Karlheinz Stockhausen), who think there's no scholarly artistic discourse on pop music, and who should probably brush up on art theory and art itself - all art - from the last fifty to one-hundred years, if only to familiarize themselves with how the very form has changed, and how any concept of an objective standard has eroded and died.
On May 18 2010 16:20 phosphorylation wrote: For the love of god, for the last time: no art is "better" for everyone. However, some art IS objectively better as a work of art. But some people might not care about that, that's why it cannot be said it's "better" for everyone.
When I said you argued nebulously, it's because you've left undefined what it is that makes "true" "artistic" form. By your criteria, I must say something meaningful and/or I can say something deceptive because it's ironic. Or I must produce something original and/or I can do something intentionally unoriginal in order to be ironic or engage in postmodern pastiche. Or I must produce something cohesive and/or I can be purposefully and intentionally self-interrupting and schizophrenic. Great theory. Really clears things up.
In such a situation, there is no standard against which I may determine artistic value. All there is, instead, is the incredibly vague idea of what "art" is, looks like, and sounds like, coming from people who think there's no scholarly debate on Shakespeare, that there aren't accomplished musicians and composers who think Beethoven is uninspired tripe (like, I dunno, Karlheinz Stockhausen), who think there's no scholarly artistic discourse on pop music, and who should probably brush up on art theory and art itself - all art - from the last fifty to one-hundred years, if only to familiarize themselves with how the very form has changed, and how any concept of an objective standard has eroded and died.
Clearly, we cannot compare the music of 50 cent to Beethoven in the most conventional rubric. Your example of Scriabin and 50 cents just refers to the standard parameters that I have repeatedly dismissed, all the way back to my first post in the thread. You are the one with utter lack of reading comprehension -- or, more likely, just incredible stubbornness and narrow-mindedness.
Why can we, then, compare the artistry of music from composers of completely different backgrounds? Simple, because they are all artists -- they seek to express, and express well.
I don't see what the problem is with the italicized portion. Admittedly the criteria fits some art better than other, but that's why I keep emphasizing that each portion of the criteria should be looked with great flexibility. And keep in mind, this is my own (probably imperfect) criteria; other thinkers would have come with similar but subtly different critieria to better fit the type of art that they encounter. The main point is that I am argue that it makes sense (because there is truth to it, ie art strives to achieve these ideals) to establish such measures to compare art, not directly for the criteria I have established. That was just an example.
As for the bolded part, I am not sure if it's just me (I doubt it) but your syntax is ridiculously disorganized and unnecessarily convoluted. I have tried to decipher it but decided that it was not worth it after a minute.
If my alleged incapability "of close reading is true", then it's due to your shoddy writing.
How does something being "better art" relate to the listening experience exactly? When something's good art by your definition how will it make me enjoy it more, compared to a less artsy song?
On May 19 2010 07:15 JohannesH wrote: How does something being "better art" relate to the listening experience exactly? When something's good art by your definition how will it make me enjoy it more, compared to a less artsy song?
I have made this poitn earlier but I wil say it again. It doesn't relate to listening experience directly. A good art piece won't necessarily make you enjoy it more. And, I think it's completely legitimate that some music doesn't try to be good art but rather just please the listener. That is one goal for certain types of music -- to please the ears. Most dance music/pop music fall under this category. And there is no problem with that; there is no reason to rob music of this important role.
However, often, "better art" does sound beautiful. This is no coincidence; beauty and sublime human experience often was the subject of its expression. Here is a new point: sometimes, even creators of good art (take mozart and beethoven) tried to achieve both goals of music -- to be good art and to sound good -- at once. And they certainly did.
Sometimes though, especially in modern classical music, beauty is not what the art strives to express. In addition, more and more, classical composers --- arguably necessarily -- start to ignore the "sounding good" goal of music (unlike Beethoven and Mozart), and instead focus completely on communicating some message. This can be attributed to the history of classical tradition, changing social climate, the modern society etc. That is why the listener will not necessarily enjoy casually listening to most modern music (But I do anyways)
Hahah so you gave no reason one should prefer art over less artistic music? I would think there's something to it for you so I must ask again; what makes good art worth listening?
You say that modern classical often ignores the "sounding good" goal, then say that it sounds good to you... Is that all to it, music that sounds good to you
Of course one can enjoy the listening session too without the song being "pleasing to the ear" per se... Like listening to Whitehouse feels more like hurting your ears but it's a powerful experience that can be interesting once in a while - it makes you feel something even if it's not only a positive feeling, exploring that in a safe environment can be a good "mental masturbation" or whatever you wanna call it
On May 19 2010 08:21 JohannesH wrote: Hahah so you gave no reason one should prefer art over less artistic music? I would think there's something to it for you so I must ask again; what makes good art worth listening?
You say that modern classical often ignores the "sounding good" goal, then say that it sounds good to you... Is that all to it, music that sounds good to you
Of course one can enjoy the listening session too without the song being "pleasing to the ear" per se... Like listening to Whitehouse feels more like hurting your ears but it's a powerful experience that can be interesting once in a while - it makes you feel something even if it's not only a positive feeling, exploring that in a safe environment can be a good "mental masturbation" or whatever you wanna call it
You are asking for a different issue. I have my reasons but that's for a different topic. And don't put words into my mouth; I never said modern classical "sounds good" to me. I said I like listening to it; there is a distinction.
Music being artful doesn't make it more enjoyable to listen There is nevertheless still some reason to listen to music for the sake of its artfulness Modern classical music does not sound good but its good art You enjoy listening to modern classical music
Music being artful doesn't make it more enjoyable to listen There is nevertheless still some reason to listen to music for the sake of its artfulness Modern classical music does not sound good but its good art You enjoy listening to modern classical music
I hope I got this right...
This is mostly correct. I guess adding this to the last part would make it more accurate. "You enjoy studying and listening to modern classic music." Because without learning about it first, it usually won't be enjoyable in any sense of the word.
the comments all say that the fray's cover is 100x better. is it really THAT MUCH better?
seriously, i'm posting this because i cant comprehend how people can actually like that cover that many more times than kanye's
i think the comments and people who like the fray's are either 1. racist against blacks 2. biased against the mainstream rap style (that kanye isn't really a part of) 3. favoring a white rock group 4. hating on kanye for his ego
i think the people are just releasing some of their kanye-hate in those comments, and as a result are really biased
seriously the fray sounds like a depressed shit in that cover
coz alot of the comments are pretty good. i agree with most of what phos says, i think he just gets misunderstood alot. im guilty of misunderstanding too
i fully accept that there may be aspects of art that i do not understand, much like there are dimensions i cannot observe and wavelengths i cannot see. however, it seems to me quantifying a piece of art as a "better work of art" is simply a different way of saying the same thing as "better art".
your proposition, being able to objectively judge art, assumes that you understand all the dimensions of art which make works of art an art. on this point, you have readily admitted that there is no consensus among academia which clearly pinpoints the exact characteristics which are requisites for something to be a work of art. by its most broad definition, i assume nearly everything can be considered a work of art, so long as that said work of art "expresses something".
music is the one most hotly debated in this thread and so i will use that as an example. music is essentially a collection of sounds which are pleasing to the ear, is it not? now, there are many different genres of music which follow specific structures. classical, rock, rap, pop, etc. objectively, can you say that all classical music is a "better work of art" than another genre? if not, how would you compare any two genres? both have different structures that they must follow that i am assuming are vastly different, so how would you compare them? where is the common ground?
how well something is expressed is not universal nor is it quantifiable; what is clear as day to one person can leave another completely oblivious. what this boils down to then is that you are trying to judge, by a rigid structure of "objectivity", that which has no structure. yes, perhaps classical music follows a structure, much like many genres do, and with that i will not argue; it is possible to say something is more rock than rap, more pop than classical. we have defined a collections of sounds as such and thus we are able to quantify how well they meet our classifications.
however, with art, in the broadest sense of the word, there is no structure or rigid definition, and thus, you have no jurisdiction.
On May 18 2010 16:20 phosphorylation wrote: For the love of god, for the last time: no art is "better" for everyone. However, some art IS objectively better as a work of art. But some people might not care about that, that's why it cannot be said it's "better" for everyone.
Right, and I kept telling you how you're wrong, and you kept arguing nebulously and circuituously, oftentimes by revising what it is you said and/or bringing up shit completely and entirely unrelated to the conversation, until you presented what is the same ho-hum, simple argument that you presented on page like four. So, because you've proven yourself at the very least incapable of close reading, one last thing and I will avoid this topic permanently:
"Some art IS objectively better as a work of art" presumes that "art" can be given a definite standard objective shape to which all other things may be compared. You are then making the tacit assumption that, say, a piece of baroque or romantic or classical composition from centuries ago may be compared to a pop song written a year ago usinfg the same rubric. You are comparing two pieces of music vastly different in their composition, in their uses (in their given times), in their audience, and in the materials available to these people. This method of criticism in practice is akin to the following:
Dear 50 Cent, You suck because Scriabin wrote in the octotonic scales and because Mozart wrote Italian opera. Sincerely, phosphorylation
or, alternately,
Dear Alexander Scriabin, You suck because 50 Cent spits hot fire. Sincerely, phosphorylation
You're comparing apples with dodos.
When I said you argued nebulously, it's because you've left undefined what it is that makes "true" "artistic" form. By your criteria, I must say something meaningful and/or I can say something deceptive because it's ironic. Or I must produce something original and/or I can do something intentionally unoriginal in order to be ironic or engage in postmodern pastiche. Or I must produce something cohesive and/or I can be purposefully and intentionally self-interrupting and schizophrenic. Great theory. Really clears things up.
In such a situation, there is no standard against which I may determine artistic value. All there is, instead, is the incredibly vague idea of what "art" is, looks like, and sounds like, coming from people who think there's no scholarly debate on Shakespeare, that there aren't accomplished musicians and composers who think Beethoven is uninspired tripe (like, I dunno, Karlheinz Stockhausen), who think there's no scholarly artistic discourse on pop music, and who should probably brush up on art theory and art itself - all art - from the last fifty to one-hundred years, if only to familiarize themselves with how the very form has changed, and how any concept of an objective standard has eroded and died.
wow i didn't read this post. i agree with this and see you (phosphorylation) have dodged this post already. good day to you.
On May 18 2010 11:45 Tal wrote: phosphorylation - it's really comforting to see you fighting the good fight in this thread. For a while it looked like the thread was going to totally disintegrate into 'I like what I what I like and everything's utterly subjective'.
Someone said that just because Kant and Adorno said something doesn't mean it's right. Well of course it doesn't. But it's not just them...nearly every philosopher or serious thinker on art puts artists like Shakespeare, Mozart or Picasso far above your average 'pop artists' for many many compelling reasons. I'm happy to make an 'appeal to the authority' of the greatest thinkers in human history - I certainly trust them more then anyone I've met who's still alive. And actually, all the smartest people I've met agree with the philosophers...
People describe elitists as very proud people, but I think it's the opposite. I'm rejecting my own pride, and admitting my teenage self was unsurprisingly, very wrong about what the important things in life are. Sticking to my ill-thought out principles would have been stupid.
if i were to show you or any other philosopher on art an excerpt of the most intricately beautiful and delicately interwoven piece of code ever written that would move the greatest programmers in this world to tears i am willing to bet your philosophers would gawk at it with the naivety of a puppy. art only speaks to those who are willing and able to listen. if you want to judge art by your own subset of rules be my guest, but don't pretend like those rules are universal and apply to everyone.
the comments all say that the fray's cover is 100x better. is it really THAT MUCH better?
seriously, i'm posting this because i cant comprehend how people can actually like that cover that many more times than kanye's
i think the comments and people who like the fray's are either 1. racist against blacks 2. biased against the mainstream rap style (that kanye isn't really a part of) 3. favoring a white rock group 4. hating on kanye for his ego
i think the people are just releasing some of their kanye-hate in those comments, and as a result are really biased
seriously the fray sounds like a depressed shit in that cover
wow...
ah yes exactly, uncontrollable racism blinds people from seeing that kanye is the best
couldn't be anything to do with the fact that they're two COMPLETELY different styles of music, and that some people might prefer a guitar over a synthetic sound and kanye's distorted voice, or vice versa. What hard logic to comprehend!
seconding caller, why isn't this stupid thread closed
Personally I don't agree because saying that this rock guy who died made bad music is just your OPINION. That's the main thing to consider here. It's just an opinion. You can't say that one type of music is better than another, because that would just be your OPINION of it. Personally I deeply hate country, classical, and most rap and heavy metal music, but that doesn't make it bad or good music, it just means this music isn't for me. Some people (a lot of people actually) adore heavy metal music, but it doesn't mean this music is 'better' than another, it just means more people like heavy metal music. There's nothing you can compare different music genres with. Sure you can argue that some music is more complicated and took more time to make, but to me all of that doesn't matter if when I listen to it I want to stab my ears with a big knife until I'm deaf.
That's why comparing music tastes is as bad as arguing which religion is correct or which clothing styles are the best or which cars are the coolest. In the end, it's just your opinion.
the comments all say that the fray's cover is 100x better. is it really THAT MUCH better?
seriously, i'm posting this because i cant comprehend how people can actually like that cover that many more times than kanye's
i think the comments and people who like the fray's are either 1. racist against blacks 2. biased against the mainstream rap style (that kanye isn't really a part of) 3. favoring a white rock group 4. hating on kanye for his ego
i think the people are just releasing some of their kanye-hate in those comments, and as a result are really biased
seriously the fray sounds like a depressed shit in that cover
wow...
yo Kanye Im happy for you and Ima let you finish but thats one of the best covers of all time! One of best covers of all time!!
But yeah... It's good mainly cause they're white
On May 20 2010 03:15 Lucid90 wrote: Personally I don't agree because saying that this rock guy who died made bad music is just your OPINION. That's the main thing to consider here. It's just an opinion. You can't say that one type of music is better than another, because that would just be your OPINION of it. Personally I deeply hate country, classical, and most rap and heavy metal music, but that doesn't make it bad or good music, it just means this music isn't for me. Some people (a lot of people actually) adore heavy metal music, but it doesn't mean this music is 'better' than another, it just means more people like heavy metal music. There's nothing you can compare different music genres with. Sure you can argue that some music is more complicated and took more time to make, but to me all of that doesn't matter if when I listen to it I want to stab my ears with a big knife until I'm deaf.
That's why comparing music tastes is as bad as arguing which religion is correct or which clothing styles are the best or which cars are the coolest. In the end, it's just your opinion.
And death metal sucks ass.
yo it's just an opinion but you have a shit taste in music... Just my opinion man
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.blockmuseum.northwestern.edu/picturesofmusic/images/cagej.jpg)
