|
|
Post by rockysigman on Mar 13, 2007 16:47:48 GMT -5
What "laws" of music making are we talking about? I'm confused about that.
There's a whole lot of musical theory, but musical law just does not exist. I think a lot of what Shin is attributing to "musical law" has a whole lot more to do with cultural ideas. Music from other parts of the world often doesn't adhere to that at all.
|
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Mar 13, 2007 16:51:27 GMT -5
So no, I can't sit here and tell you, objectively, whether Pink Floyd is good or not. But we can discuss whether or not they are still relevant in any way, whether through their influence or whatever else you feel like discussing. Perspective, as always, is important. I disagree. What is the criteria of your "objectivity"? No doubt it is not in sync with mine or maarts' or thorn's or anyone else who finds much to enjoy in Pink Floyd's music. It's all personal taste. ALL of it. And there's really nothing objective about personal taste. We're talking here about "whether a band sucks or not"...there are countless music snobs out there who'll tell you that ALL rock music is worthless and inferior to classical or jazz or whatever they happen to like. And they all believe that they are being objective and that it is possible to be objective about music. I am of the opinion that it is not. |
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Mar 13, 2007 16:53:54 GMT -5
But if that's the case, RocDoc, we can just quit having these discussions about the merits of bands altogether. And that almost defeats the purpose of being a rock and roll nerd and having a rock and roll nerd board. The only reason we CAN have these discussions about the merits of bands is BECAUSE it is subjective. Being a rock and roll nerd is about passion, not objectivity. |
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Mar 13, 2007 16:56:10 GMT -5
I see this thread has turned into a discussion about what is at the fundamental center of rockjism, and that being: What is quality in music. There are some simple answers to that question, and then there are some complex answers to that question. Fuck rockjism. Why you gotta bring that bullshit to the table? |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Mar 13, 2007 16:58:16 GMT -5
Because he's a troll.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Mar 13, 2007 16:58:57 GMT -5
So no, I can't sit here and tell you, objectively, whether Pink Floyd is good or not. But we can discuss whether or not they are still relevant in any way, whether through their influence or whatever else you feel like discussing. Perspective, as always, is important. I disagree. What is the criteria of your "objectivity"? No doubt it is not in sync with mine or maarts' or thorn's or anyone else who finds much to enjoy in Pink Floyd's music. It's all personal taste. ALL of it. And there's really nothing objective about personal taste. We're talking here about "whether a band sucks or not"...there are countless music snobs out there who'll tell you that ALL rock music is worthless and inferior to classical or jazz or whatever they happen to like. And they all believe that they are being objective and that it is possible to be objective about music. I am of the opinion that it is not. You misread what I meant. What I meant to say was that Pink Floyd (or any other band) cannot be objectively qualified as good or bad. But we can objectively discuss influence. That's what I meant. |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Mar 13, 2007 17:00:43 GMT -5
But if that's the case, RocDoc, we can just quit having these discussions about the merits of bands altogether. And that almost defeats the purpose of being a rock and roll nerd and having a rock and roll nerd board. The only reason we CAN have these discussions about the merits of bands is BECAUSE it is subjective. Being a rock and roll nerd is about passion, not objectivity. No. Influence is not all that subjective at all, and we discuss that here all the time. Whether a band is good or not, however, is entirely subjective, and we also have these discussions. Fuck, the only reason I am in this at all is because thorn made a few statements that seemed like objective endorsements of Pink Floyd, which I objected to in the first place. |
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Mar 13, 2007 17:02:24 GMT -5
There is objectivity in the quality of music, irrelevant to personal experience or integrity or rockjism or any of that jive. For starters, tonality. Some chords are mathematically suited while others are not. Some rhythms are in time and some are not. Some harmonies are suitable and some are not. Some people have range in their voices, some do not. This is the objectivity in music. The funny thing is, our ears are naturally tuned toward such objectively "better" music. It's why we wince when someone hits a note wrong, or when someone hits a hot spot and you get a blast of feedback. And, oh sure, you can argue Cobain was all about forcing that barrage of feedback on us by shoving his strat against the stack and that's what made him genius, and I would personally concur, but when Pink Floyd slither their way through Comfortably Numb, even if its for the 5000th time, it's still technically better music. What's subjective is whether or not it moves you to listen to it more than Milk It. But that's not the kind of objectivity that says "Pink Floyd sucks", is it? Those are just standards that are applied to music in general, not confined to certain bands. Even those standards have been bent out of recognition by Stockhausen, Xenakis and even Sonic Youth on occassion. |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Mar 13, 2007 17:02:48 GMT -5
And no, I was never discussing whether Pink Floyd sucks at all, while we are at it. I simply debated (as did DED) about Pink Floyd's place in whatever canon we choose to inflate at this point. Let someone who thinks Pink Floyd sucks explain that to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Mar 13, 2007 17:04:15 GMT -5
I think Pink Floyd sucks because, whenever I listen to them, I am incredibly bored.
I don't expect everyone to react the same way to their music as I do though.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Mar 13, 2007 17:05:00 GMT -5
I think Pink Floyd sucks because, whenever I listen to them, I am incredibly bored. I don't expect everyone to react the same way to their music as I do though. As good a reason as any. |
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Mar 13, 2007 17:06:04 GMT -5
I disagree. What is the criteria of your "objectivity"? No doubt it is not in sync with mine or maarts' or thorn's or anyone else who finds much to enjoy in Pink Floyd's music. It's all personal taste. ALL of it. And there's really nothing objective about personal taste. We're talking here about "whether a band sucks or not"...there are countless music snobs out there who'll tell you that ALL rock music is worthless and inferior to classical or jazz or whatever they happen to like. And they all believe that they are being objective and that it is possible to be objective about music. I am of the opinion that it is not. You misread what I meant. What I meant to say was that Pink Floyd (or any other band) cannot be objectively qualified as good or bad. But we can objectively discuss influence. That's what I meant. Sure, we can objectively discuss influence. That's outside of the realm of the musi itself, don't you agree? Sorry if I misunderstood. |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Mar 13, 2007 17:08:41 GMT -5
You misread what I meant. What I meant to say was that Pink Floyd (or any other band) cannot be objectively qualified as good or bad. But we can objectively discuss influence. That's what I meant. Sure, we can objectively discuss influence. That's outside of the realm of the musi itself, don't you agree? Sorry if I misunderstood. No sweat. It's only a web board. I do agree that it is outside of the realm of the music, but it's where the discussion went. We can sit here and discuss the merits of "Breathe" until the cows come home, but that's not what we were discussing. We were talking about people's feelings when they first heard it, and how they will be forever attached to that music, and how Pink Floyd invented post rock, whatever. That wasn't really a discussion of the sound, either. |
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Mar 13, 2007 17:08:43 GMT -5
Jeez, Kenny...I wasn't looking to get under your skin or pick on you (if I were out to pick on anyone it would be Wagemann). Like I said, I probably misunderstood what you were meaning with the term "objectivity".  |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 13, 2007 17:08:55 GMT -5
Why does it have to be either/or? I really don't get it. Some (most?) people view music from an almost completely subjective view point but does that mean you can't apply any objectivity to it? Clearly that isn't true. Does objective mean a single "correct" answer? Certainly not. All objectivity means trying to view something outside of your individual opinion...why should that be so hard to do?
|
|
