|
|
Post by Ryosuke on Mar 13, 2007 20:01:05 GMT -5
This is kind of ironic since I don't Pink Floyd at all, but I'm finding myself agreeing with the PF-siders regarding the whole "objectivity" debate. Objectivity bores me, and I've never really been able to take debates about "objective" standards of music seriously. Unless it involves some juvenile (and tongue-in-cheek) potshots - I always love those.
I'm not making any judgment calls here. I know that a lot of people here enjoy those kinds of debates, and there probably isn't anything wrong with that. It's a matter of taste, really. Some people are interested in establishing which band is objectively "better" than which other band, others would rather talk about their own "personal opinions" of the music. I just belong in the latter group, that's all.
|
|
|
|
Post by sisyphus on Mar 14, 2007 3:09:49 GMT -5
seems to me there are no rules nor objectivity, allthough it's true that our ears are naturally atuned to harmony and discord. whether said harmonies and discordances appeal to us are not is in the subjective realm. there's no qualitative or conclusive way to contain it. it's all about differing sensibilities, and how those sensibilities are formed. music is like language, and language is rarely precise. connotations and experiences with words differ vastly. "if you never say what you mean, you won't mean what you say" should be amended to "if you never say what you mean in the precise language of your audience, you'll never mean what you say." in any case, these sorts of discussion are good because they help us to whittle away and understand each other's languages, so that we can come to more expanded understandings of things. cheers to meaty dialogue.
|
|
|
|
Post by sisyphus on Mar 14, 2007 3:13:33 GMT -5
TOWARD UNDERSTANDING E -PRIME Robert Anton Wilson E-PRIME, abolishing all forms of the verb "to be," has its roots in the field of general semantics, as presented by Alfred Korzybski in his 1933 book, Science and Sanity. Korzybski pointed out the pitfalls associated with, and produced by, two usages of "to be": identity and predication. His student D. David Bourland, Jr., observed that even linguistically sensitive people do not seem able to avoid identity and predication uses of "to be" if they continue to use the verb at all. Bourland pioneered in demonstrating that one can indeed write and speak without using any form of "to be," calling this subset of the English language "E-Prime." Many have urged the use of E-Prime in writing scientific and technical papers. Dr. Kellogg exemplifies a prime exponent of this activity. Dr. Albert Ellis has rewritten five of his books in E-Prime, in collaboration with Dr. Robert H. Moore, to improve their clarity and to reap the epistemological benefits of this language revision. Korzybski felt that all humans should receive training in general semantics from grade school on, as "semantic hygiene" against the most prevalent forms of logical error, emotional distortion, and "demonological thinking." E-Prime provides a straightforward training technique for acquiring such semantic hygiene. To understand E-Prime, consider the human brain as a computer. (Note that I did not say the brain "is" a computer.) As the Prime Law of Computers tells us, GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT (GIGO, for short). The wrong software guarantees wrong answers. Conversely, finding the right software can "miraculously" solve problems that previously appeared intractable. It seems likely that the principal software used in the human brain consists of words, metaphors, disguised metaphors, and linguistic structures in general. The Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski Hypothesis, in anthropology, holds that a change in language can alter our perception of the cosmos. A revision of language structure, in particular, can alter the brain as dramatically as a psychedelic. In our metaphor, if we change the software, the computer operates in a new way. Consider the following paired sets of propositions, in which Standard English alternates with English-Prime (E-Prime): lA. The electron is a wave. lB. The electron appears as a wave when measured with instrument-l. 2A. The electron is a particle. 2B. The electron appears as a particle when measured with instrument-2. 3A. John is lethargic and unhappy. 3B. John appears lethargic and unhappy in the office. 4A. John is bright and cheerful. 4B. John appears bright and cheerful on holiday at the beach. 5A. This is the knife the first man used to stab the second man. 5B. The first man appeared to stab the second man with what looked like a knife to me. 6A. The car involved in the hit-and-run accident was a blue Ford. 6B. In memory, I think I recall the car involved in the hit-and-run accident as a blue Ford. 7A. This is a fascist idea. 7B. This seems like a fascist idea to me. 8A. Beethoven is better than Mozart.
8B. In my present mixed state of musical education and ignorance, Beethoven seems better to me than Mozart. 9A. That is a sexist movie. 9B. That seems like a sexist movie to me. 10A. The fetus is a person. 10B. In my system of metaphysics, I classify the fetus as a person. The "A"-type statements (Standard English) all implicitly or explicitly assume the medieval view called "Aristotelian essentialism" or "naive realism." In other words, they assume a world made up of block-like entities with indwelling "essences" or spooks- "ghosts in the machine." The "B"-type statements (E-Prime) recast these sentences into a form isomorphic to modern science by first abolishing the "is" of Aristotelian essence and then reformulating each observation in terms of signals received and interpreted by a body (or instrument) moving in space-time.To read the rest: www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 14, 2007 6:43:26 GMT -5
I still think some of you a taking me to say there's some universal equation to "good" or "liking" music. There's not. You like what you like and while there are reasons for what you like it's not objective or universal, it's individual. There are universal, reasonably objective things you can measure though. There is a big picture...timeline for instance, general popularity even influence and relevancy to a degree. If you don't want to think about music in such context, thanks fine but, don't deny it's possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fuzznuts on Mar 14, 2007 6:54:44 GMT -5
Fuzz didn't win any Neilys this year but I assure you he'll win a few 10 months from now. It's going to take a lot of work to beat you out for "Best RocDoc Antagonist." |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Mar 14, 2007 6:59:22 GMT -5
It's true. I came in at a distant second, even as I got the nod from the master himself.
This is where I stand as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Mar 14, 2007 8:35:05 GMT -5
It's true. I came in at a distant second, even as I got the nod from the master himself.
Oh, was it Rocky's thoroughly anal, transparently grade-school passive-aggressive approach that took it?
Begin with either straight up lies (hiding behind 'Well I actually haven't been following this thread very closely, but here's what it looks like to me') or broad broad distortions that satisfy 'those in the know'.....also figuring that those NOT 'in the know' here won't ever say 'boo' against them.
Damn you fuckers do suck.
Little dirt-level sub-culture of yours...
|
|
|
|
Post by sisyphus on Mar 14, 2007 9:11:17 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. good call. it all depends on the angle. (not that it isn't fun to bat opinion around in a good debate built up with more meat than simple excuses that something does or doesn't suck...attempts at objectivity in full awareness that the endeavor is futile...lol) |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Mar 14, 2007 9:19:47 GMT -5
Hard for me to make friends with PEW considering I ate his child. Man you've got a point there  |
|
|
|
Post by Ryosuke on Mar 14, 2007 9:28:57 GMT -5
I still think some of you a taking me to say there's some universal equation to "good" or "liking" music. There's not. You like what you like and while there are reasons for what you like it's not objective or universal, it's individual. There are universal, reasonably objective things you can measure though. There is a big picture...timeline for instance, general popularity even influence and relevancy to a degree. If you don't want to think about music in such context, thanks fine but, don't deny it's possible. Yeah I can hang with that. Like I said, it's a matter of taste. Music is 100% personal to me, and I'm just totally unable to muster up any kind of enthusiasm for looking at it from any objective angle. I don't think that diminishes my enjoyment of music in anyway. But yeah, I'm perfectly happy to admit that that just happens to be my own personal take in music, just like how my dislike of certain bands that are generally lauded (we all have those, don't we?) happens to be my own personal take on that music. So yeah, I don't think we're disagreeing or anything, we just have slightly different approaches to music. Neither of us are saying that one is more valid than the other. Whatever floats our boat, right? |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Mar 14, 2007 9:32:52 GMT -5
It's true. I came in at a distant second, even as I got the nod from the master himself.Oh, was it Rocky's thoroughly anal, transparently grade-school passive-aggressive approach that took it? Begin with either straight up lies (hiding behind 'Well I actually haven't been following this thread very closely, but here's what it looks like to me') or broad broad distortions that satisfy 'those in the know'.....also figuring that those NOT 'in the know' here won't ever say 'boo' against them. Damn you fuckers do suck. Little dirt-level sub-culture of yours... Hug DED, RocDoc. |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Mar 14, 2007 9:39:40 GMT -5
It's true. I came in at a distant second, even as I got the nod from the master himself.Oh, was it Rocky's thoroughly anal, transparently grade-school passive-aggressive approach that took it? Begin with either straight up lies (hiding behind 'Well I actually haven't been following this thread very closely, but here's what it looks like to me') or broad broad distortions that satisfy 'those in the know'.....also figuring that those NOT 'in the know' here won't ever say 'boo' against them. Damn you fuckers do suck. Little dirt-level sub-culture of yours... That's exactly what I'm talking about. I was being sincere, but you've decided that I was just fucking with you. That's what I get for trying to level with you. I've been guilty in the past, but YOU are the one who has decided that things cannot change. So fuck you. I tried, but you're a worthless piece of shit. If you refuse to talk to me without assuming that I'm out to get you, then I may as well be out to get you. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 14, 2007 9:49:03 GMT -5
I still think some of you a taking me to say there's some universal equation to "good" or "liking" music. There's not. You like what you like and while there are reasons for what you like it's not objective or universal, it's individual. There are universal, reasonably objective things you can measure though. There is a big picture...timeline for instance, general popularity even influence and relevancy to a degree. If you don't want to think about music in such context, thanks fine but, don't deny it's possible. Yeah I can hang with that. Like I said, it's a matter of taste. Music is 100% personal to me, and I'm just totally unable to muster up any kind of enthusiasm for looking at it from any objective angle. I don't think that diminishes my enjoyment of music in anyway. But yeah, I'm perfectly happy to admit that that just happens to be my own personal take in music, just like how my dislike of certain bands that are generally lauded (we all have those, don't we?) happens to be my own personal take on that music. So yeah, I don't think we're disagreeing or anything, we just have slightly different approaches to music. Neither of us are saying that one is more valid than the other. Whatever floats our boat, right? No, my opinion is certainly more valid then yours...sorry, if I wasn't clear on that. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Mar 14, 2007 9:52:12 GMT -5
Good call on the E-Prime, sisy
~You're the best~
^ ^
\---/
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryosuke on Mar 14, 2007 9:55:37 GMT -5
Yeah I can hang with that. Like I said, it's a matter of taste. Music is 100% personal to me, and I'm just totally unable to muster up any kind of enthusiasm for looking at it from any objective angle. I don't think that diminishes my enjoyment of music in anyway. But yeah, I'm perfectly happy to admit that that just happens to be my own personal take in music, just like how my dislike of certain bands that are generally lauded (we all have those, don't we?) happens to be my own personal take on that music. So yeah, I don't think we're disagreeing or anything, we just have slightly different approaches to music. Neither of us are saying that one is more valid than the other. Whatever floats our boat, right? No, my opinion is certainly more valid then yours...sorry, if I wasn't clear on that. Oh damn, I just reread my post and it gives off the exact opposite of the point I wanted to make. What I meant to say was that my opinion is patently more valid than ded's. God I hate my lousy English skills. Sorry about that, man. |
|
