JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Mar 13, 2007 17:11:20 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? Your definition of objectivity doesn't jibe with Webster's. Thought you'd like to know.  |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Mar 13, 2007 17:12:04 GMT -5
Yeah, I think agree with DED here. Obviously, when it comes to how much we enjoy music, personal taste rules. But I think that people can step away and look at music in it's context (originality, what the artist was trying to achieve vs. how well they achieved it, how it stacks up against other similar music) and make an objective judgement. People will still disagree, but that doesn't mean it's completely fruitless. Personal taste will still impact these judgements to a degree, but I don't think that that makes them completely worthless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 13, 2007 17:14:53 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? Your definition of objectivity doesn't jibe with Webster's. Thought you'd like to know. Well, I've admitted you can't be purely objective on art. If you've got a better term I'm willing to use it. |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Mar 13, 2007 17:42:47 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". I swear dude, I took no offense. it's all good. |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Mar 13, 2007 18:39:43 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. But there's still mathematic structures to other cultures' music. Those sets of music theory still involve concepts of the correct and incorrect ways of playing, it's not based on arbitrary chaos. No one's asking you to spend a minute of your life listening to Dream Theater but you are obligated to accept the fact that they can play fundamentally sound music in a very proficient way, and that if only on that level, they play good music. Do they have any soul? Any emotion? Any gravitas? Anything like that that would make them good artistes? Fuck if I can tell you but I know they can play. So can Pink Floyd. And they have some art in them too, even without Barrett. Respect should be paid accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Mar 13, 2007 18:41:42 GMT -5
I think I missed the boat on that conversation but I felt I needed to add that anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Mar 13, 2007 18:55:04 GMT -5
I'm willing to acknowledge that all sorts of people have technical skill. But you seem to be saying that technical skill equates to good music always. And that's not true. Fundamentally sound and technically skilled is not automatically good.
There are traditional structures in many other kinds of music, yes, but those structures differ wildly from culture to culture. There is no universal set of "right" and "wrong" in music, and even within a specific structure, there are always people who defy those rules. And that's why it is "theory" and not "law".
There's a whole lot of ground that can be covered between music that is theoretically proper, and "arbitrary chaos".
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Mar 13, 2007 18:58:41 GMT -5
Today at 14:07, RocDoc wrote:
Actually it's mostly just about antagonizing RocDoc. You know, for fun.
Sedaka By-Law #1, quoted by a recent grad...... 
Pretty sure he was mocking your insistence that this was the case, rather than actually confirming it. And I think the Sedaka posters who either don't post over here at all or who can't be bothered to interact with you here would probably scoff at this too. Whatever. I haven't read this whole thread, but I've seen a lot of good points made that you've just written off because of who said them. Rocky, you know, for a pretty smart usually fairminded guy you often turn into an unregenerate jagoff. Really. First, there was 'just kidding' winkie-thing after that, since I for one have zero idea whether Fuzz has been admitted to the hallowed Sedaka halls and I honestly always liked the guy. So ma-a-aybe I was going for the possibility the either he didn't want to 'be' Sedaka...or that he'd been rejected by you as 'not being a good fit' like several posters of immense respect HAVE been. So if he's moved all his activity there (?), well fine and there's no reason to give 2 shits. I've ONLY 'written off'the stupid undisguised antagonistic shit at the start. I was D-I-S-C-U-S-S-I-N-G a (very interesting to me) point after that point, somehow even with Kenny, even with ded....you must've missed it in the things you say you skipped. 4-5 of my posts where NOTHING contentious at ALL was fucking said. Secondly, motherfucking Kenny is the one who goddamned jumped on me, unfuckingcalled for, starting this whole bullshit off...a set-in-stone Sedaka General, Lieutenant, whatever. What, I'm supposed to like it, ignore ALL past very overt associations of you petty little dicks, plus all the little site shrines to Doc's 'Place' I've had several people have told me about, in your little version of my world? Yeah, those who're there, these 'scoffers' you're talking about, they see all your anti-Doc score charts n'shit simply as light-hearted fun, right? Oh, like this; "Don't rock the boat Doc, we're manipulative little motherfuckers and the upper hand is masterfully ours."? The several of you who have this 'problem' with me are going to try to piss on me every time I say something? To 'humble' me? No. It is to you and THOSE cocksuckers that I say this. The shit has been obvious. Kenny's so much as admitted multiple times that 'Fucking with Rocdoc is sport' and so has Shin. So here's Fuzz, mouthing what sure as fuck appears to BE the 'company line'. Hmmm. And like I said, I have no idea which side of this 'line' of yours he on....not that it matters, right. But now....you say I'm surprising you (and your 'lighthearted' scoffers)with poking that stinking dead skunk of yours?? So seriously, fuck you Rocky. You and your outraged scoffing...
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Mar 13, 2007 19:00:07 GMT -5
And I actually wanted to come back here and just talk about the concepts here....'talk', righhhht.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Mar 13, 2007 19:01:28 GMT -5
Whatever dude. A lot of people made some points that you wrote off. And after you wrote them off, they antagonized you, yes. There's a lot of history, and yes, a lot of people don't like you and take pleasure in fucking with you. But you also never fail to just assume that that's the case, even when people are trying to engage you in serious discussion. It happens all the time. If you just once engaged someone without just assuming that they were out to get you, then it might not happen as much. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fuzznuts on Mar 13, 2007 19:03:51 GMT -5
I'm a mystery....
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Mar 13, 2007 19:06:00 GMT -5
Fuzz didn't win any Neilys this year but I assure you he'll win a few 10 months from now.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Mar 13, 2007 19:07:56 GMT -5
Oops.  |
|
|
|
Post by upinkzeppelin2 on Mar 13, 2007 19:16:47 GMT -5
And that's what I find so appealing about PF...just their complete adherance to the fundamental laws of music making, taking the foundation of blues and building a whole nation of prog on top of it. They didn't destroy the cornerstone, they just built their bridges longer and higher. Just because a billion stoner-prep-jock fags have posters on their dorm room walls along with the required Marley/2pac/Scarface ones doesn't take away from what that band was and always will be. Well said, shin. |
|
|
|
Post by loudaab on Mar 13, 2007 19:32:49 GMT -5
Yeah, I think agree with DED here. Obviously, when it comes to how much we enjoy music, personal taste rules. But I think that people can step away and look at music in it's context (originality, what the artist was trying to achieve vs. how well they achieved it, how it stacks up against other similar music) and make an objective judgement. People will still disagree, but that doesn't mean it's completely fruitless. Personal taste will still impact these judgements to a degree, but I don't think that that makes them completely worthless. That's not a half bad discription of rockjism. There ARE ways of measuring the quality of music. But as far as personal taste goes, there are several different ways of looking at it. One argument is that there ARE people with better personal tastes than others. And the reasons for this could be many. For instance someone who has been exposed to a shitload more music than someone else could be said to have a greater comparison set to base his/her opinion on and can be considered as experts just through their sheer intellectual appetite and from exposing themselves to as much music as possible. On the other hand, music is often intended to spark people on a visceral, instinctual level. In which case it could be argued that the more soulful a person is, the deeper their appreciation for quality music will be. This person would not have to be exposed to shitloads of music, but they would be able to recognize and "feel" quality music on an instinctual level. |
|
