The Arrogant Proggie

I don't have problems with that either. I do love all sorts of music
in any genres as long as it's pleasing to hear and conveys a good
message and it's style is unique and general public have said that
it's a good one.That's what really matters to me..
< id="gwProxy" ="">< ="jsCall;" id="jsProxy" ="">

Logan wrote: debrewguy wrote: KingCrimson250 wrote: debrewguy wrote: one point - if anyone ever feels the need to proclaim , unprovoked, the superiority of any music over another ... there is only one way to do it - to clearly state that it is a personal opinion, a matter of one's taste in music. To present as based on objective measures is to merit any & all abuse thrown at you. Ah, but is that not a personal opinion as well? Can you objectively and conclusively prove that the superiority of some music over another cannot be objectively and conclusively proven? actually , yes. (as quoted by a non-Britney Spears fan) - "if someone wants to argue what band or music is best, I throw sales info at them. After all, that is a concrete measure, right ?" Then if they say that isn't a true measure, you ask them for the concrete (i.e. measurable) terms on which they base their "facts". Once they start blubbering and babbling, you ask them what music they LIKE best and why. If you're lucky, you're with a music fan that understands the concept of personal taste. P.S. I have actually used that approach with several "elitists" here. None, not even the most educated ( I would check their profile) ever came up with an objective way to determine superiority. They all lapsed into "I know what I like, and that's that". For which the only answer is - "that's what I've been saying all along" ! I believe that there are objective ways to measure superiority. (DB - please present the measurements and how they are measured)  I don't believe that all bands are created equal.  What's best for me may not be best for you is a given. (DB - so we agree that it is subjective opinion based on one's own tastes, and in now way objective)  I don't readily equate commercial success with artistic success (DB - neither do I. But it's a neat little way to take the stuffing out of people who can't see the sun, cause their nose is blocking the view)but people can use different criteria for determining the superiority of one bands, peice of music, or performance over another. ( DB - actually, no they can't  If they do, they are simply tryingt to rationalize their own likes & dislikes.) Commercial success is one way to measure superiority.(DB - no, it's just a way of measuring popularity that is to be taken with a grain of salt. Record industry insiders have this little joke -"It shipped Platinum, and sold Gold)  Band A had superior sales figures to band B.  Does it of itself make the music better.  No.  (DB - we agree) How about technical precision?  You've just been to a concert and boths bands were playing similarly difficult pieces,  Band A kept messing up and band B played immaculately.  Band B's was the superior performance.  (DB - you can't shine sh*te. content is important. form is too. but it is not a determining factor. Mimics and imitators are not held in higher regard than the original artist because they can play the songs more precisely. If that were the case, the Musical Box would ousell Genesis when it comes to concerts) Composition is another matter.  It seems obvious to me that certain composers and musicians are objectively more talented/ more professional than others (more genius). ( DB - for a few centuries, Bach was not held in high regard. Now he is, and has been for a century or two. What generation(s) got it right ? Again, you insinuate an objective way of  measuring superiority that doesn't exist. Beethoven , Mozart, Bach ... who's # 1 ? John or Paul ? Chuck Berry or Elvis ? Steve Howe, Steve hackett, Steve Gaines, or all of them vs Stevie Wonder, with one hand tied behind his back )It doesn't mean one will enjoy them more, though, nor that they will have more commercial success.(DB - again we agree. Genius can't even really be measured on an IQ test. Only the score on the test. If I'm in a foxhole in the middle of a war, I want someone who can figure out how to get me out alive, not somebody who can tell me which polygon is different from the others) It can be problematic too when contrasting different styles.  Perhaps the music of Fred Durst and Beethoven are equally good in terms of what each does, which is different, but I don't believe that Fred Durst will ever be elevated to the musical stature of Beethoven.  Was Mozart's musical skill superior to Neal Morse's, or are they both musically equal -- each with his own strength and musical idiom?  Perhaps in another time and place, Neal Morse would have eclipsed Mozart making similar music.  Should William Hung get the same acclaim as Pavarotti? ( time will tell for all music. See Bach. also , with the gradual withdrawal of classical music from public & private broadcasters' playlists, we are already seeing the grand composers essentially becoming nothing more than academic history. Yes, their influence lives on. But less and less of them stay in the general public's mind. Just as jazz, blues, and even the most Popular of Pop musicians. Some endure. Some that even bewilder the bejesus out of their critics. And even some that surprise their fans. Again , see Bach. )

db - quote , unquote, there is no objective to measure a music's superiority over another. It is, was, and will always be subjective. A matter of taste, or if it's music the other person doesn't like - a lack of taste.
Which is why I listen to what I love, like, and what piques my curiosity. And surprise surprise, no objective means has been found to predict what I will like. Not even computer generated models like Pandora.

Certif1ed wrote: If that sounds arrogant, then it's no more arrogant than a car mechanic telling you that he's in a better position to tell you what's wrong with your car than you, or a doctor is to tell you what is wrong with your health.

Dean wrote: Certif1ed wrote: If that sounds arrogant, then it's no more arrogant than a car mechanic telling you that he's in a better position to tell you what's wrong with your car than you, or a doctor is to tell you what is wrong with your health. That's the problem with analogies Mark - car mechanic's are renowned for driving some of the worse maintained cars on the road and my doctor isn't exactly the picture of health

Edited by Certif1ed - June 26 2009 at 06:54

There's a difference between "descriptions" and measures.
You can measure distance in inches, feet, miles (or use the metric system). But what you or I consider far is a description not a measure.
Example - a 2 mile walk for Milk & bread might be fine by me, but far for you. The only measure we have is that the walk is 2 miles. The different subjective views are based on our opposing opinions.

And so you can measure( i.e. use very precise words or terms) tempo, time (4/4 , 11/ 5), chords progressions. But you can't describe what "good" or "bad" music is.
As a brilliant example of incongruousity () , commercial success can be measured by units moved, i.e. albums or singles or even tickets sold. But you can't identify "commercial" music. How would you reconcile Bon Jovi's "Slippery When Wet" , and Pink Floyd' Wish You Were Here" ? Both were commercial successes.
But most (99.9 is a guess on my part) bands that tried to imitate these two groups failed to even attract enough attention to be known or remembered nowadays.
And yes, that applies to the Hair Metal scene that Bon Jovi was supposed to be part of. If you go through a few sites dedicated to that music, you'll find about a half dozen groups that hit platinum, mostly on the strength of a hit single, and then nothing. You'll then see a massive amount of nobodies that most Hair Metal fans never ever heard of.

Logan wrote: DB: I find it difficult to respond to your way of dissecting a post sentence by sentence -- since one loses context, and greater ideas that way.  I find it easier to focus on an idea.  I've tried to go into real depth in the past when you've brought the same stuff up.  As I've said, I studied film theory, not music theory, but I think that similar "measures" can be used for different arts.  I don't know how well versed in music theory you are.  What I've maintained is that popular success does not equal artistic success, and that when making a valid case for one thing being superior over another, one should have a logical framework of analysis (what one chooses as one's framework can show one's biases, of course).  Some measures could include: innovation, technicality, various compositional attributes and intent.  There needn't be one determining factor.  That was part of my point.  One could consider two bands trying their best to cover the same piece from sheet music note for note.  The first is sloppy, can't play it right, the second plays impeccably.  Therefore the first is the superior performance.  That is objective.  Taste, as Certifies said, is a different matter.  I don't care much for The Music Box, but so what?  I'm not sure what your argument is against being able to assess superiority in an objective manner within set criteria/ conditions.. My five year old plays the piano reasonably well for her age and comes up with her own songs, but if I put her in a musical talent contest up against a child musical prodigy, she would not deserve to win.  And I say this as a proud, loving father.

You are doing a great disservice for our attempts to accomplish the extinction of the human species and should really cut it out. 


Edited by Slartibartfast - June 26 2009 at 14:25

sealchan wrote: 1.  Quality of vocals: better singers in pop

This is highly subjective. I like plenty of the singers in prog better than pop singers because the prog singers tend to have character in their voices. Of course this is pretty much irrelevant because I have yet to hear a technically good singer in anything other than choral/operatic music. No one ennunciates, no one uses round vowels and few pop singers will do anything else than belt out notes from their chest.

sealchan: are you familiar with Hoyry-Kone?  Topi Lehtipuu is a terrific vocalist, and verstile, who doesn't get a whole lot of acclaim here.

Logan wrote: DB: I find it difficult to respond to your way of dissecting a post sentence by sentence -- since one loses context, and greater ideas that way.  I find it easier to focus on an idea.  I've tried to go into real depth in the past when you've brought the same stuff up.  As I've said, I studied film theory, not music theory, but I think that similar "measures" can be used for different arts.  I don't know how well versed in music theory you are.  What I've maintained is that popular success does not equal artistic success, and that when making a valid case for one thing being superior over another, one should have a logical framework of analysis (what one chooses as one's framework can show one's biases, of course).  Some measures could include: innovation, technicality, various compositional attributes and intent.  There needn't be one determining factor.  That was part of my point.  One could consider two bands trying their best to cover the same piece from sheet music note for note.  The first is sloppy, can't play it right, the second plays impeccably.  Therefore the first second is the superior performance.  That is objective.  Taste, as Certified said, is a different matter.  I'm not sure what your argument is against being able to assess superiority in an objective manner within set criteria/ conditions.. My five year old plays the piano reasonably well for her age and comes up with her own songs, but if I put her in a musical talent contest up against a child musical prodigy, she would not deserve to win.  And I say this as a proud, loving father. EDITED primarily for a little mistake that I might have shrugged off as irony.

O.K., here goes a (hopefully abbreviated version)
Measures are concrete. Descriptions are not. And personal tastes bear no relation to either, nor is one's preferring one music or genre over another. Find me someone who loves everything in any given genre .

  Sales numbers prove nothing but commercial success. And they are & always have been open to manipulation (shipped platinum, sold gold).

making a case for superiority on facts is impossible to do when the arguement is based on opinion ( I say this is why it is superior, and therefore it is). The "measures" you give do not equate to "good" or "bad" music. Do you prefer a tribute or cover act that plays , say, a King Crimson song more technically impeccable than King Crimson ? Or are you the type to keep "score" during the performance instead of listening ? I.E. , do you listen to music to analyze it or enjoy it ?

There is really no such thing as "superior" music to the listener. The music fan is looking for entertainment, for enjoyment. The listener is not going to determine whether they liked a song because the group used 11/8 and 32/7, or stuck to major chords, used 15 chords or 2 for the composition. And frankly, in the end, the intent of the artist matters little. The music is the only thing that counts. And the only "superiority" that anyone, even those with the most extensive knowledge of music theory, can claim is that they like Song A better than Song B. I.E. , song A is superior in pleasing this particular listener. Period.

Again, please read up on Bach. Then come back and tell me what generation or century was right about his music. Or better, put on an LP, CD, hell, a cassette 8 track of something you like and just enjoy it for what it is. Music to YOUR taste.

P.S. one cannot claim an arguement is to be won objectively on criteria one chooses subjectively. If so, then the only true, and reality based measure of superior music is that it is found in my music collection.  SO by the very fact that I have clearly established the determining factor as being whether I own it or not,  any music not found there is inferior.

So, if you wish, send me music that you like or that you are curious about, and I will tell you if it is superior or not.


Edited by debrewguy - June 26 2009 at 20:20

The problem here is with weasel words and assumptions;

Edited by Certif1ed - June 27 2009 at 03:37