Magma

Honestly, make one (objective) argument why Magma are not one of the best (objectively), most important avant-garde bands.

Honestly, make one (objective) argument why Magma are one of the best (objectively), most important avant-garde bands.

Which means nothing unless you prove (objectively) that zeuhl isn't a waste of time.

The correct conclusion is the fact that after about two years of extensive listening to avant-garde classical, free jazz and improvised music, as well as some traditional music from countries like India, Korea or Japan, I still see no reason to give Magma yet another chance at impressing me (and they had a lot of those).
They may be important for the development of zeuhl, but avant-garde is such a huge thing that this is kinda insignificant. I'm just a listener who wants the best music to fill out his brief spare time, and Magma is yet to give
me the best.

I will admit they can be very good on occasions. But usually their music sounds half-baked. Progwise I'll take almost any King Crimson or Fred Frith project over them any day of the week


Edited by Visitor13 - April 26 2008 at 16:52

Visitor13 wrote: Which means nothing unless you prove (objectively) that zeuhl isn't a waste of time.

Actually, that doesn't matter in the slightest, since whether something is a waste of time or not is purely subjective, so

a) it's impossible to make an objective argument
b) it doesn't mean anything when making objective arguments



Also, I'm not saying you have to like Magma, but I am saying that you shouldn't let your dislike cloud their status as one of the premier avant-garde rock (should've specified the rock earlier, my mistake) bands.

Pnoom! wrote: Visitor13 wrote: Which means nothing unless you prove (objectively) that zeuhl isn't a waste of time. Actually, that doesn't matter in the slightest, since whether something is a waste of time or not is purely subjective, so a) it's impossible to make an objective argument b) it doesn't mean anything when making objective arguments Also, I'm not saying you have to like Magma, but I am saying that you shouldn't let your dislike cloud their status as one of the premier avant-garde rock (should've specified the rock earlier, my mistake) bands.

You said they're one of the best avantgarde bands.

The only objective thing you've proven so far is that they influenced a good deal of bands.

But so did Modern Talking.

Visitor13 wrote: The only objective thing you've proven so far is that they influenced a good deal of bands. But so did Modern Talking.

Point?

Syzygy wrote: Visitor13 wrote: Honestly, make one (objective) argument why Magma are one of the best (objectively), most important avant-garde bands.   Immanuel Kant, the philosopher whose work drew a line under western thought up to and including the enlightenment, and whose work western epistemology has yet to make any significant advances on after more than 200 years (with the arguable exceptions of Wittgenstein and Michel Foucault) tried and failed to establish objective criteria for aesthetic judgements in The Critique Of Judgement. If you have managed to succeed where Kant failed then you should share your findings with the rest of us.   For starters, make one (objective) argument as to why Magma aren't one of the best (objectively) and most important avant garde bands.

His question was a response to my asking exactly the question you proposed.

Pnoom! wrote: Visitor13 wrote: The only objective thing you've proven so far is that they influenced a good deal of bands. But so did Modern Talking. Point?

Influence doesn't mean a thing at the end of the day.