| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Repner 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 16 2007
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 203
|
 Posted: February 08 2011 at 12:07 |
|
That's one of the excuses I hate. When they say they can't stand a band because they're "overrated".
Overrated is such an...overrated word. What do YOU think of the band?
|
|
|
 |
Paravion
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470
|
Posted: February 08 2011 at 14:35 |
 sweatervest wrote:
Allow me to take a different stance on the whole objective/subjective thing and defend the idea that tastes in music (and in general) are completely subjective.
First, I think it is an error to use a comparison of Bach to Itsy Bitsy Spider as a supposed counter-example to the claim that there is no objectivity in tastes. I think 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. 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. It is a historical fact (i.e. not subjective) that Bach's music has been held in much higher regard than something like "Itsy Bitsy Spider", but this cannot establish any sort of objectivity in musical taste. All this does is describe what certain people's tastes have been in the past.
Furthermore, the first thing I thought of when I read that is how many people I know who have never listened to a single thing by Bach and would most likely be bored to death by it. In fact I know far more people like that than not. I am not claiming to be able to extrapolate this to the human population and say "most people don't like Bach", but for the same reason I have no reason to believe that most people do like Bach, unless perhaps we restrict ourselves to music classrooms at universities (i.e. places of academia that teach tradition and appreciation of music historically lauded by those who study music).
In short I wouldn't be that surprised if an opinion poll today rated "Itsy Bitsy Spider" as far higher than anything written by Bach, and even if that is not true today it certainly not logically impossible.
The other thing I wanted to address is the claim that complete subjectivity in music tastes would render reviews and discussions as empty or pointless, when I think it is quite the opposite: 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.
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. For example, "I love this sequence of chords, the way they keep fitting into different keys in an unexpected way keeps me on the edge of my seat". I think it would be absurd to look for any objectivity in that, but that is the whole point. Yes, it is the actual chord structure that makes me feel this way, but if someone responded, "I think those chords are tedious and boring" how could I object?
I think those discussions about how to define objectively good tastes are off the mark as all they do is mask "This is what I like" or maybe "This is what lots of or certain people have liked" as "This is what makes something factually good". For example, a ranking based on structural complexity would make prog rock objectively "better" than rock, but this is nothing short of misleading because it is a non-sequitur to jump from a factual description of what is in the music (i.e. song structure) to quality.
I personally think complex song structures are a "good" thing and relentlessly seek out music with structural complexity, and am sometimes greeted by my friends with a request to "tone it down". I know, because I asked them (assuming they aren't lying), that they actually prefer simple song structure. What could possibly establish either one of us as "wrong"? I in fact sometimes agree with that. One of my favorite bands is Lotus, and they do simple jamming on usually a couple of chords, so it is very simple song structure. It also has the dynamics of a roller coaster, and that is why I love them (again, someone could certainly hear Lotus and find it dynamically shallow).
So I think most of the objections to the subjectivity of taste viewpoint are false dilemmas, as none of them really invalidate that position. I think invalidating the position that any objectivity exists in tastes is simple: 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?
As for the original purpose of this thread, I agree with the poster way back who said it is a straw man. It probably just comes from taking people too seriously. |
Great post! I agree..
rogerthat wrote:
sweatervest wrote:
The other thing I wanted to address is the claim that complete subjectivity in music tastes would render reviews and discussions as empty or pointless, when I think it is quite the opposite: 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. 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. For example, "I love this sequence of chords, the way they keep fitting into different keys in an unexpected way keeps me on the edge of my seat". I think it would be absurd to look for any objectivity in that, but that is the whole point. Yes, it is the actual chord structure that makes me feel this way, but if someone responded, "I think those chords are tedious and boring" how could I object? |
But that music can be discussed in those terms in the first place itself demonstrates that it is not completely subjective. It comes back to dealing always in polar opposites of completely subjective and completely objective, that in itself is a flawed position. At least my interpretation of complete subjectivity is that anyone can assign any meaning to anything and I don't see how a sensible discussion can be then had because we need to first agree on what we are discussing before we discuss, regardless of whether our views on the subject converge or diverge. What if somebody called a funk song a thrash metal song tomorrow? Under the pretext of complete subjectivity, he cannot be corrected because he is entitled to his subjective perception but you see then that it becomes very difficult to find a reference with regard to which to discuss music. And I am not talking about funk-metal, just to clarify, just funk, plain vanilla. If people cannot tell the difference between James Brown and Slayer, all hell will break loose but I don't believe that would happen anytime soon, fortunately. |
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.
rogerthat wrote:
To be very honest, my own take is that to believe in complete subjectivity is to believe that you know as much as the next person does about music and your position is as valid as his, even if every evidence in the opposite direction exists. I think that follows logically from the position that one's views cannot be better than another...ergo, each one's position is as valid as the other. Hypothetically, that is, you stand next to the composer and tell him to his face that his assessment of his own composition is only as valid as yours and no more, yours being diametrically opposite as his and having been formed after listening to it once which also happens to be a landmark composition of his (and so, certainly not one he could have, if at all, forgotten). And I understand that subjectivists are persuaded that this is actually workable. In theory, yes, but in practice, no, I would certainly have to think twice, thrice about what the man himself has to say because surely HE has a point. People who don't mind being corrected would be comfortable with accepting the notion of some objectivity residing hand-in-hand with some subjectivity. |
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.
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.
|
|
ProgEpics
Forum Groupie
Joined: September 05 2010
Location: Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 92
|
Posted: February 08 2011 at 14:55 |
|
Ofcourse not. Kansas had carry on my wayward son on the radio all the time, great song off a great album. Tom sawyer off moving pictures..roundabout off fragile..Hell the entire dark side of the moon album was on the radio.
|
|
Come on you target for faraway laughter,
Come on you stranger, you legend, you martyr, and shine!
|
|
silcir
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 06 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 190
|
Posted: February 08 2011 at 17:52 |
|
i speak by experience. There is about 3 or 4 ppl that knew jethro tull before i showed them the band and believe me i've had millions of music related conversasions. Maybe in usa or uk they are very well known.
The feeling i get is that no one knows them, at least in my range of age ( lets say from 22 to 26yold)
hmmm, and if you describe "knowing Jethro tull (or any band for that matter)" as " I listened aqualung on a classic rock radio station" then we certainly have diferent opinions of what it is to know a band.
"Jethro Tull? that name ain't strange..." (put aqualun on radio) "ah the riff" , " i know them!" <---- This is not knowing.
OF course i assume Everyone has heard about pink floyd, even nowadays, mainly because u don't go through college without having to listen a million times to "another brick in the wall pt2.".
Now, how many ppl know anything besides that song, money, wish you were here, that song from a momentary lapse of reason (i forgot the name, i find it a terrible album anyway), and a couple of others. (comfortably numb or time, comes to mind). Believe me, not that much.
And all this, is from my age group (let's say born in the mid-late 80's), the impression i have from ppl i interact with, of course if u go tell me dark side solds millions and whatever sold millions, i'm tired of knowing it sold.
____________
And for god sake stop that sh*t of trying to be superior... there are no superiority hierarchy in tastes, either u like or don't, if u dont, u may argue the other has bad taste, but that would be your point of view against one another. Eternal Stallemate.
Listening to music pleasures me, it doesn't makes me feel better or superior, or whatever u are trying to imply, than anyone else.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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 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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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 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 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. 
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
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 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?
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Do you hate certain prog because of popularity?
