"I like this music" vs. "this music's goo
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
Forum Description: Discuss specific prog bands and their members or a specific sub-genre
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31417
Printed Date: November 24 2024 at 01:41
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: "I like this music" vs. "this music's goo
Posted By: The T
Subject: "I like this music" vs. "this music's goo
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 23:11
|
What do you think of the expressions: "I think this music is good"... or: "I LIKE this music"... Do you think they are or should be equivalent? Many people (for my pont of view) confuse quality with their subjective feelings towards a work of art. I myself have things I don't like but know them to be good, and things I know are nothing to write your lost uncle about but that somehow entertain me, so I like them. Is it correct to associate one's personal feelings towards a piece of art with the quality level it has? Is it because the term "quality" has also a pure subjective meaning? Or is there true, objective quality? For example, when I see people dance (like in ballet or whatever) I can say "I like that" but I dare not say "oh she's good" because I don't know what the heel I am talking about... Would persons that have studied a subject be more qualified to, again, qualify the artistic merits of a piece of art? Is it everything subjective? What is your opinion?
|
Replies:
Posted By: epictetus1
Date Posted: November 22 2006 at 23:35
|
Art is meant to be enjoyed and not rated. Art (including music) is enjoyed through mental processing and each person's perceptions are unique and so is the experience one has in apreciating art. You either have an emotional connection with the music or you do not, regardless of others opinions. It truly is subjective. I do not enjoy Barbara Streisand or opera singers, but intellectually I know they are very skilled and popular. I just do not make that emotional connection. |
Posted By: Moatilliatta
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 00:56
| I have always had a tough time handling this with other people. It's ard to really define the difference, because it is subjective. I could tell everybody they need to quit saying what they like is "good," when any musician and/or prog fan would consider it mediocre. At the same time, I could eat a meal and call it delicious, but then a professional renowned chef can eat the same meal and make so many critiques on the meal, and he obviously knowns better than I do the way certain foods should be cooked. Everything in this world could cause this issue. So, I suppose it's really futile to gripe about it, even if you know you're right on multiple levels. Heck, the people you're trying to get across to won't even accept let alone understand what you would tell them. People get different things out of the same material, and not everybody is open minded. This has been something I've had on my mind now and then, and it's cool to see that someone else has been contemplating it as well. |
Posted By: NotSoKoolAid
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 02:00
|
Call me a weirdo, but for me it is easy for me to appreciate something for an artistic quality, even if I don't actually enjoy it and it's not my thing. The average person would not be able to do that, not to be bragadocious. People look at me strange when I say things like "Well its good, but I don't particularly enjoy it."
Is that what you mean? It's a hopeless case.
|
Posted By: gong
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 02:43
| i think thats all subjective. for example, so many times i heard/read the interviews given by many of serious musicians who are playing Classical music, where they went to proclaim that they personally like to listen music as ABBA, or something like that; i never heard somebody of them to say, for example, "Oh, I'm crazy for King Crimson!"; ok, many of them like it, i supposed that, but i put this little story only for example. thats all subjective, IMO, and to come apart from an education. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 03:19
|
It's the difference between expressing your personal taste based on the way a piece of music makes you feel, versus measuring quality based on technical criteria.
Obviously, this is not black and white - and cannot be, as even those observing technical criteria to the letter are bound by taste to some extent - it may be that a technique is excercised precisely, but the precision itself is what stops it feeling as musical as it might. The technical criteria you use to judge music are based on your experiences - so someone who has only studied music will use a different, more cerebral set to someone who has only played "from the heart" - and different again to someone who has never studied or played. Also, it depends upon how you excercise these criteria, and the context. There is, for example, no point using the same measurements to assess the quality of ABBA's music that you would use when assessing the music of Beethoven - although one could usefully use an appropriate subset. For example, you wouldn't waste time exploring ABBA's development of themes or motifs, but you might examine the arrangements and harmonic progressions and discover interesting little quirks that make ABBA's compositions stand out from other pop music of the time. So it is useful to decide the context of the piece of music before coming to any judgement of quality; for example, the Sex Pistols wrote great punk rock music, and many fans of the Sex Pistols might think that both Beethoven and ABBA wrote awful music. To sum up, quality is about measurements of technique - such as execution in performance and composition, and originality of thought in the approach to style. If you understand why aspects of technique are one of the most beautiful things you can listen for in compositions, then that is very lucky - as you get something very special out of music that people who don't understand this cannot get. They like it, and that's enough to make it good. And that's a conclusion that educated people can come to as well  ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: CaptainWafflos
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 03:52
|
Think of a blade of grass. Most people would agree that grass itself is green, but in fact, it is not inherently green. Grass contains chlorophyll, which tends to reflect certain energy waves that fall under the visible spectrum that most of us see as green. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that all of us see grass as green. Consider someone who has red-green color blindness, for example. They may actually see grass is a different color. Of course, "grass is green" is a bit less wordy than "gee, the chlorophyll in that grass is reflecting waves at a certain wavelength that cause me to have an internal experience allowing me to see green," so it's obvious why simplicity is preferred. Music cannot be inherently bad, nor can it be good, simply because there are so many ways of interpretting the quality of music. There is no rule that states that music that uses creative chord progressions is better than a piece of popular music that relies on I-IV-V alone. Nor is there any rule that states that a piece of music utilizing dissonance for its own sake is superior to another piece of music that does not. Consider the following quote by Nietzsche: "We all think that a work of art, an artist, is proved to be of high quality if it seizes hold on us and profoundly moves us. But for this to be so our own high quality in judgment and sensibility would first have to have been proved: which is not the case." Thus, I suppose an individual could say that calling a piece of music good or bad could be considered arrogant, but I don't think that's usually the intention. I don't think anyone has the belief that they can express an end-all objective opinion on music by simply attempting to judge its inherent quality. I think it's more an issue of semantics than anything. I tend to prefer saying that I enjoy or dislike a work of art rather than attempting to judge its inherent quality because the latter is simply impossible to do. But when I'm listening to others' speech, I pretty much consider the two phrases to mean basically the same thing. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 05:00
|
I don't really believe in objective criteria to measure the quality of music. Of course these criteria exist, and each one makes sense logically. But even if a piece of music is of high quality as determined by applying these criteria, it doesn't mean that someone will like it. Even people who have a good education in music and know the criteria and what they mean might not like such a piece of "high quality" music ... and they might totally love a piece of music which is of a low quality objectively, breaking most rules established by musical theory. So: While I think that these criteria exist I try to ignore them when "judging" music. 
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: eugene
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 05:49
|
I might have a simplistic approach to this matter, but I honestly believe that when a person saying "I like it" he should mean "It's good" and vice versa, unless this person is utter hypocrite. Any evaluation of piece of art is totally subjective and can't be otherwise, therefore I am always trying to say "it's good IMO" when I like it, and even when omitting "IMO" I definitely mean it. From other hand when I hear somebody stating "Oh, it's soooo good but I don't like a single minute of it" - I conclude that the person is either liar or hasn't got a clue what he is talking about, in a sense that it can't be good for him, unless he likes it. Same goes to the ridiculous statements such as "I respect this band but hate the music they making". What the hell someone would respect a band for, if he hates what they doing???
Once at an exhibition I saw a woman staring at the painting, and she was seemingly enchanted by what she saw, and was declaring something like "Oh, so great expression and skills..." etc etc etc in very technical details, but when after I asked her if she really liked it, - she said "No, hell no.."  It was pure flattery towards artist and blatant hypocrisy from her side.------------- carefulwiththataxe |
Posted By: Wilcey
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 07:07
|
gosh some very wordy answers to what I percieved to be a simple question!
If you like a piece of music, then YOU like it, and YOU can NEVER EVER be wrong, because only YOU can judge wether you like it or not. As to wether it is good or not........ well, there is poorly executed music out there, there really is, but even the poorest can still be enjoyed by people, and that's ok. When I get angry reading comments on the forums, is when someone might say "X" are rubbish, they are no good" when tens or hundreds of thousands of record buyers obviously found something valid in "X" so therefore it should really simply be the case that "X" are not to the taste of that person. I don't mind if someone says they don't like my favourite bands, but I feel justifiably annoyed when folk say my favourite bands are rubbish! P-C x |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 07:26
|
@Moatilliatta
It's not quite simple with the food allegory. Both you and the chef are entitled to state your positions: you, that the food was good, him, the fas was not good. You, because the food suited your taste and hunger; him, because he knows the dish wasn't up to the recipe's standards. So, when someone says something's "good", he needs to also state the criteria he's using, because they may be personal criteria and more objective ones. Some people, like I do, use both type of criteria and making things clear is important. For example, im my case a GOOD movie, in an objective sense, is a movie by Tarkovsky, Fellini, etc. But one night a good entertaining action movie would also be GOOD, don't you think? Lesson: always explain your reasons, don't just throw verdicts (this is not adressed to you, moatilliata
 )@NotSoKoolAid
"Well, i don't like it but it's definitely good" - I think this kind of reactions define maturity and/or common sense, maybe that's why they're so underrated ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!" 
|
Posted By: eugene
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 07:47
|
^^^ Who told you mr andu that Tarkovskiy and Fellini movies are GOOD??? And how dare you call these movies good in "an objective sense". IMO Tarkovskiy is Genius and his every movie is a Masterpiece, and this what I call GOOD. As to Fellini - I wasted my time while watching his films (several attempts to get something out of it with no positive effect), and I would never ever call them good, leave alone recommending it to somebody, despite all the critics in the world might praise them to the sky. You obviously mixing up two different things: "critically acclaimed" and "good/like it". ------------- carefulwiththataxe |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 08:50
carefull with that axe, eugene... you saying you can't judge Felinni as good doesn't make Felinni less good. you're not "objective" (i'll explain later what this means) and can't get over your personal taste - which is not an accusation!!! myself i'm in the great position of being able of having a good perception of both, because of my cultural heritage and background being different then yours. your taste for tarkovsky is normal as his art works in the very "slavonic" way (slow motion, blurry representations, poetic connotations, big ideas being discussed) that made russian culture great; it is normal for you to like it as you're ukrainean and also for me to like it as in our culture all slavonic culture was always welcome and praised (Tolstoi, Dostoievsky, Turgheniev, Tchaikovsky, Kandinsky, Tarkovsky, Mikhalkov, etc., please excuse my own way of writing their names), and is also normal for a non-slavonic not to like Tarkovsky (and trust me i know many) - which doesn't entitle them to say it's crap (i know many). on the other side, Felinni's art is totally different and according to maybe the most important mediterranean-type creativity: latin (main features - strong, accurate representations and visuals, high motion, carnavalesque and bourlesque, theatralism, etc.). it's normal for you not liking art like this (which doesn't make it less GOOD, if it's good
) and it also normal for me to like it because of my latin anthropological heritage. but don't say it's not good, because you're not being objective. let's talk about being "objective", now. imo it takes to have a basic education on the specific matter (what's it about and how it's done). if so, the "objective" judgement is a mix of these items:
- a look over the important critics' reviews
- a look over mass acceptance/rejection
- your own opinion on the how the artist uses his art's ways
- your opinion on how that specific "product" influenced and related to the history of that specific art
for example, i judge a moviemaker's art by
- the way he uses camera and editing to create a valid visual narration (and strong both as VISUAL and as NARRATION)
- the way he creates strong characters (the good, the bad, the good-and-bad, the a-moral, the Mother, the Father, the Son, the lover, the loonatic, the rebel, you name it...) and makes his actors act great
- the importance of the ideas behing the script (life, death, human nature, love, hate, history, divinity, etc) and the final product
- the innovations he brings in these previous achievements and the influence they have
etc.
by these items, both felinni and tarkovsky are at least GOOD moviemakers ... imo.
i think this discussion has long left the good/bad MUSIC, sorry. ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!"
|
eugene wrote:Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 08:51
I was going to right up a fair bit but Epictetus1 hit the nail on the head for me, and I completel agree with what he said. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005 
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 09:21
 I share this opinion and tend to explain the differences between "good" and "bad" music this way. But then again, what is good and bad? The answer can vary greatly depending on who one asks. A popular argument is that Music A is more technically complex than Music B, and thereby superior. For instance, most people would say that from a technical perspective, Beethoven's music is superior to ABBA's music (to use Cert's examples), and therefore, Beethoven's music is better. In situations like these, I sometimes ask myself wheter this really is possible. Who decides what's technically good? It depends on how we define technical. And if we would define technical as simple, ABBA's music would be more advanced, and so better than Beethoven's. Regardless of how we define technical, at some point, somebody's opinion must have been involved (there were probably multiple "somebodies", rather than a single one, but let's keep things simple). I could take this even further, but I won't, because you'd think I was mad or something (who knows, I might be...). Anyway, my point is that everything is relative. The meaning (or even existance) of something depends on who you ask. We can't escape opinions! |
Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 09:33
|
There's a lot of good music that dosn't really appeal to my ears. I it does appeal to my ears, then I can say I like it. -------------  
|
Posted By: surrounded23
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 09:44
| Objective: i believe that we can use such term in music and i'll explain myself immediately. Let me give an example: 50.000.000 people acclaim that Pink Floyd ARE great.Its a great number thus making their opinion objective.On the contrary,only 200 people say e.g. that IQ are great.That does not make their opinion wrong but by far less objective than the opinion of the people that think the same 'bout Pink Floyd. take a careful look at the albums' evaluations in this particular site.it says that they are based on members' ratings. In some albums youll see this :"warning: only 2 ratings".That means: b careful cause the amount of voters is not representative and of course not that objective..So, anyone can have his personal opinion which is 100% subjective but when many subjective opinions are added they create a strong objective result.That's why you cant easily deny that Led Zeppelin is one of the greatest bands of all time whereas making the same statement about Green Day for example is a bit ridiculous. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 09:50
I disagree ... it's absolutely possible to appreciate and respect some piece of music (or the performers/composers) and not to like it or even to hate it at the same time. Ok, sometimes people saying that they appreciate something are just trying to be polite - but that doesn't make them hypocrites. Unless they give away their true opinion on other occasions ...  But if someone for example says "I don't like growling, but I appreciate what Opeth are doing musically", where's the problem? You can't like everything - but you don't have to despise everything you don't like. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Firepuck
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 10:40
|
"I know what I like and I like what I know" - Genesis
"You're all individuals!" - Brian (Life of Brian) ------------- Kryten : "'Pub'? Ah yes, A meeting place where humans attempt to achieve advanced states of mental incompetence by the repeated consumption of fermented vegetable drinks." |
Posted By: eugene
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 11:42
I am not only not trying to be objective, I state that all this is totally subjective and cannot be otherwise. If I say Fellini is not good to me, same does not make his works any less good for others, but I do not like it and it is no good for me.
Your parallels between art appreciation and native roots of a consumer do not hold water. Tarkovskiy is largely known and loved in the West and underappreciated (if not despised) in his own country - he had to leave his country in order to be able to create.
Cultural heritage and/or native language has very little to do with appreciation of any Art, including Music and Litterature. I adore Dostoyevskiy and Orwell, Houellebecq and Vonnegut, but can't speak highly about for example Turgenev or Tolstoy, as these two largely very highly acclaimed Great writers IMO are more genius descriptionists rather than thinkers.
As long as you start being "objective" (as per your own descrition above) you will find yourself lying to yourself and the others, which situation I personally would try to avoid under all circumstances. ------------- carefulwiththataxe |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 11:47
Sorry, but consensus is not a good way to evaluate quality. We know nothing about the measurements that the 50,000,000 people are using when they give Pink Floyd acclaim - it's only 50,000,000 opinions at the end of the day. Adding lots of subjective things together does not suddenly make them objective - that's just statistics. As Disraeli famously said... yadda yadda... The only thing it says about the quality of the music is that it has wide appeal - and appeal isn't something that's easy to measure, although that isn't to say it's impossible. And I have to dispute that everyone's opinion is 100% subjective - you can make it objective by using facts, so that it becomes a percentage objective. And there's an old saying - there's no smoke without fire, which is to say that even in a "100% subjective" review, there may be little grains of truth somewhere, dragging it down to only 98%...
"I'm not!!!" - Man in the crowd (Life of Brian) 
..."I can resist everything except temptation..." (Oscar Wilde) ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: eugene
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 11:56
We've been through it before - you feel free to respect and appreciate anything and hate it or not like it in the same time. Good for you. I can't be like that. When you are asked to state your opinion about something and you say that you appreciate it just for the sake of being polite - you are very wrong person to ask opinion about anything.
And I agree with the second para above - no problem with it at all. When asked about Opeth, I say that they can do decent music but growling can ruin everything for me, so this band is not for me really, with exception of their album "Damnation".
And of course you don't have to despise everything you don't like. And we are not taking about this particular aspect here, do we  ------------- carefulwiththataxe |
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 12:47
|
Music is an organic combination of technical precision (the selection and production of notes, chords, time signatures, timbres etc) and the emotional effect of its performance. The technical precision is not debatable - a bum note is a bum note, an D minor is a D minor - but the emotional effect certainly is!
This is why it is possible to be impressed by music which you don't 'like' (does not stir you emotionally). It is legitimate to write: 'This music is fresh, original and should appeal to lovers of GYBE, but it does nothing for me.' |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 14:06
I've had the same reactions... somebody once asked me if I asked a movie, I said I didn't but I also said I thought it was a piece of art and the look in that person's face was a mix of laughter, confusion, bewilderment....
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 15:01
|
Those statements are fairly interchangable, and carefully worded.
"I like this music" is a simple fact -- it cannot be argued with.
"I think this music is good" is also a simple fact, which can't be argued, because of the inclusion of the "I think." If you had simply said "this music is good, " then that could be argued, as "good" is a relative, subjective concept.
Thus "I believe there is a God" can't be argued, but "there is a God" can. ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: Uroboros
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 15:17
Yes, objective statements can be argued, but in an imperfect manner.
When something is mainly experienced by subjective means, any attempt to discuss it objectively contains within it the seed of failure. Reason will evetually run out of tools to prove its point. Assuming you have a biased view is a wise thing to do, because only then you have total control on the object of debate. Your view cannot be proven wrong as long as you recognise it as yours.
Otherwise, good point. ------------- Tous les chemins qui s’ouvrent à moi ne mènent à rien si tu n’es plus là |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 15:52
|
I just noticed that the subject line and the (initial) post phrase it differently: in the subject, it's "this music is good," but in your first post it's "I think this music is good."
Those statements are fundamentally different, for the reasons I outlined previously! The latter is a simple fact about your own thoughts and opinions -- I can't really argue with it. The first (as in the thread's subject), though, is a mere opinion that is expressed as if it were a fact. It can easily be attacked on that basis.
 As reviewers, I believe we should be careful how we phrase opinions. It should be clear that they are opinions, and that we realize that others may legitimately differ."This album was released in 1970" is not an opinion. "This was the best album released in 1970" certainly is an opinion.
Statements with "best, worst, good, bad," etc, in them are almost always opinions. They should not be voiced as if they were facts, or you discredit yourself as an objective, reasonable reviewer, aware that these things are largely a matter of individual taste.
Of course, reviews are largely opinion pieces (that should be understood by the reader at the outset), but they often contain facts, too. I like to make it clear when I am expressing a personal opinion (I'll use phrases like "my taste,' "to me," "for my money," etc.), and when I am presenting a fact. ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 16:32
VERy good point....
it's also a matter of semantics, is not everything???
|
Posted By: progadicto
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 16:39
|
I always say the same: it's just a matter of taste... Sometimes you LIKE some music/movie/book/etc for reasons beyond technique... maybe sentimental or emotional stuff... whatever... For examle: I think that Dream Theater is GOOD (technically speaking) but the band is not of my taste... See? I think it's just a personal stuff about what you like or don't...
------------- ... E N E L B U N K E R... |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 18:18
When this is the case you must then use LIKE instead of GOOD. "Good for me" is not the best way to un-ambiguously express the fact of liking. This is important also because this thread is about "i like" vs. "it's good". Oh, and it's nothing wrong with being as objective as possibile sometimes.
You're wrong. Aesthetic experience goes through the cultural patterns that formated you. If it wouldn't be like this westerners could have had orthodox icons and we easterners could have had gothic cathedrals, they could have had byzantine chorals and we could have had Mozart... but this never happened and never would have happened. I can taste and understand slavonic creativity... but I can't perform that way. Of course Tarkovsky is praised in the West... by people who can tell a masterpiece.
You're right but this was wasn't the issue. I didn't quote the names for being the greatest Russian geniuses, i was just giving almost random examples of important Russian artists being known and appreciated in my country. (Still I think Turgenev is one of those geniuses in his "Hunter's Sketches").
What you are saying is just primitive dismissal of criticism and denial of any human "urteilskraft" faculty. I don't want to discuss such statements. ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!"
|
Posted By: eugene
Date Posted: November 23 2006 at 19:04
I would be interested to know what critisims here I dismiss so primitively, but as long as you don't want to discuss, you should not have mentionned it in first place.
------------- carefulwiththataxe |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: November 24 2006 at 08:49
|
More ramblings...
It's also worth remembering some of the unique qualities of music - everyone thinks of it as an art, which it is. However, it's more than that - it's also a means of communication, a language, if you like, with letters (notes) and rules of grammar. Although, to paraphrase what Craig Raine once said, it cannot tell you where your baggage is at an airport. Like any other language, people understand it on different levels, and those who have a Ph.D from Oxford will be more articulate and be able to understand books or articles that people who have not studied the language to such a degree might struggle with - e.g. "Ulysses" or "Beowulf". Both educated and non educated get something out of using the language - both in "performance" (speaking) or simply listening, and all perform and listen in different ways. A poor speaker may have an amazing vocabulary, and be well-versed, but have difficulties in uniting words with thoughts, and express themselves in a manner that is unclear to the general audience. Similarly, a speaker perceived as good may use soundbites and presentation techniques and express themselves clearly and wittily - yet have absolutely nothing of any value to say. So it is with music. Music communicates. We can be patient, and try very hard to understand the erudite expressions of artists whose work seems impenetrable, or we can settle for something easy on the ear. But which is better? I lean towards the more difficult, as I enjoy the challenge - but, if it turns out that a clearly-spoken person is also making some pertinent points, whether educated or not, as well as having an entertaining style, then they deserve credit for making a good speech too. We could deduce that the ultimate experience would be to hear an erudite and learned person speaking in an entertaining style on an engrossing topic. But sometimes it's just as enlightening and entertaining listening to an uneducated person talking off the top of their head in the pub. So the better question to ask isn't whether music is good or bad, or whether or not you like it - those things are immaterial to anyone else who can hold an equal but opposite opinion - but if it communicates something to you, what that is, and how well it does it. In other words, whether it holds value for you or not. But there are always those to whom a particular piece may not "speak", no matter how much value you may perceive in it. I hate people like that... ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |