Bluffing a music geek

Rocktopus wrote: Debrewguy: Measuring art considered more or less artistically/culturally equal as: Bach - Beethoven or Univers Zero - Henry Cow, has nothing to do with what I thought we were talking about. I'm not interested in doing that, and I never said I was. I know you all think I'm a disgusting snob for saying this. But if I ask person in the mid-to-late twenties with a comparable background (meaning exposed for all kinds of western culture, and atleast the basic  education) what's his or her favorite art or artist was, and the reply is DJ Bobo; I would think this person was either stupid, joking or just awaken after ca. 13 years in coma. I know I haven't come up with any in depth analysis or proof, and I won't (and I'm not sure I would be able, atleast not in english) as we will never agree. Basically I trust knowledge, skills and experience, and I believe that having a lots of all that makes your opinion more valuable than someone who hasn't.

Rocky, the point is that there is no objective measure of "superiority". Any debates about it come off as "I know better than you". AND the attitude that one person's supposed knowledge about, say, musical theory/history can really be said to be able to judge which piece of music is inherently superior is akin to saying a physician can tell you who the most beautiful woman is. It is really and always an opinion. It may be argued that " les connaissances dans le domaine expert de la personne donne poids a leur verdict", but there is no scientific basis to rate art.

Again, as I've noted from my readings, Bach's compositions were not held in high regard for a long time after his death. Yet, they are universally proclaimed as part of the canon of western music. In other words, people still play 'em, and people still wanna hear 'em.
So I stand by my quote from a mid 20th century musical god - "just goes to show you never can tell"

And if you are the type to judge someone's intelligence  based solely on their tastes (oh my god, this person's opinion does not agree with mine !!!)  in music, that says more about you than it does about people who do not share your own preferences.

I could write an extremely long and convoluted post on the issue of superiority of one piece of music over another, just like I have in the past, but to respect people's sanity I'll sum it up this way:

You can buy your music from musicians, or you can buy your music from pimps/drug dealers. I trust you'll be better off doing the former, even if lots of people seem to be doing the latter.

The above doesn't apply if you're buying Miles Davis

Rocktopus wrote: debrewguy wrote: It may be argued that " les connaissances dans le domaine expert de la personne donne poids a leur verdict", but there is no scientific basis to rate art. Rockpus - Excactly. That's why I I trust things like knowledge, skills and experience. Somewhat measurable stuff.  DB says - so , let's say the current Wall Street mess could have been avoided if the big corporations were run by knowledgeable experts like MBAs, and CEOs with extensive experience in running mega corporations and skilled at having them turn big profits .... I trust people with knowledge skills and experience to manage something that can be measured in very concrete terms such as costs, risks, margins etc ... Kinda like music, eh ... where you can measure tempo, chord structures, theory, history, time (11/7, 12/3) and then make an objective judgement. How does knowledge impart good taste ? Explain how one would need to learn what is "good" music, or why ? DO I need to know every chord in the universe ? Should I wait until the Moody BLues find the Lost Chord ? Can I have a clue if I don't remember what the perfect fifth is for C# ? What skills ? Explain what level of virtuosity on what instrument would qualify one's opinion as carrying more weight than a non-musician ? Include why it matters when it comes to the enjoyment of music ... Am I wrong to like Dun if I haven't learned the rhythmic patterns that are commonplace in Zeuh land cannot identify  7/4 from 11/8 ? Experience ? Explain what experience or experiences are necessary to determine whether you like a certain type of music or song ? Would one who has listened to Krautrock music exclusively be less qualified to decide for oneself whether they liked RIO/Avant-Garde ? Should I have waited to go through the entire Billboard top 40 of the 70s, then the classical music composers, followed by the great jazzbos, before I listened to Close to the Edge ? Was I deluded in thinking that I only loved it because of my lack of "experience" ? Or are you talking about objectively measurable "concrete" manifestations of an art form like music ?  Roocky - I am more interested in listening to people who knows what they're talking about (unlike the rest of you), than people who don't. And experience has taught me that knowledge should be respected, and people who claims things but don't have a clue, should not. DB - I prefer to talk to those who have enthusiasm for the things they talk about; passion if you will. Not sure about the "unlike the rest of you" comment. Do you mean collabs and PA admin and reviewers ? Knowledge is useful in exploring a heretofore unknown genre, be it Rap or Baroque . But the reference person's love and enthusiasm for the music would carry more weight than their ability to spout a million names. Check out Gatot's reviews. Read a few from Mandrakeroot. They have knowledge, but they share enthusiasm. I.E. , "here's what I think ..." "here's how this music makes me feel, how I feel about this song " If you want to discuss music history or theory, then speaking with a person who knows what they're talking about (???) is understandable. But knowledge of history and/or theory is no measure as to the validity of a person's taste in music. Again, if in your opinion it does, do you accept that prog music is looked down upon by many in the classical music world and also in the jazz music spheres. In which case, are you admitting that your favourite music is inferior to others ? Let me re-state an example : who is qualified/knowledgeable/skilled enough to be THE authority as to who the most beautiful woman in the world is ? You can put surely put some figures as to what a perfect figure is. But could that be called arbitrary, if others prefer wider hips or longer legs ? And if you are the type to judge someone's intelligence  based solely on their tastes (oh my god, this person's opinion does not agree with mine !!!)  in music (Rockey -  Jesus, no! In every post you try to make my opinion more extreme than it is (Rocky, you keep stating that there is an objective measure or measures that you can use to determine the superiority of any given music genre over another; and seem to revel in repeating how those genres you dislike are so obviously inferior. Or is it not important only when the two points of references are music that you like ? If I ask you why attach no importance to a claim that  Bach might be objectively superior to Beethoven, but insist that , say an RIO band can be "proven" to be superiror to a rock n roll band. Then proceed to state the measures that act as concrete evidence of your preferred group. Except that , you do not question why your own measuring stick is unquestinably valid. (DB again - ., that says more about you than it does about people who do not share your own preferences. (Rocky - I'm not talking about preferances. My example is not the same as: oh my god" this person likes mainstream music just like everyone else, and must be stupid (or prefers Univers Zero to Art Zoyd). One thing is simply not caring about music. Being an active fan of plain stupidity is something else. DB - An active fan of plain stupidity  ? I've never heard of that group.I've got to write it down , though. That would make for a cool name. The point I keep coming back to is not to say everyone should like all music, nor to say that one should hold all music genres in the same esteem. But rather , understand that your preferences and tastes are subjective. That no matter who you cite as an "expert" , there are no objective criteria that can be used to determine what is "superiror". The only true measure of a music's quality is the enjoyment that the fan, the pair of ears at the other end , gets from listening to it. It does not in the least matter that it be Symphonic Prog, Raga Rock, Rap or Country and Western. It only matters how you feel about it. And how do you measure how you feel ?

Visitor13 wrote: [QUOTE=debrewguy] [QUOTE=Visitor13]I could write an extremely long and convoluted post on the issue of superiority of one piece of music over another, just like I have in the past, but to respect people's sanity I'll sum it up this way: You can buy your music from musicians, or you can buy your music from pimps/drug dealers. I trust you'll be better off doing the former, even if lots of people seem to be doing the latter. The above doesn't apply if you're buying Miles Davis

Visitor13 is in blue, DB is in the red (not just in debt terms, either). Black is DB's orginal comments. Green is the colour of those sick of reading multi-hued quotes within quotes.

Any comment on the 70s "girls" that Wakeman preferred ??? Or how mature Jimmy Page's girlfriend was ?

No, because it wouldn't have anything to do with my argument. (DB - you mentioned pimps/drug dealers ? )

A musician is one who makes music.

And a lawyer is someone who gives legal advice... if I tell someone they shouldn't jaywalk, does that make me a lawyer? And if I replace a lightbulb, does that make me an electrician?  (DB - ah, but such trades and occupations have specific requirements that need to be met in order to call one's self a lawyer or electrician. A musician on the other hand , simply put, is a person who can play an instrument. Virtuosity could be measured by their skill, but no minimum ability is required for a person to claim they are a musician.


Again, would you accept a classically trained pianist dismissing prog music ? Would be be as strongly moved to agree with a trad jazz musician who derided jazz fusion ?

I'd listen to what they have to say... depending on the person they might be full of it, or they might notice (potentially) negative aspects of those genres their fans seem unaware of... it could be utterly boring and predictable, but it could also be enlightening... (DB - Ah, but my point is would you accept an "expert" declaring your favored music as "inferior".If they state that RIO/Avant-Garde is melodically challenged (I present it as an excample, not as fact or even my opinion. As I find melodies in UZ's work) and therefore less valid than other music genres, would that change a RIO fan's preferences. Should it ?

It's nice to see yourself as right, only to find out that other "knowledgeable" "skilled", and "trained" people look down on your tastes in music because they know it is "inferior".

Heh, knowledgeable people...Son House, for example, was tremendously knowleadgeable about music. And he never needed to learn or quote all that theoretical stuff, the enormity of his musical  knowledge was evident with every sound he played or sang... a true musician. ( DB - You're confusing terms. Son House knew how to write & play great blues tunes. Many will likely survive eons. But the only thing evident in his songs was the talent that he had for his musical genre. So really, what I figure you mean is his skill, his talent; not knowledge. I doubt it would have qualified him to judge whether Neo-Prog was less progressive than Symphonic. . And I would bet that he would not even have cared. But he was a true musician. If you're a blues fan. Music is huge, so some musicians will be totally unlike others... but as with lawyers and electricians, what they have in common is that they have to actually know something about music to be musicians in the first place. (Db - yes, again, they know how to play an instrument. no test required, no union certification. After all, what else would you "need" to know)How much do they need to know to merit that name? Lawyers and electricians need to know enough to handle the issues they're entrusted with and so do musicians, in their own special way... and a key part of knowing enough is always wanting to know more, to learn, whether through books, experience, experimentation, intuition or whatever...how many musicians do that consitently? (DB - er, mmm, ... So Son House was a true musician because he was always trying to learn more ? I don't know that he read; I'm sure that he didn't travel outside the delta, and his recorded works do not show that he experimented, at least not the way we understand the term today. He did play by intuition, though. So he scores 1 out of 4.  And am I so wrong thinking that their work would be superior to that of their colleagues' who can't/won't recognise and respond to the broadness and challenges of their chosen craft?   (DB - again, you're making points, but not explaining them. Robert Johnson was not the best selling blues artist of his time. And because of the limited recordings made during this era, it is possible that more than a few unrecorded artists, playing in relative obcurity, may have been superior in their playing. As to why their names are not known, well, figure a slave's son, tied to the land sharecroppingbarely having the werewithal to play the Saturday fish fry . There are some musical genres where you can keep learning theory until you die. And there are musical genres that allow attempts to stretch accepted boundaries. But many make incremental changes at best, yet are considered to be good or great musicians. As far as the broadness of their craft, coming back to Son House, was he responding to the challenges by playing some 1 chord blues, other songs based on a 13 bar set-up, and one or two brought straight up out of his chruch upbringing (John the Revelator) ? Or was he just playing what came to him ? I don't believe that the blues "originators" were grand theorists, eh.

Hey, I'm no snob, I'm not smart and I can't do anything right. I'm just a concerned customer, wishing to get the best possible product for his money, a product that will last, as music isn't cheap. Is it too much to ask? I might not want to listen to Ornette Coleman for every day of the rest of my life, but I'm fairly certain that when I choose to listen to him, I will love it, whether it's five, ten, twenty or fifty years from now. This is what makes a true musician. And it's certainly more than I can say for a large part of my collection, wasted money, unfortunately. (DB - But the point we're discussing is whether there is an objective basis to believe that one person can be the authority in determining the superiority of one genre or artist over another. If you are a fan of Ornette Coleman, and of Jazz in particular, would it matter if Branford Marsalis states unequivocally that Dizzie Gillespie is a better musician than Coleman? Marsalis is considered enough of an "expert" or "authority" on jazz to have been used extensively in Burns' documentary on Jazz history.Yet, there were many questions as to the bias he holds against the direction that jazz went in from the late 50s onwards. So free form jazz, and other more untraditional forms were, in his opinion, not worthy of mention in an American Jazz history. Considering the status of Davis' Bitches Brew here at PA, do we bow to Marsalis' knowledge (theoretical and historical), talent (he has received both critical and commercial success), and skill ( again, recognition that he is a good or great jazz musician by jazz fans and critics) ?

Or, if you have actually read the initial comments - do we say that he holds an opinion, based on his subjective tastes; and as such it carries no more weight as far as assigning a certain value to one  music or another than say, Ivan Melgar's(Ivan's a lawyer, too). Both may show admiration and preference for the works of music they enjoy or hold in high regard. And speak of those that they dislike or don't und or music  is the greatest or the worst. That, my friend, is test for which the formulas, equations, and other such calculations and measurements have not been developed to objectively resolve subjective differences relative to one genre's worth compared to another.
All music is music. All musical genres have some music that will last forever. All music has some music that will enjoy success and acclaim in its' own time, and be eventually forgotten. All music has some that will be created in obscurity, and attain success, critical or commercial, later; in some cases even after the composer(s)/player(s)' passing away. And ALL music has some music that never sees the light of day, never attracts attention or even kudos. All music will have some great good and bad, even according to its' biggest fans. All music will have its' fans. All music will have its' detractors. None of this will matter to the person who is enjoying the music he is listening to at the moment. All that is important is the pleasure derived from the experience. No matter the reason the music is found to be pleasing. And no matter what some may call an 'expert" and the supposed authoratative opinion that this "expert" may hold.


P.S. If you're looking or need rankings, accept that such things are popularity polls that reflect nothing more than a general view point of a certain group of people. Then start a venomous thread on the next innocuous and silly top so and so list in ROlling Stone.

If someone wants to listen to "plain stupidity" than more power to them! It's not my place to judge people or their tastes.