| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Paravion 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470
|
 Posted: February 10 2011 at 12:23 |
 rogerthat wrote:
Well, I am just being a bit semantic, if that's the right word, about it 
- if it is restricted, it cannot be complete. And while I haven't YET
seen confusions of the category A, I have seen confusions of category B
defended in the name of subjectivity. Not in THOSE extremes that you
mention in your example, but still cases where there should be no
confusion at all, where, usually, the listener is just reluctant to
admit he is wrong about it. I agree that the judgment of good or bad
cannot be a completely objective evaluation but I would again differ in
that I would be inclined to give weight to the listener's experience,
not in terms of years, but in terms of time spent listening to that
particular kind of music or band. It is difficult, if at all possible,
to quantify these weights but that does not mean they have no relative
values vis-a-vis each other. 9 times out of 10, I would give more
importance to the opinion of an experienced listener who knows the album
in question well to an uninitiated listener who has heard it for the
first time. There is a remote possibility that, coming from a fresh
perspective, the latter may have picked up something the former didn't,
but usually the former has already been through the same journey with
the same album that the latter is yet to embark on. Long story short,
some opinions are more valid than others. It is not possible to
quantify by how much, but that does not necessarily obstruct their being
more valid. |
You still speak of subjective positions as if they have the form of objective judgements. How you'd value my statement "I don't like Rush because the music is bad" is completely irrelevant to me (and to everyone else). You don't have access to my experience, it's thus not debatable, and it's not comparable to claims like "the earth is flat" and "David Gilmour is a drummer". There are undoubtedly many variants of subjectivism/subjectivity within meta-physics and philosophy - but without any in depth knowledge I find it likely that it's generally distinct from relativism and that there are situations where it reasonably can be applied and situations where it can't. Subjectivity can be restricted and complete at the same time without forming a contradiction. When applied, it's complete. In situations where subjectivity is applied there aren't believed to be any objective goodness/badness properties existing in the music independent of what the experiencer happens to experience at all, - thus complete.
Edited by Paravion - February 10 2011 at 12:25
|
 |
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: February 10 2011 at 10:23 |
Paravion wrote:
A subjectivist approach is restricted, and I don't recall I've said otherwise. - Consider the following discussions:
1)
A: David Gilmour is a drummer
B: David Gilmour is a guitarist
2)
A: Pink Floyd is rap
B: Pink Floyd is prog
3)
A: Pink Floyd is bad music
B: Pink Floyd is good music
Discussion-participant A can only apply a subjectivist approach in discussion-example 3 - simply because 'drummer' and 'rap' only have meaning, and can only be used, insofar as there exist a common agreement as to what they mean. The statements 1a & 2a can be subjected to empirical testing and can easily be proven false (the former to a higher degree than the latter) and operates outside a value judgement universe. This little fact about language automatically prevents that a subjective approach to taste can be expanded to some situation of complete idiolectic relativism and make claims as 1a & 2a equally valid - because it will undermine and disregard the very nature of language. So presenting this as a danger and misfortunate consequence of subjectivism is overlooking and ignoring an important aspect about what language and communication is - an aspect that simply prevents this consequence. That's why I think your criticism is pointless - you expand subjectivisme to discussions of sorts 1 & 2. I think that it makes sense to distinguish between kinds of discussion - kinds where subjectivism cannot be applied - and kinds where it can be.
Initially, I favoured a subjectivist approach to taste - I never favoured complete relativism. Discussion-example 3 is only about how good or bad Pink Floyd is. The meaning of adjectives like good and bad cannot in the same way be subjected to objective investigation - neither claim in 3 can be said to be objectively true or false - they describe how you value some sensory input - and only you, your personality, you cirsumstances, your background, your experience, your 'whims' can determine whether PF is good or bad - Pink Floyd doesn't have a property of being either good or bad in the same way as Gilmour has the property of being a guitarist and PF has the property of belonging to some genre. That - I feel - is an essential distinction that has to be made in order to understand what is meant by a subjective approach to taste.
By complete subjectivity is not meant that it should be expanded to areas where it cannot be expanded - it's meant that there aren't at all any goodness/badness properties objectively existing in the music which are insensitive to how a person happens to experience the music.
|
Well, I am just being a bit semantic, if that's the right word, about it - if it is restricted, it cannot be complete. And while I haven't YET seen confusions of the category A, I have seen confusions of category B defended in the name of subjectivity. Not in THOSE extremes that you mention in your example, but still cases where there should be no confusion at all, where, usually, the listener is just reluctant to admit he is wrong about it. I agree that the judgment of good or bad cannot be a completely objective evaluation but I would again differ in that I would be inclined to give weight to the listener's experience, not in terms of years, but in terms of time spent listening to that particular kind of music or band. It is difficult, if at all possible, to quantify these weights but that does not mean they have no relative values vis-a-vis each other. 9 times out of 10, I would give more importance to the opinion of an experienced listener who knows the album in question well to an uninitiated listener who has heard it for the first time. There is a remote possibility that, coming from a fresh perspective, the latter may have picked up something the former didn't, but usually the former has already been through the same journey with the same album that the latter is yet to embark on. Long story short, some opinions are more valid than others. It is not possible to quantify by how much, but that does not necessarily obstruct their being more valid.
|
|
Vibrationbaby
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6898
|
Posted: February 10 2011 at 09:26 |
rogerthat wrote:
Vibrationbaby wrote:
boo boo wrote:
Vibrationbaby wrote:
The more unpopular it is the better. Once bands start selling millions of albums and everybody is listening to it it loses it's mystique. Just like murder, " make it legal and it loses it's mystique" ( quoting Monty Python ). If Cluster started to get too popular I would have to stop listening to them. I think they just broke up so maybe they wil fade out into oblivion forever so I can like them even more. |
Please tell me you're joking. |
Not really. I think that the internet has ruined a lot of the mystique surrounding the more obscure . I would spend literally years hunting down albums. Now anything is available by the click of a mouse. In fact, because of the internet I have unfortunately lost interest in many bands. The thrill of the chase is gone. As I mentioned I never liked being with the "in crowd". One artist who fortunately I still listen to is Tom Waits. I have come across many people who buy his music just to be hip but don't unerstand him at all. Pink Floyd is another band that people are into because it's cool. I like certain Floyd albums for different reasons. How many times I have to listen to Money or look at a 15 year old with a DSOTM T shirt? I dunno.
|
That only means you care about the obscurity and the snob value it brings than the music itself. If you really liked the music, you would not care what kind of people made up the fanbase of the artist.
|
Yeah I hate music . Can't stand it. I've only been coming to this site for 7 years because I hate music.
|
|
AllP0werToSlaves
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 29 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 249
|
Posted: February 10 2011 at 09:25 |
|
You are correct. I think this is because people try and mirror something insecure inside with something outside they can show others immediately; culture does that to people.
|
|
JeanFrame
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 01 2010
Location: London, England
Status: Offline
Points: 195
|
Posted: February 10 2011 at 09:20 |
AllP0werToSlaves wrote:
This is true, but don't forget the majority of people form premature opinions about everything, not just music. Politics, media, etc; everyone knows "what's the best" without ever sampling anything else. |
Of course you're right, but somehow musical bigotry and ignorance goes deeper into the soul; or is that just me?
|
|
AllP0werToSlaves
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 29 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 249
|
Posted: February 10 2011 at 08:47 |
|
This is true, but don't forget the majority of people form premature opinions about everything, not just music. Politics, media, etc; everyone knows "what's the best" without ever sampling anything else.
|
|
JeanFrame
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 01 2010
Location: London, England
Status: Offline
Points: 195
|
Posted: February 10 2011 at 07:13 |
|
Hating something just because it's popular would be a nasty thing to do; it just isn't fair, and gives a bad name (and a bad taste) to the art of criticism.
|
|
Paravion
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470
|
Posted: February 10 2011 at 05:39 |
rogerthat wrote:
Paravion wrote:
The issue of classification is besides the point - a subjectivist approach doesn't entail and doesn't favour a complete random distribution of genre-labels. As sweatervest writes, and I agree, the point is communication of experience, thought and emotions. "Funk" "metal" etc. are just words - and words have meaning only insofar as there exists an (arbitrary and conventional) intersubjective agreement as to what they mean. |
Then we disagree on that. If you refer to a completely subjective approach, that is how I'd interpret it, that even classifications become random and subject to the personal whims of the listener. Otherwise, you are conceding that subjectivity has to be restricted to some aspects of music discussion, which is my stance anyway.
Paravion wrote:
For me, all this is not at all what subjectivity is about - a subjective position doesn't have the form of an objective judgement - you seem to ascribe this feature to it. A subjective 'judgement' can never be equated with actual knowledge which can be deemed either true or false - and it can't - by the very nature of subjectivity - be used as an argument in a discussion. |
But what actual knowledge can reside if the judgment of music is completely subjective? This is one of the most mischievous implications of complete subjectivity, the moment you say one opinion cannot be more valid than the other regardless of everything, it implies that all opinions are equally valid and then the example I had previously discussed would be perfectly acceptable.
Paravion wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
paravion wrote:
Subjectivity exists - perhaps it's not state of the art here in internet-land where large communities and anonymity result in childish and provocative outburst - but my favoured 'music-conversation-partners' are exactly the ones who don't waste their (and my) time justifying, explaining or describing the music in order to seek (dis)agreement as if there may be some goodness/badness properties inherent in the music objectively up for grasp for all rational beings. That's just silly.
This is the only point I have.. Stop discussing! |
You are missing the essence of a music discussion, then. If I say I like a particular band and upon being asked for further information, name their sub genre and describe some aspects of their music, it DOES give something to go by for the other person and conveys the impression, depending on the person and his preferences, that it may (or, alternatively, may not) be something up his alley. What is this "up-the-alley" phrase, in any case? Does it not emerge out of defining, even if imprecisely, what are the things you like in music, whether based on genres or on preference for some approaches, whatever? In a completely subjective environment, you would not be able to define even what is up your alley in the first place, to say nothing of other and more complicated things, and since I have seen many people do so quite well over the years, I am going to disagree with you on that point or that discussion of music is silly. I don't deny the possibility that the definition of what is up one's alley may itself expand or contract as tastes change. But that is just a natural phenomenon emerging from increased exposure to music and need not be taken to suggest that the listener does not himself know at all what is up his alley. 9 times out of 10, people choose what music they want to listen to based on whether they think it's up their alley |
You seem to be talking more about an exchange of knowledge than a discussion - if someone asks me for recommendations (I hate that) it's not a discussion.
Again - genres, definitions etc. is a question of word-meaning and principles of categorization which inevitably relies on conceptualization and intersubjectivity - i.e. a rough and common understanding of what is meant by words like metal, punk and other genre-labels. We organize our experience of music according primarily to genres, but this organization is ideally insensitive to value judgements - punk, prog, funk has no objective value on a goodness/badness scale. What makes music good has nothing to do with words for genres. Outside this value judgement universe, having an idea of what is usually meant by 'prog', to define it and describe it is not inconsistent with a subjectivist approach to taste (which is about value) - and it can of course be helpful in giving advise or recommendations - but has nothing to with a discussion about what is good or bad. |
No, I was using the up-the-alley concept to demonstrate that there are things that people agree on and find a consensus on. If there are things they are able to agree on, it cannot be completely subjective. And I don't think in practice the separation of taxonomy and value judgment works because the judgment flows out of the classification. There are ways to develop or render a rock song as opposed to a jazz track and so on. If it is not played the way a rock song is meant to be, that would also be a point against the artist. Once the genre is correctly ascribed, from that some aspects of the value judgment would also flow. That is why there is usually less disagreement about a band/album between people who follow the same genre than between one who does and one who has not been initiated to it. |
A subjectivist approach is restricted, and I don't recall I've said otherwise. - Consider the following discussions: 1) A: David Gilmour is a drummer B: David Gilmour is a guitarist 2) A: Pink Floyd is rap B: Pink Floyd is prog 3) A: Pink Floyd is bad music B: Pink Floyd is good music Discussion-participant A can only apply a subjectivist approach in discussion-example 3 - simply because 'drummer' and 'rap' only have meaning, and can only be used, insofar as there exist a common agreement as to what they mean. The statements 1a & 2a can be subjected to empirical testing and can easily be proven false (the former to a higher degree than the latter) and operates outside a value judgement universe. This little fact about language automatically prevents that a subjective approach to taste can be expanded to some situation of complete idiolectic relativism and make claims as 1a & 2a equally valid - because it will undermine and disregard the very nature of language. So presenting this as a danger and misfortunate consequence of subjectivism is overlooking and ignoring an important aspect about what language and communication is - an aspect that simply prevents this consequence. That's why I think your criticism is pointless - you expand subjectivisme to discussions of sorts 1 & 2. I think that it makes sense to distinguish between kinds of discussion - kinds where subjectivism cannot be applied - and kinds where it can be. Initially, I favoured a subjectivist approach to taste - I never favoured complete relativism. Discussion-example 3 is only about how good or bad Pink Floyd is. The meaning of adjectives like good and bad cannot in the same way be subjected to objective investigation - neither claim in 3 can be said to be objectively true or false - they describe how you value some sensory input - and only you, your personality, you cirsumstances, your background, your experience, your 'whims' can determine whether PF is good or bad - Pink Floyd doesn't have a property of being either good or bad in the same way as Gilmour has the property of being a guitarist and PF has the property of belonging to some genre. That - I feel - is an essential distinction that has to be made in order to understand what is meant by a subjective approach to taste. By complete subjectivity is not meant that it should be expanded to areas where it cannot be expanded - it's meant that there aren't at all any goodness/badness properties objectively existing in the music which are insensitive to how a person happens to experience the music.
Edited by Paravion - February 10 2011 at 05:52
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: February 09 2011 at 19:43 |
Vibrationbaby wrote:
boo boo wrote:
Vibrationbaby wrote:
The more unpopular it is the better. Once bands start selling millions of albums and everybody is listening to it it loses it's mystique. Just like murder, " make it legal and it loses it's mystique" ( quoting Monty Python ). If Cluster started to get too popular I would have to stop listening to them. I think they just broke up so maybe they wil fade out into oblivion forever so I can like them even more. |
Please tell me you're joking. |
Not really. I think that the internet has ruined a lot of the mystique surrounding the more obscure . I would spend literally years hunting down albums. Now anything is available by the click of a mouse. In fact, because of the internet I have unfortunately lost interest in many bands. The thrill of the chase is gone. As I mentioned I never liked being with the "in crowd". One artist who fortunately I still listen to is Tom Waits. I have come across many people who buy his music just to be hip but don't unerstand him at all. Pink Floyd is another band that people are into because it's cool. I like certain Floyd albums for different reasons. How many times I have to listen to Money or look at a 15 year old with a DSOTM T shirt? I dunno.
|
That only means you care about the obscurity and the snob value it brings than the music itself. If you really liked the music, you would not care what kind of people made up the fanbase of the artist.
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: February 09 2011 at 16:23 |
wilmon91 wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
Jimmy Nail huh?
|
Ah, yeah.... checking out Crocodile Shoes .....Cowboy Dreams is pretty nice... not a very strong album otherwise.. |
He's got a cracking voice though....and I just love him as an actor. 
|
|
|
|
wilmon91
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 15 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 698
|
Posted: February 09 2011 at 16:15 |
Snow Dog wrote:
Jimmy Nail huh?
|
Ah, yeah.... checking out Crocodile Shoes .....Cowboy Dreams is pretty nice... not a very strong album otherwise..
|
|
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: February 09 2011 at 15:54 |
|
Jimmy Nail huh?
|
|
|
|
wilmon91
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 15 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 698
|
Posted: February 09 2011 at 15:52 |
I made this post to comment on the post by sweatervest and didn't read the following comments. But I agree with what rogerthat says, in disputing the "subjectivity of taste" viewpoint.
sweatervest wrote:
the same error occurs when citing high-profile restaurants verses fast food restaurants for example as an illustration of objectivity in food taste.
These examples do not surprise someone that thinks those tastes are totally subjective. |
Yeah, the food example is no solid proof for the existence of an objective truth about quality. But coming up with examples I think is the only thing you can do to try to show things that indicate an objectively grounded lower quality or higher quality. But it is difficult to establish general rules, since there are always exceptions.
sweatervest wrote:
Total subjectivity does not rule out the possibility that one taste will be shared by more people at a given time or place than another taste, nor does it rule out the possibility of one having a taste for what lots of other people like. |
Yeah. And the shared appreciation for the music could be just a coincidence. And the reason for liking the music may not be because of the music - but for other reasons. Then you’re fooling yourself into thinking that you like it, and the appreciation will likely fade in time.
sweatervest wrote:
seeing any objectivity reduces what should be a rich conversation of each other's own emotional experiences brought out by music to some mistaken "debate" over whose opinion is more rooted in reality. |
Complete objectivity I think would mean that there is no personal experience - it’s not an experience, and it’s not personal. You are not looking at a piece of music from an angle , you are looking at it from all angles simultaneously. I don’t think an opinion with a strong conviction must lead to debates of proving who is ”right”. That's not interesting to me anyway. Just because objective truth exists doesn’t mean that everyone should seek out to prove what is objectively true, it’s impossible because it’s too abstract. I think the objective truth is not a set of general rules, it’s something way more complicated.
If you have been very moved by some music, it’s a good chance that other people will be too. One thing is true - that something moved you. But to believe in total subjectivity is to believe in total chaos, because nothing can be established, everything can be anything, at any time.
Reaching closer to experienceing something rooted in an objective higher quality I think is dependent on how much you can get out of the music. I think there are different levels of understanding music, and I don’t mean varying degrees of theoretical knowledge about rythms, scales and stuff, but different levels of feeling the music. If you don’t feel any difference between a minor key and major key chord, maybe you aren’t susceptible to harmonies, or lack experience of it. You can still appreciate music for other characteristics like rythms and sounds and expressions.
The more you can get out of music on all levels of experience, particularly the sublime levels, the deeper understanding you will have of it, I think. But it doesnt mean that the stronger you feel, the more truthful is your experience. Too much attachment to a feeling leads to an unbalanced view, such as sentimentality.
sweatervest wrote:
A good discussion of music, I think, is the participants attempting to communicate the feelings they feel when listening to the music, and describe as much as possible what objective things about the music seem to produce those feelings. |
Yeah. By objective things I assume you don’t mean objective quality, but concrete things like a guitar solo. But such a discussions about music must naturally strive towards finding common experiences. If the experience for each person was totally random, then there would be no correlation between what happens in the music and the feelings it produces.
sweatervest wrote:
I think those discussions about how to define objectively good tastes are off the mark |
Yes, probably. And my opinion as I said before is that it is undefinable. I myself don’t go by any rules when listening to music. Anything could be good. Though I try to be as open minded as possible, there is still a lot of territories that I havent yet investigated. There’s too much music, and of course time is an issue.
sweatervest wrote:
What could possibly establish either one of us as "wrong"? |
If someone takes a serious listen , and then says his/her opinion, then I’m allright with it. What I have experienced a lot is that people have premature opinions. They only need to hear 30 seconds at the most, then they have an opinion. What if the song changes style completely after 1 minute? Another common thing is when listening to classical music. Many people aren’t used to the dynamic changes, so at a dynamic climax, they will ask you to put the volume down, saying something about how crazy the music is. But they won’t say anything during the quiet parts – because then it’s barely audible, functiong as background music (what classical music is ”supposed” to be to some). Classical music is not ”quiet” music.
At a place I was working at ten years ago, I played Magma – Attahk (the album). The boss was practically running to the stereo to shut it off. It must have bothered him, and of course, the difference to the usual radio music was enormous. New music requires something by the listener. Many people want to hear things they recognize to some extent, or else it will be seen as a threat to them.
Establishing someones opinion as ”wrong” is impossible, but the opinion will be more firmly rooted the more thoroughly he/she listens, especially if listening several times during the course of some time period, giving the music a fair chance to settle in. If someone gives the music a fair chance, I will respect the opinion. But I personally never recommend music to anyone, which is a pity, but I can’t expect anyone to appreciate it the same way as I do, especially since I think music gives something that you personally need, and we all need different things. What I listen to is also very dependant on my current mood, the time of day, or year, or weather and such things.
sweatervest wrote:
So I think most of the objections to the subjectivity of taste viewpoint are false dilemmas, as none of them really invalidate that position. |
Yeah, but it’s like the question of there being a god – you can’t prove it nor disprove it. You can’t prove that there isn’t an objective truth. And believing that everything is subjevtive I think is crazy.
sweatervest wrote:
it amounts to telling people they don't feel what they feel, and how could others possibly have better access to a person's emotional responses than himself? |
I don’t think so. Of course one feels what one feels. But the quality one feels is no truth in itself, since ones opinion may change over time. Not necessarily to a more mature opinion, but hopefully so. I don’t want to imply though that the maturity of opinion is a linear thing, but to some extent it can be, I think.
I have fooled myself at times. I thought I liked an album which I bought, it began with hearing song which I liked, and I enjoyed the album the first times, but then it kind of deteriorated, one by one I noticed aspects of it which I didn’t like, especially the production, and in the end it’s an album I don’t play anymore. But still, what I liked about it initially, especially with the first song, I still like – but music is composed of so many things, and you may overlook the bad things in favour of some positive element.
What I felt, I felt - but I was a bit carried away, and after some time my opinions became more balanced .
By the way, I’m not picky when listening to music. If I find some fault, for instance the singer may sing out of tune, I’m not gonna dismiss it just because of that. In fact, it can be totally mediocre, if only there are something in it that is good enough to overshadow the negative aspects.
Hope you had fun reading this, the longest post I ever did! 
Edited by wilmon91 - February 09 2011 at 16:00
|
|
|
|
boo boo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 905
|
Posted: February 09 2011 at 13:29 |
I admit that annoying fanbases can make me feel a little embarassed for liking the same music. But if I like a piece of music how popular it is has no effect on that, I still like Pink Floyd's Money and other songs that get too much radio play. It may ruin the special feeling you had when you first heard it, sure, but it doesn't undo the fact that they are good compositions. Same reason I love almost every Beatles song even though everybody knows the damn song.
A lot of what I listen to is popular, and there is stuff I like that isnt, some thats even very disliked.
Overall, a lot of great works end up being popular, thats true for every medium. I hate the whole "it's popular now it sucks" point of view that a lot of people on the internet have.
There was a time when I listened to DSOTM once everyday, I wasn't part of any "in crowd", I had no friends, I didn't even realise how popular the band really was with other people.
Disliking music because its popular is even more annoying than liking music because its popular. Liking or disliking music for any reason beyond it's actual merits is stupid and absurd.
Edited by boo boo - February 09 2011 at 13:30
|
|
topographicbroadways
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5575
|
Posted: February 09 2011 at 13:20 |
Vibrationbaby wrote:
boo boo wrote:
Vibrationbaby wrote:
The more unpopular it is the better. Once bands start selling millions of albums and everybody is listening to it it loses it's mystique. Just like murder, " make it legal and it loses it's mystique" ( quoting Monty Python ). If Cluster started to get too popular I would have to stop listening to them. I think they just broke up so maybe they wil fade out into oblivion forever so I can like them even more. |
Please tell me you're joking. |
Not really. I think that the internet has ruined a lot of the mystique surrounding the more obscure . I would spend literally years hunting down albums. Now anything is available by the click of a mouse. In fact, because of the internet I have unfortunately lost interest in many bands. The thrill of the chase is gone. As I mentioned I never liked being with the "in crowd". One artist who fortunately I still listen to is Tom Waits. I have come across many people who buy his music just to be hip but don't unerstand him at all. Pink Floyd is another band that people are into because it's cool. I like certain Floyd albums for different reasons. How many times I have to listen to Money or look at a 15 year old with a DSOTM T shirt? I dunno.
|
if that 15 year old is a complete stranger how can you know he doesn't understand it? i was heavily into floyd because of the music at that age and was in no way part of the "in" crowd or any crowd for that matter, and theres plenty of PA members that age, Agreed there are plenty who would since Live8 consider floyd or any retro rock to be hip to like but to judge all young fans by this stereotype is quite silly
|
|
|
|
Vibrationbaby
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6898
|
Posted: February 09 2011 at 13:16 |
boo boo wrote:
Vibrationbaby wrote:
The more unpopular it is the better. Once bands start selling millions of albums and everybody is listening to it it loses it's mystique. Just like murder, " make it legal and it loses it's mystique" ( quoting Monty Python ). If Cluster started to get too popular I would have to stop listening to them. I think they just broke up so maybe they wil fade out into oblivion forever so I can like them even more. |
Please tell me you're joking. |
Not really. I think that the internet has ruined a lot of the mystique surrounding the more obscure . I would spend literally years hunting down albums. Now anything is available by the click of a mouse. In fact, because of the internet I have unfortunately lost interest in many bands. The thrill of the chase is gone. As I mentioned I never liked being with the "in crowd". One artist who fortunately I still listen to is Tom Waits. I have come across many people who buy his music just to be hip but don't unerstand him at all. Pink Floyd is another band that people are into because it's cool. I like certain Floyd albums for different reasons. How many times I have to listen to Money or look at a 15 year old with a DSOTM T shirt? I dunno.
|
|
topographicbroadways
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5575
|
Posted: February 09 2011 at 12:49 |
|
i don't hate bands because of popularity but i do hate the popularity of some bands i dont like
|
|
|
|
AllP0werToSlaves
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 29 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 249
|
Posted: February 09 2011 at 10:55 |
I could just argue you all in circles and say that all our views of "subjectivity" are entirely subjective to each individual, and thus rationally objective to them!
Gosh I love reasoning lol.
|
|
boo boo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 905
|
Posted: February 09 2011 at 09:32 |
Vibrationbaby wrote:
The more unpopular it is the better. Once bands start selling millions of albums and everybody is listening to it it loses it's mystique. Just like murder, " make it legal and it loses it's mystique" ( quoting Monty Python ). If Cluster started to get too popular I would have to stop listening to them. I think they just broke up so maybe they wil fade out into oblivion forever so I can like them even more. |
Please tell me you're joking.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: February 08 2011 at 19:52 |
Paravion wrote:
The issue of classification is besides the point - a subjectivist approach doesn't entail and doesn't favour a complete random distribution of genre-labels. As sweatervest writes, and I agree, the point is communication of experience, thought and emotions. "Funk" "metal" etc. are just words - and words have meaning only insofar as there exists an (arbitrary and conventional) intersubjective agreement as to what they mean. |
Then we disagree on that. If you refer to a completely subjective approach, that is how I'd interpret it, that even classifications become random and subject to the personal whims of the listener. Otherwise, you are conceding that subjectivity has to be restricted to some aspects of music discussion, which is my stance anyway.
Paravion wrote:
For me, all this is not at all what subjectivity is about - a subjective position doesn't have the form of an objective judgement - you seem to ascribe this feature to it. A subjective 'judgement' can never be equated with actual knowledge which can be deemed either true or false - and it can't - by the very nature of subjectivity - be used as an argument in a discussion. |
But what actual knowledge can reside if the judgment of music is completely subjective? This is one of the most mischievous implications of complete subjectivity, the moment you say one opinion cannot be more valid than the other regardless of everything, it implies that all opinions are equally valid and then the example I had previously discussed would be perfectly acceptable.
Paravion wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
paravion wrote:
Subjectivity exists - perhaps it's not state of the art here in internet-land where large communities and anonymity result in childish and provocative outburst - but my favoured 'music-conversation-partners' are exactly the ones who don't waste their (and my) time justifying, explaining or describing the music in order to seek (dis)agreement as if there may be some goodness/badness properties inherent in the music objectively up for grasp for all rational beings. That's just silly.
This is the only point I have.. Stop discussing! |
You are missing the essence of a music discussion, then. If I say I like a particular band and upon being asked for further information, name their sub genre and describe some aspects of their music, it DOES give something to go by for the other person and conveys the impression, depending on the person and his preferences, that it may (or, alternatively, may not) be something up his alley. What is this "up-the-alley" phrase, in any case? Does it not emerge out of defining, even if imprecisely, what are the things you like in music, whether based on genres or on preference for some approaches, whatever? In a completely subjective environment, you would not be able to define even what is up your alley in the first place, to say nothing of other and more complicated things, and since I have seen many people do so quite well over the years, I am going to disagree with you on that point or that discussion of music is silly. I don't deny the possibility that the definition of what is up one's alley may itself expand or contract as tastes change. But that is just a natural phenomenon emerging from increased exposure to music and need not be taken to suggest that the listener does not himself know at all what is up his alley. 9 times out of 10, people choose what music they want to listen to based on whether they think it's up their alley |
You seem to be talking more about an exchange of knowledge than a discussion - if someone asks me for recommendations (I hate that) it's not a discussion.
Again - genres, definitions etc. is a question of word-meaning and principles of categorization which inevitably relies on conceptualization and intersubjectivity - i.e. a rough and common understanding of what is meant by words like metal, punk and other genre-labels. We organize our experience of music according primarily to genres, but this organization is ideally insensitive to value judgements - punk, prog, funk has no objective value on a goodness/badness scale. What makes music good has nothing to do with words for genres. Outside this value judgement universe, having an idea of what is usually meant by 'prog', to define it and describe it is not inconsistent with a subjectivist approach to taste (which is about value) - and it can of course be helpful in giving advise or recommendations - but has nothing to with a discussion about what is good or bad. |
No, I was using the up-the-alley concept to demonstrate that there are things that people agree on and find a consensus on. If there are things they are able to agree on, it cannot be completely subjective. And I don't think in practice the separation of taxonomy and value judgment works because the judgment flows out of the classification. There are ways to develop or render a rock song as opposed to a jazz track and so on. If it is not played the way a rock song is meant to be, that would also be a point against the artist. Once the genre is correctly ascribed, from that some aspects of the value judgment would also flow. That is why there is usually less disagreement about a band/album between people who follow the same genre than between one who does and one who has not been initiated to it.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Do you hate certain prog because of popularity?
