I often find myself forcing good music on others, even though I know that people will just reject it, and really don't deserve to hear it in the first place. If you think that sounds elitist, than you'd be correct - music is SERIUS BUSINESS to me.
If you want to know the kind of music I'm talking about, here are a few good examples:
Chango Spasiuk @ Cosquin
Dr. Octagon (Kool Keith)
Behold...the Arctopus
I think those three songs, in contrast, sum up the diversity of my tastes pretty well.
But you already said that those three sum up your *taste* so what's the use of forcing it unto others?
*ahem*
Sorry, but your taste in music diverges pretty wildly from mine.
my own collection ranges from Great Big Sea to Doctor Steel, from Deep Purple to Dragonforce, from europop to jpop to the king of pop, from techno to new wave.
i'll listen to pretty much anything really, though if i'll like it is a whole other story.
i have deep respect for classical music, good metal (by which i mean metal with complex music, IE: sortof lik classical except with sweet riffs and power chords as well as actual singing, not people screaming incoherently to static & noise), blues and jazz (i'm a bit more fussy with jazz).
i've noticed i also enjoy music that has multiple artists singing a whole range of tones in harmony. probably explains my weird liking of barbershop and a capella.
i have a soft spot though for celtic and traditional acadian folk music, seeing as how i grew up around it. fiddles, accordians & bagpipes remind me of home, especially if played with energy and gusto. my other love is blatantly silly stuff, like dragonforce's D&Desque lyrics and speed or Doctor Steel singing about how he'll take over the world with toys that never should have passed safety inspections.
Thats good music.
But you already said that those three sum up your *taste* so what's the use of forcing it unto others?
Exposure; it's all about giving somebody the chance to hear something they might not have heard otherwise. It doesn't happen often, but it always feels great when somebody comes up to and says "Hey, that's pretty cool...who is it?"
Wow OP, good finds. I hadn't thought it possible to gather the three worst songs ever created in one place but you managed it. Either this is a joke - and that'd be really, really sad because if so, it's a terrible joke (worse, in fact, than the music itself) or you're in serious need of an ear transplant. Holy gods was that awful. All of it, too. OP, you suck.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
Chango Spasiuk is an award winning virtuoso of the accordion. He has mastery over a difficult instrument, and knows the craft of music well - his ability to interact with other musicians is amazing, able to bring out the best of a complex guitar solo, or to seamlessly contrast his own solos to the rhythm playing of other instruments.
Kool Keith's work as Dr. Octagon created some great examples of horror themes in music - in fact, he's often credited with originating the horrorcore genre. His intelligent, surrealist lyrics and abstract instrumentation laid the foundation of his solo career, and the "Dr. Octagonecologist" album was produced by Dan the Automator and featured scratching by DJ Q-Bert, two legends in hip-hop.
Behold...the Arctopus is avant-garde, mathcore metal played almost to a level of virtuosity. Their frequent changing of time-signatures, and ability to weave complex, frantically-paced passages together so well, always amazes me. Furthermore, they don't just claim other metal bands as their influences - they also cite brilliant composers such as Bartók Béla as influences.
Point being - I actually know, and understand, music well enough that I can explain WHY these are good songs.
Note: I haven't listened to the songs yet. The post above is just commenting on how skill =! good music.
Point being - I actually know, and understand, music well enough that I can explain WHY these are good songs.
And just like I can appreciate a Boris Vallejo's art in an artistic sense while finding most of it eye-roll worthy and classless, I can appreciate that a musician is skilled while finding their music unpleasant.
Point being - I actually know, and understand, music well enough that I can explain WHY these are good songs.
like jokes and art in general, if you have to explain why the song is good, you missed the boat IMO.
Ugh. You call that good music? And it also seems like you're trying to force your views of "good" music on us. Everyone has their own tastes - some people like rap, some like metal, ect. Everyone's tastes are different.
Taste is all well and good, but I don't buy relativism as an excuse to place a great piece on the same level as a poorer piece.
You can't compare someone like Lady Gaga to something like this or this, just to be inclusive.
That all being said, I can listen to just about any song, and find something good about it - I've learned to never insult a piece of music, and to only offer constructive criticism. The point I'm trying to get across is that people, in general, reject music that doesn't fit inside the one or two genres they listen to, completely ignoring musicianship and musical voice.
That all being said, I can listen to just about any song, and find something good about it - I've learned to never insult a piece of music, and to only offer constructive criticism. The point I'm trying to get across is that people, in general, reject music that doesn't fit inside the one or two genres they listen to, completely ignoring musicianship and musical voice.
What's wrong with that?
Another thing is that there is likely a reason to why a lot of people stick to a couple genres of music. Probably at some point in their life they listened to different types of genres and found quite a few of them to suck. Why listen to something you don't like? Well, there really is no reason to unless you hate yourself or something but there's even a genre for that. Sticking to a couple genres doesn't mean that a person hasn't looked outside them. It could just as easily mean that they have looked outside them and found the music lacking.
Dr. Octagon (Kool Keith): Theres a lot of rappers on the outside of whats popular. There are many musicians of all kinds who you've never heard of, and some of them are probably better than the most famous ones. Some people like him, I didn't.
Behold...the Arctopus: This was the only one I could listen to for all the way through. They're very skilled players. They've even established some atmosphere in the song. Sadly, they can probably also fit every one of their diehard fans into a small bedroom. If an instramental is going to sing to you, its got to convey personality the way a singer is supposed to. This did not.
Country music is the devil.
Wrong. The Devil must have at least one redeeming quality. Please do not offend him by comparing him to
country music.Chango Spasiuk @ Cosquin: He's got chops, but I found no appeal in what he was playing.
That video is a little poor, since it jumps into the middle of the song. Here's a better one from the same festival. It's a lot more soulful than the first, as well.
Wrong. The Devil must have at least one redeeming quality. Please do not offend him by comparing him to country music.
There's some good country out there, but it is pretty hard to find. Bearing Straight is the only country band I actually own albums of (unless you count John5).
The first link was so much fun! In contrast, the second and third links were not fun at all.
First post ever.
The first link was so much fun! In contrast, the second and third links were not fun at all.
Yeah - out of the three I posted, the video of Spasiuk is the best. He's an absolute genius.
I'm willing to let the other two slide on taste, since they're pretty out there. If you want to hear some hip-hop that you'd enjoy more than "Halfsharkalligator", check this out.
@Dr.O : Carrying a dead walrus? Really? Clouds cant see him because hes a rainbow with a glowing brain?
@ Arctopus: Alright for the first 30 seconds, like a generic sound track to an old futuristic raceing game. Gets repeditive after that though.
Now: Beat this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPIO86jTrQQ
You're entitled to your opinion of what "good music" is. But to me your taste in music is **** because I like something different. You're just moron with an attitude if you think you're entitled to say what good music is to everyone.
The point I'm trying to get across is that people, in general, reject music that doesn't fit inside the one or two genres they listen to, completely ignoring musicianship and musical voice.
Get of your high horse. Its true that you should at least attempt a genre before knowing it is something for you. That is why Rap to me is nothing but Retards Attempting Poetry and a lot of wanna be gangsta's and pimps. Dance/Trance and the like give me headaches and **** me off. Country is so dull to me that it makes my ears bleed until I fall asleep. Does that mean I have the right to say that those music genres are ****? There are enough people that like it, but doesn't mean i have to like it.
Same to your 3 examples which to me are not harmonious but a friggin chaotic mess trying to put things together and losing any form of rythm. Like a bad conversation where the topic constantly changes from one subject to another without going deep into 1 specific topic and having a ****** conversation.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
No. It's not.
Chango Spasiuk is an award winning virtuoso of the accordion ...
See, I heard a guy playing an obnoxious instrument in the only way one can - obnoxiously. The accordian itself does not make an appealing sound to me and never will. It doesn't matter how good the guy is at playing it, it's still terrible. The way you're looking at this is silly. If I were a master at stabbing people repeatedly while keeping them alive for an unbearably long duration while also playing off of a guy that is excellent at placing strategic cigarrette burns, would you enjoy it if you were the guy gettin' stabbed? Remember, I'm a master and I work really well with others. ;) Something unpleasant - no matter how professionally done - is still unpleasant.
Kool Keith's work as Dr. Octagon created some great examples of horror themes in music - in fact, he's often credited with originating the horrorcore genre ...
And Hitler called for the creation of ovens to efficiently burn the tortured dead. People can pioneer some terrible stuff. His lyrics are also painfully douche-chill inspiring. He's not clever, he's awful. The rest - all of these tiny derivations of a style - nerdcore, mathcore, etc, etc are so painfully pretentious they make me ill. It's one of the reasons I stopped following tech stuff closely. See, every ******* had to spin his own new style that's just a tiny bit different. Well, the only real difference is their self-important, self-indulgent naming conventions.
Behold...the Arctopus is avant-garde, mathcore metal played almost to a level of virtuosity...
Again with the pretentious niche naming. Stop it. They sound like a mess of noise. Chaos to be chaotic and nothing much else. Oh, and it doesn't matter who inspired them - it matters how they sound. Which is terrible. ;)
Point being - I actually know, and understand, music well enough that I can explain WHY these are good songs.
Really? Can you please come to Ohio so you can explain all of this to my ears cuz they just don't get it? ;) You can explain all you want, it doesn't make the stuff actually good. There's no concrete way to prove any music is good because that opinion is only that - an opinion. You can tell us why you think they sound good to you but you absolutely cannot tell us why they are good. There's no why to it.
This last comment is also painfully pretentious. Who are you? Some kind of educater of the musically shallow? A savior of sound? Stop concerning yourself with what other people think of the stuff you like. You're not that important. Neither is anyone else.
The idea that there's some concrete proof demonstrating this music is good is laughable. And I guess I thank you for that. I needed a chuckle.
Now: Beat this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPIO86jTrQQ
Alright, that's not too bad. I'd never buy an album or go to a show, but it's pretty damn good. Compared to the other three examples, it's damned genius. It actually, you know, sounds like music. ;)
Nobody listens to it, and it frustrates me to no end. Seriously, I meet maybe...one or two people a year who a) have good taste, and b) are not factional - they don't insult entire genres (that they know nothing about) with blanket criticisms.
I often find myself forcing good music on others, even though I know that people will just reject it, and really don't deserve to hear it in the first place. If you think that sounds elitist, than you'd be correct - music is SERIUS BUSINESS to me.
If you want to know the kind of music I'm talking about, here are a few good examples:
Chango Spasiuk @ Cosquin
Dr. Octagon (Kool Keith)
Behold...the Arctopus
I think those three songs, in contrast, sum up the diversity of my tastes pretty well.
I'm going to have to agree with everyone else, I didn't much care for those songs.
OP, what is your favorite band/group/artist, so that we can try to understand what you are talking about?
OP, what bands/groups/artists do you regard as bad music?
If you want to hear some hip-hop that you'd enjoy more than "Halfsharkalligator", check this out.
That was nice; good rhythm and good overall vibe.
I just heard it on the radio the otherday. Catchy. "Screw you, Benny" is fairly entertaining as well.
And Hitler called for the creation of ovens to efficiently burn the tortured dead. People can pioneer some terrible stuff.
If you're comparing a sub-genre of music to the the Holocaust, then...uhm...I'm not talking to you anymore.
I'm going to have to agree with everyone else, I didn't much care for those songs.
OP, what is your favorite band/group/artist, so that we can try to understand what you are talking about?
OP, what bands/groups/artists do you regard as bad music?
I really can't answer either of those questions.
I listen to so much, it's impossible to pick a "favorite". Hip-Hop, rock, folk, industrial, trance, jazz, bluegrass, pop, classical...when I tell people I listen to everything, I mean it.
I guess if I had to pick one artist, it would be Mike Patton. He's one of the best (if not THE best) vocalists alive, and the stuff he writes is brilliant. He's also incredibly experimental, and his career is founded on cross-genre work.
As for what constitutes "bad" music...I very rarely hear music I'd call "bad". But comparing an act like Green Day or Lady GaGa to...well, let's say Patton again, is like comparing the five-star cuisine of a master chef to the food of an experienced chef. Some people can't tell the difference, and might prefer the lower quality food, but those who are "in-the-know" can see a world of difference between the two.
The food of a chef might be better, but it is so little that overall it is still awful. That little bit doesn't fill me and just annoys me. I always have to order 3-4 main courses which isn't cheap. Relate that to your "good music" then I'd say that in those songs there might be 1 good part, but overall it still is awful.
Then I'd rather have some lesser musician that does satiate my appetite.
Even the food of a chef comparing to a lesser cook...
The food of a chef might be better, but it is so little that overall it is still awful. That little bit doesn't fill me and just annoys me. I always have to order 3-4 main courses which isn't cheap. Relate that to your "good music" then I'd say that in those songs there might be 1 good part, but overall it still is awful.
Then I'd rather have some lesser musician that does satiate my appetite.
That's just what I'm talking about. You might not see much difference, but a real connoisseur can pick out all the subtleties of a dish, from taste to texture and everything in between, and find a much deeper and involving experience.
The way you described eating is utilitarian - your filling your stomach, not appreciating the artistry of the dish.
Particularly the mathmetal one, that was awfull to my ears. It was a case of 'Hey, lets be so technical and do some real insane time signature changes' but forgot to make it listenable. That is one of the greatest challenges of music, and one that a real so called conneisure would understand, to make music enjoyable by all.
If you're comparing a sub-genre of music to the the Holocaust, then...uhm...I'm not talking to you anymore.
Weak. Avoiding a valid point by feining distaste over the holocaust. Fail.
Weak. Avoiding a valid point by feining distaste over the holocaust. Fail.
Because it's not a valid point. First of all, Hitler did not pioneer genocide; that's always been around. Second, horrorcore, at it's best, is an incredibly inventive and experimental genre - especially when you get into more abstract hip-hop.
And finally, comparing horrorcore to the Holocaust is absolutely the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It defies any kind of logical thought, and only serves to offend.
That's just what I'm talking about. You might not see much difference, but a real connoisseur can pick out all the subtleties of a dish, from taste to texture and everything in between, and find a much deeper and involving experience.
The way you described eating is utilitarian - your filling your stomach, not appreciating the artistry of the dish.
And some people like eating a dish that's both filling and tastes good. It's really not too much to ask, and expecting that people suffer just to enjoy your "art" is a bit arrogant, even for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUn4jXZko5E&feature=fvwe1
Listening to the third piece mentioned by the OP, I said to myself: "Very difficult to play, but what's the point?" Sheer technique is a resource but it has to be a servant to good song-writing and not the other way around.
Austrian Death Machine stuff is perfectly fine to listen, but talking about trash I'd always take Slayer stuff first.
If you want to hear a little more emotional appeal from Behold, skip to the 2:15 mark of "Canada".
As for what constitutes "bad" music...I very rarely hear music I'd call "bad". But comparing an act like Green Day or Lady GaGa to...well, let's say Patton again, is like comparing the five-star cuisine of a master chef to the food of an experienced chef. Some people can't tell the difference, and might prefer the lower quality food, but those who are "in-the-know" can see a world of difference between the two.
Cool. I have a slightly similar attitude towards music, I like to learn about and discover it through the different decades and such.
So would we, theoretically, be in agreement if I said that I enjoy Green Day's Dookie album, and that I realize that it doesn't ultimately compare to an better band/group/artist, such as (name any widely regarded great music act, Radiohead, The Clash, Mike Patton sure ((haven't really heard anything from him except Faith No More's The Real Thing)) ), even though its a good album?
And Hitler called for the creation of ovens to efficiently burn the tortured dead. People can pioneer some terrible stuff.
I never thought I'd see the day when Godwin's Law would be invoked in a MUSIC thread of all things.
Hats off to you, sir.
That's just what I'm talking about. You might not see much difference, but a real connoisseur can pick out all the subtleties of a dish, from taste to texture and everything in between, and find a much deeper and involving experience.
The way you described eating is utilitarian - your filling your stomach, not appreciating the artistry of the dish.
Oh I see the difference, but if the chef gives me so little then I'm not filled and not satisfied no matter how good that tidbit was. It is a friggin' disappointment and I still feel empty no matter that fading tingly feel on my taste buds. Same for the songs you list. There might be one or two small parts that are good, but because the rest is still crap it is unable to satiate. And I'm not going to waste my time and an ear bleeding just to hear the few seconds in a song that make it ok.
So either make the entire song Great or buzz of and stop wasting time. Just like a chef has to give me proper amounts of great food instead of that tidbit. How can I enjoy the textures fully when my stomach is still growling like a bear? I can't because it is distracting and when I'm starving I love everything. Same when I listen to (for my taste) crap music...then when I come back to my taste of music it is awesome and mind blowing.
Nobody listens to it, and it frustrates me to no end. Seriously, I meet maybe...one or two people a year who a) have good taste, and b) are not factional - they don't insult entire genres (that they know nothing about) with blanket criticisms.
I often find myself forcing good music on others, even though I know that people will just reject it, and really don't deserve to hear it in the first place. If you think that sounds elitist, than you'd be correct - music is SERIUS BUSINESS to me.
If you want to know the kind of music I'm talking about, here are a few good examples:
Chango Spasiuk @ Cosquin
Dr. Octagon (Kool Keith)
Behold...the Arctopus
I think those three songs, in contrast, sum up the diversity of my tastes pretty well.
Nobody listens to it, and it frustrates me to no end. Seriously, I meet maybe...one or two people a year who a) have good taste, and b) are not factional - they don't insult entire genres (that they know nothing about) with blanket criticisms.
I often find myself forcing good music on others, even though I know that people will just reject it, and really don't deserve to hear it in the first place. If you think that sounds elitist, than you'd be correct - music is SERIUS BUSINESS to me.
If you want to know the kind of music I'm talking about, here are a few good examples:
Who Are You
Ain't That A Kick In the Head
Asimbonanga
Ubi Caritas
Storybook Love
I think those five songs, in contrast, sum up the diversity of my tastes pretty well.
/sarcasm (well, no sarcasm about my liking the above videos)
Do you get the point of my post?
Musical taste is very subjective. There is no "good" music and there is no "bad" music. There is only music that each listener likes or dislikes, which they themselves consider "good" or "bad." But there is no universal label that you can put on music.
It is ironic that you lambast others for being judgmental and not liking "good music" yet you turn right around and are judgmental yourself. With all due respect, but have you ever heard the story about what the pot said to the kettle?
As for your three linked videos, all I can say about them is "Meh." As for Mike Patton, I personally do not think that he holds a candle to Willy DeVille.
Cool. I have a slightly similar attitude towards music, I like to learn about and discover it through the different decades and such.
So would we, theoretically, be in agreement if I said that I enjoy Green Day's Dookie album, and that I realize that it doesn't ultimately compare to an better band/group/artist, such as (name any widely regarded great music act, Radiohead, The Clash, Mike Patton sure ((haven't really heard anything from him except Faith No More's The Real Thing)) ), even though its a good album?
First of all, listen to more Patton :D . Fantomas, Tomahawk, Mr. Bungle, Faith No More, and Peeping Tom are all projects of his, and he's been doing a lot of work in films and video games lately (The "Crank 2: High Voltage" soundtrack was particularly cool).
Anyways: yeah, I completely agree with that. If you like Green Day, great - but it's important to recognize how much more goes into something like this, compared to this.
And I can definitely relate to the "decades" thing - it's always amazing to watch how music develops and unfolds, as the kids who grew up with Hendrix, Page, etc., adopt their styles, but apply their own musical voice.
For example, Hip-Hop was born out of Funk, which was born out of Jazz, which was born out of Gospel. That's an extremely simplified version, of course, but I find it fascinating that this is only a few links down the chain from this.
talking about intros you may like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KKFoEI0kss
If you're comparing a sub-genre of music to the the Holocaust, then...uhm...I'm not talking to you anymore.
'Oni steps into the batter's box and awaits the pitch from Z_B. Here it comes - it's a fastball but Oni's got a bead ... a hit! What a drive! Back, back, back and ... and ... it's outta he ... wait a second. Oooh. It was caught well short of the warning track. Not even close ...'
:P
Did you bother to read what I wrote beyond seeing the word 'Hitler'? Either you totally failed at grasping what I was about or you had no real rebuttal to anything I had to say. Either way, you look foolish. So, in an effort to determine where this all fell apart - either your lack of understanding or your refusal to comment on points you have no argument against - I will re-explain my position:
I was not comparing any music genre to the Holocaust. I find it baffling that anyone could even see that. So, here it is in simpler, less charged verbage. Your point was that we should like whatever musical abortion you were supporting because its creator was innovative ('pioneer' was the term, IIRC). My point was that simply being created by a pioneer is not anywhere near a reason to support the stance that the tune was good. Like, not even close. So far from it, in fact, I'd liken it to the distance by which you missed my point. ;)
EDIT: To try and be even more clear, let's have a go with this simplification: The comparison was not 'Holocaust to X', it was 'Pioneer to Pioneer'. The idea was to demonstrate that being a pioneer does not make the work produced good. You attempted to support your position with a statement about the creator of that 'song' being an innovator. I attempted to counter by demonstrating that simply because something was done by a pioneer, it does not mean that something was good. Pioneer != automatically good work. And that's about as explained as I can make it ...
Because it's not a valid point. First of all, Hitler did not pioneer genocide; that's always been around.
[second at-bat]
'Oni once again steps into the box and awaits the pitch from Z_B. And here it is - another totally straight pitch, no curve at all. It's right down the middle of the zone. Oni takes a swing and nails it! It's back, back, back and it's outta her ... oh wait! Oh no. It's caught in the infield this time. Wow.'
:P
To get away from the baseball mis-call references, I will rebut with 'It's a damned good thing that that's not even close to what I actually said.' I said Hitler pioneered the use of ovens to cremate the tortured dead. And he did. As a matter of fact, I never used the word 'genocide' at all. Read what I wrote, please. It's not nearly what you're making it out to be. And I think you know it, too. Which just makes this even less cool.
Second, horrorcore, at it's best, is an incredibly inventive and experimental genre - especially when you get into more abstract hip-hop.
And, again, that means nothing when it sounds terrible. Really. Imagine an incredibly inventive and experimental new car. That doesn't move. If it don't work (read: doesn't sound like any sort of even passable music to the listener - in this case myself and, oh, just about everyone else in the thread) it don't matter how cutting edge it is. It's still a failure. Argue that, please, or admit you've got nothin'. ;)
And finally, comparing horrorcore to the Holocaust is absolutely the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It defies any kind of logical thought, and only serves to offend.
Actually, the stupidest thing going on in this thread is your constant misrepresentation of my comment. Really. I never compared 'Horrorco ... know what? **** it. I never compared 'that utter trash that tries to make itself important by segregating itself through niche terminology' to the Holocaust. Not even close. Go ahead and read it over. Then look to my response to the first quoted segement in this post and try and put them together. I'd draw a map, but I don't have a Photobucket account to get it uploaded. What defies logical thought is your refusal to address my points against your position under the guise of fabricated indignation due to a (likely purposeful) misrepresentation of one of my points. Stop. It.
Weak. Avoiding a valid point by feining distaste over the holocaust. Fail.
TY, TA. ;)
I never thought I'd see the day when Godwin's Law would be invoked in a MUSIC thread of all things.
Hats off to you, sir.
:PSeriously? I was thinking about that as I was typing it. I never want to be the first to Godwin, but it fit. And I've been in an odd mood when responding to this thread for some reason so I figured 'what the hell'. The result has been ... interesting. I should have realized that it would allow the 'Holocaust is bad, m-kay' out but whatever. I think I was clear enough to be understood and I've gone ahead and explained it, too. If this farce is to continue, I'll have the answer to my only question: Is this intentional in order to dodge the argument? ;)
music is SERIUS BUSINESS to me.
Sadly it is for a lot of people. I hate it when people are really protective of their genre or band. I hate it when you can walk up to someone and a say smething like "Jesus sucks my d***." and they laugh and then you add "but Greenday is a terrible band" and then, without warning, they want to stab you in the face. What the hell people!?
With that, I've made it a point to be able to talk s*** about any music genre and any band. Even ones I like. Becsue I beileve there is no aspect of like that can go completely uncriticized.
First of all, listen to more Patton :D . Fantomas, Tomahawk, Mr. Bungle, Faith No More, and Peeping Tom are all projects of his, and he's been doing a lot of work in films and video games lately (The "Crank 2: High Voltage" soundtrack was particularly cool).
Anyways: yeah, I completely agree with that. If you like Green Day, great - but it's important to recognize how much more goes into something like this, compared to this.
And I can definitely relate to the "decades" thing - it's always amazing to watch how music develops and unfolds, as the kids who grew up with Hendrix, Page, etc., adopt their styles, but apply their own musical voice.
For example, Hip-Hop was born out of Funk, which was born out of Jazz, which was born out of Gospel. That's an extremely simplified version, of course, but I find it fascinating that this is only a few links down the chain from this.
If you like Shoji Meguro, great - but it is very important that YOU recognize how much more goes into something like this or like this compared to this.
You are entitled to your opinion that Shoji Meguro is more talented than Green Day, but that does not automatically make it so. That is just your opinion. You think Mike Patton is fantastic. I think he is a hack. That does not mean that you have better taste in music than I do. It only means that you have different tastes. You complained in your first post about people making blanket criticisms about entire genre of musics. Well, frankly, and no disrespect intended, that is no worse than music snobbery.
My hat is off to Z_B.
Why thank you (again ;)). I must admit, though, that Mock is doing a much better (and much nicer) job of arguing against the blatant hypocrisy and childish snobbery than I have been.
I just thought your point was clear from the start. Nice clarification by the way. It also readed really good.
Aww shucks. :embarrass I thought it was, too. (and so did TA by the look of his post) Still, an explanation can only help. Though if I'd been a nicer boy to begin with, I doubt it would have been needed. This thread - for whatever reason - brings out the ******* in me.
Hello Oni,
talking about intros you may like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KKFoEI0kss
Haha, that's amazing. I wasn't a Symphony X fan before I heard this, but this is definitely going into my favorites list. :D
"Divine Identity" is probably the best intro that comes to mind, but this never fails to put a smile on my face. I absolutely love that light, funk guitar feel.
In fact, splashing a bit of funk into a song is one of my favorite tricks - the sound is practically universal, and it has more uses than I can list. The only thing I can think of that's more fun is to throw country licks into songs that they have no business being in.
People will always tell you "ARGGHARG I HATE COUNTRY", but watching a crowd's faces light up when you sample "Sweet Home Alabama" into "Crazy Train" is just...indescribably awesome.
Also - if you want to hear some good thrash guitar, check this guy out. I used to run into him a lot at the community college I just finished at, and we'd talk guitar. The guy is ridiculously fast.
That was nice; good rhythm and good overall vibe.
If you like Braille, this is his best song. Really beautiful track; Braille is just sick. Easily one of my favorite rappers.
Aww shucks. :embarrass I thought it was, too. (and so did TA by the look of his post) Still, an explanation can only help. Though if I'd been a nicer boy to begin with, I doubt it would have been needed. This thread - for whatever reason - brings out the ******* in me.
I liked your phrasing and agree with your point but disaprove of your attempting to argue it, as it implies that you completly do not understand the root of the issue. The music cannot sound good. The painting cannot be asteticaly pleasing. The food cannot be filling or reasonably priced. The furniture cannot be comfortable and inviting. If it is anything that would make it widly popular or enjoyable, it cannot be art in the eyes of the art snob. Namely, it robs the work of the base appeal that art has to the art snob, specifically the ability to inspire a sense of superiority in them for their ability to appreciate the art that is unlikeable to the common masses. If the definition of art expanded to include things that the common people like, then they could not continue to lament the terrible taste of the hordes. As such they must find new criteria to judge the works on other than the typical qualities that are used to judge the works by the rest of humanity.
I liked your phrasing and agree with your point but disaprove of your attempting to argue it, as it implies that you completly do not understand the root of the issue. The music cannot sound good. The painting cannot be asteticaly pleasing. The food cannot be filling or reasonably priced. The furniture cannot be comfortable and inviting. If it is anything that would make it widly popular or enjoyable, it cannot be art in the eyes of the art snob. Namely, it robs the work of the base appeal that art has to the art snob, specifically the ability to inspire a sense of superiority in them for their ability to appreciate the art that is unlikeable to the common masses. If the definition of art expanded to include things that the common people like, then they could not continue to lament the terrible taste of the hordes. As such they must find new criteria to judge the works on other than the typical qualities that are used to judge the works by the rest of humanity.
Hats off to you, Z_B, Mock, and any others who would stand up against snobbishness.
Oni: The fact that you don't think people deserve to listen to your music instantly paints you as an elitist snob. There's no such thing as being undeserving of the pleasure of music, and if someone disagrees with you, it's not a matter of them having a 'lesser' grasp of what constitutes good music than you, but simply a different one.
People will always tell you "ARGGHARG I HATE COUNTRY", but watching a crowd's faces light up when you sample "Sweet Home Alabama" into "Crazy Train" is just...indescribably awesome.
For someone so enlightened with music, I find it amusing that you mention country and "Sweet Homa Alabama" in the same sentence. I don't like country or Skynard but even I know Skynard is southern "rock" and not country.
On a side note...Zombie Babies...what kind of sick joke was your better half pulling today? Why would I want to see Aerosmith and ZZtop? Just because you have to go don't force your pain on others.
For someone so enlightened with music, I find it amusing that you mention country and "Sweet Homa Alabama" in the same sentence. I don't like country or Skynard but even I know Skynard is southern "rock" and not country.
Oh...then this is extremely awkward.
Oni: The fact that you don't think people deserve to listen to your music instantly paints you as an elitist snob. There's no such thing as being undeserving of the pleasure of music, and if someone disagrees with you, it's not a matter of them having a 'lesser' grasp of what constitutes good music than you, but simply a different one.
"Don't deserve" is a little strong, but the point was that good music goes right over peoples heads. Backpedaling a bit...
Sadly it is for a lot of people.
Yeah, people say that. But talk to somebody for five minutes, and it's like "Stravinsky; who?" "Pagliacci? What's that?"
If you guys think this is some kind of LOL INTERNET FIGHT, then...you win, I guess? I only really care about the people who've been interested in sharing music.
"Don't deserve" is a little strong, but the point was that good music goes right over peoples heads. Backpedaling a bit...
Or it that "good" music just isn't good to most people. To me it either put me to sleep or hurt my brain. Both signs that they ain't good music. Just noise made by people.
Interested in sharing music? Should someone go dig up a link to the "Now Playing..." thread?
You probably should.
Yeah, people say that. But talk to somebody for five minutes, and it's like "Stravinsky; who?" "Pagliacci? What's that?"
I actually agree with you on this. Just last week I was at Wendy's and after I got my food I asked the girl what she thought about Mozart. Can you believe she didn't know who I was talking about? Well, I threw my food in her face and stormed out. How dare a human being not know every single musical artist in existance....the shame.
I liked your phrasing and agree with your point but disaprove of your attempting to argue it, as it implies that you completly do not understand the root of the issue. The music cannot sound good. The painting cannot be asteticaly pleasing. The food cannot be filling or reasonably priced. The furniture cannot be comfortable and inviting. If it is anything that would make it widly popular or enjoyable, it cannot be art in the eyes of the art snob. Namely, it robs the work of the base appeal that art has to the art snob, specifically the ability to inspire a sense of superiority in them for their ability to appreciate the art that is unlikeable to the common masses. If the definition of art expanded to include things that the common people like, then they could not continue to lament the terrible taste of the hordes. As such they must find new criteria to judge the works on other than the typical qualities that are used to judge the works by the rest of humanity.
Ah. Alrighty, I can agree with that. Interesting take, froggy. Well done.
... but the point was that good music goes right over peoples heads.
Finally! We've finally found out what the problem is. See, music isn't supposed to go over your head, it's supposed to go into it! In the ear holes! Maybe that's why this 'good music' sounds so ... terrible.
On a side note...Zombie Babies...what kind of sick joke was your better half pulling today? Why would I want to see Aerosmith and ZZtop? Just because you have to go don't force your pain on others.
I didn't tell her to do it. She took it upon herself to punish you for some reason. What did you do? I'm still trying to figure out what it is I did ...
This idea that everybody is entitled to their opinions is bunk. You can have them, sure. But if you know nothing (or next to nothing) about the subject, keep it to yourself. Nobody cares.
The other side of that is: even with an informed opinion, most of the time nobody cares.
I mean, I'm a music student. During the school year, I'm immersed in music theory, history, composition, practice, concerts, the whole bit. I am starting to actually know what the hell I'm talking about. My opinions are (somewhat) informed. I still keep them to myself outside school, because nobody cares what I think about music except my fellow music students.
To an uninformed listener, my opinion is worthless because they won't understand how critical that knowledge that backs up my opinion is. That I can appreciate some of the more "difficult" music out there due to my knowledge is of little importance to somebody who doesn't have the same grounding. To somebody who lacks that musical education it is just so much noise, and nothing I say is going to change that. It's just going to make me look like an elitist jerk.
Education in music has nothing to do with its most critical component - how it sounds to the individual listener. No matter how many reasons can be given in support of why some piece is good, they still mean absolutely nothing. No amount of education about the subtleties of the music in question could ever change the way my brain processes the sound as delivered by my ear holes.
Consider this: I'm extremely educated1 in regard to beer and the many various complexities that make it taste good. If you don't like beer, I can't pass any knowledge to you that will make you like it, can I? You just don't and likely never will. If I attempt to 'educate' you - and thereby change a personal and justified perception of yours - I am a World Class *******TM. The same, I'm afraid, goes for music snobbery.
1I'm really not. It's just something I know for a fact some like (me!) and others do not. It's also really that simple.
Consider this: I'm extremely educated1 in regard to beer and the many various complexities that make it taste good. If you don't like beer, I can't pass any knowledge to you that will make you like it, can I? You just don't and likely never will. If I attempt to 'educate' you - and thereby change a personal and justified perception of yours - I am a World Class *******TM. The same, I'm afraid, goes for music snobbery.
Kinda what I was trying to say.
Kinda what I was trying to say.
True, but you also said some stuff I'm not 100% on board with:
An opinion is one thing, but an informed opinion is actually worth voicing. Sometimes even worth listening too.
This idea that everybody is entitled to their opinions is bunk. You can have them, sure. But if you know nothing (or next to nothing) about the subject, keep it to yourself. Nobody cares.
In the case of something like music, the only uninformed opinion is one from a person that hasn't bothered to listen to the piece in question. The only education one truly needs to determine whether or not a piece is a good one or not is simply hearing it. Anything else is masturbation. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but it hardly makes one more qualified than another to voice an opinion on a piece of music.
In the case of something like music, the only uninformed opinion is one from a person that hasn't bothered to listen to the piece in question. The only education one truly needs to determine whether or not a piece is a good one or not is simply hearing it. Anything else is masturbation. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but it hardly makes one more qualified than another to voice an opinion on a piece of music.
Going to have to disagree there, but some clarification might help:
With regards to musical education, an uneducated listener is not qualified to say that this composer is "good" and that one "bad." How would they make that judgement, with no understanding of what goes into the craft? What they're actually saying is whether or not they like a given artist or work, which is a completely different issue.
It's the same with any art, really. If you have only a surface understanding of the medium, your opinion on "good" and "bad" is more akin to masturbation (as in, best done alone and not talked about it). I don't say a painting is good or bad, because I don't really know. I can only say that I like this one and don't like that one. Literary works I'm slightly more qualified on... I can offer up some legitimate reasons on why I might think a given book or author is good or not.
Unless we're discussing matters of taste, I don't care what you like, and I'm sure you don't really care what I like. It just begs the question, "So what?" I don't even care that the OP likes that accordion guy or whatever "mathcore" is. It doesn't matter that I like Colin McPhee's later works.
On the other hand, an informed discussion of the direction music has taken towards the end of the last century, or the divide that has grown between "art music" and popular music, would be interesting. That I don't like many modern composer of "art music" is irrelevant to the discussion; their impact on the music scene is what matters. In such a discussions, uninformed opinions are a waste of time.
When someone says an artist is good or bad they are typically basing that comment upon their opinion. Again, I don't care how good accordian dood is at accordianing. No amount of study is going to change that. Therefore, the study is utterly worthless. Good and bad - where art is concerned - can only be defined by the person experiencing it. It's wholly personal. Any attempt to judge it based upon 'study and education' is the waste of time. We can study, appreciate and even compare talent. Talent, however, does not tell us whether something is good or bad. Only our personal interaction with the art can do that.
Is my opinion on the piece worthless to a conversation discussing the merit of the artist as compared to another? Yes. Is it worthless to a conversation disussing the artist or song's impact upon the genre? Yes. Those things we can see. Good or bad? Well, that's all in the eye of the beholder. No book or artsy degree can change that - no matter what whoever it is you're paying to educate you says.
Is my opinion on the piece worthless to a conversation discussing the merit of the artist as compared to another? Yes. Is it worthless to a conversation disussing the artist or song's impact upon the genre? Yes. Those things we can see. Good or bad? Well, that's all in the eye of the beholder. No book or artsy degree can change that - no matter what whoever it is you're paying to educate you says.
Seems to me that our opinions are actually only different over the usage of the words "good" and "bad." Where you use those terms, I use "like" and "dislike."
To me, the terms "good" and "bad" are more objective. They can never be entirely so, but they tend more in that direction. You could measure it in terms of whether or not the artist in question challenges the listener and/or provides insight, or if their technique very advanced. Being able to point to one of these kinds of reasons as being evidence of goodness/badness is what I mean when I use those terms. Is it supportable? Is it arguable? Then it might just be a reason why an artist could be called "good" or "bad."
Like and dislike, on the other hand, are just that. Do you enjoy it? Then you like it. That is the kind of opinion that anyone is entitled to, but with the caution that most of the time others don't really care. If that's what you're meaning when you use the terms "good" and "bad" in your post, then I think we agree on that point.
Ahh. Well, we agree. ;) I'm not sure I can agree with your view of 'good and bad' - I see that (obviously) as more of a personal thing - but that's of little matter here. The important thing is that we stopped talking past each other and realized we were basically saying the same thing. I call that a win. :D
Yes, thats what I was getting at earlier about you not 'getting' it. They are not judging the music as good/bad based upon the same criteria as you or any
Yes, thats what I was getting at earlier about you not 'getting' it. They are not judging the music as good/bad based upon the same criteria as you or anyothersane person. The enjoyableness of the music is not what is used to determine what is good, as everyone can comment on that. Therefore it must be judged using other more eccentric and esoteric qualities so as too restric the number of people who are worthy to contribute to the discussion.
Yeah, after your kind kick to the head, I started to get it. Now I know. ;)
Yes, thats what I was getting at earlier about you not 'getting' it. They are not judging the music as good/bad based upon the same criteria as you or anyothersane person. The enjoyableness of the music is not what is used to determine what is good, as everyone can comment on that. Therefore it must be judged using other more eccentric and esoteric qualities so as too restric the number of people who are worthy to contribute to the discussion.
Okay, so basically the entire endeavour of artistic criticism is elitist wankery. Gotcha.
"Don't deserve" is a little strong, but the point was that good music goes right over peoples heads.
Aaaand you're still being elitist. What's this "going over peoples' heads" nonsense? You basically telling me that there are two options:
1) People like the same music as you, and your music is objectively good.
2) People do not like the same music as you. Your music is too grand for their feeble minds to comprehend, and is objectively good. There is no other reason why someone would dislike your music.
Complexity != merit
Your music can follow any number of musical conventions, and be extremely difficult to replicate, and it can still sound terrible.
To use an analogy that's probably in very poor taste, since 3.5 is more complex and less accessible than 4E, it must be an objectively better game, right? And since FATAL* is even more complex (the rulebook is about 1000 pages) it must be even better than either!
*Note: If you don't know what FATAL is, you're one of the lucky ones. I'd suggest reading a review of the system over actually reading the system's rules if you're actually interested in learning about it. The system itself is horrible. The reviews are usually hilarious.
"Good" or "bad" in art is subjective. Period. I hope for this guy's sake that he grows out of this phase.
Aaaand you're still being elitist. What's this "going over peoples' heads" nonsense? You basically telling me that there are two options:
1) People like the same music as you, and your music is objectively good.
2) People do not like the same music as you. Your music is too grand for their feeble minds to comprehend, and is objectively good. There is no other reason why someone would dislike your music.
False dichotomy. I think the OP allowed for differing tastes. It is elitist, to be sure, but there is also some room for enjoying different kinds of music.
Complexity != merit
Your music can follow any number of musical conventions, and be extremely difficult to replicate, and it can still sound terrible.
And if you manage an education (either with instruction or on your own), you can gain an appreciation of music you already listened to that you never had before, or even discover what all the fuss is about regarding what you previously did not enjoy.
To use an analogy that's probably in very poor taste, since 3.5 is more complex and less accessible than 4E, it must be an objectively better game, right? And since FATAL* is even more complex (the rulebook is about 1000 pages) it must be even better than either!
I don't believe that is what he was saying. Extra complexity CAN add to music, but it doesn't necessarily do so.
That said, I don't really feel entirely comfortable defending the OP. I enjoy the deeper understanding my musical education has brought me, but not everybody shares my interest or dedication. I'm not disappointed by other peoples' musical tastes, nor do I think I'm somehow "better" for knowing more about music. There are people out there who kick the crap out of me in other areas of knowledge. Not hard to do that. For that matter, my own musical education is pretty early as of yet. Plenty of hobbiests can run circles around my skills and knowledge.
Whatever level you're appreciating the music at, great. Even if I think it's crap, it's what you like, so... good for you, for finding what you like.
The only thing that really gets my dander up is uninformed people saying that a given brilliant but inaccessable composer is terrible, or not really music. Saying that you don't like it is perfectly acceptable; I might not like it either. But to declare it to be not even music only displays ignorance. The inevitable follow-up of "Well, everybody is entitled to their opinion," is a pretty weak defense that smacks of willful ignorance (nothing wrong with ignorance; we can't all be experts in everything).
I go to a mechanic if I want to find out how good a car is; I drive it if I want to find out if I like driving it or not. An art critic can tell me if a painter is great, but I can tell them I don't like a given painting.
Okay, so basically the entire endeavour of artistic criticism is elitist wankery. Gotcha.
Correct. Does it serve some other purpose I am not aware of? Nothing wrong with wankery, even of the elitist kind, as long as your polite about it.
And if you manage an education (either with instruction or on your own), you can gain an appreciation of music you already listened to that you never had before, or even discover what all the fuss is about regarding what you previously did not enjoy.
An appreciation, perhapes, but it still will not sound better, the metric by which most people judge music.
I go to a mechanic if I want to find out how good a car is; I drive it if I want to find out if I like driving it or not. An art critic can tell me if a painter is great, but I can tell them I don't like a given painting.
No, you go to a mechanic if you want to find out how mechanically sound a car is. You go to an art critic if you want to find out what the level of technical skill or inovation is in a particular painting.
Correct. Does it serve some other purpose I am not aware of? Nothing wrong with wankery, even of the elitist kind, as long as your polite about it.
Well... yes, there are other purposes. Ideally art should illuminate some aspect of the human condition.
They can also inform decisions. If I want to go see a movie, I might consult the internet to see what Ebert thinks of it. He knows more than me about films, and is able to judge these things more thoroughly. I use what he writes to inform my decision (I sometimes like movies he thinks are terrible, and sometimes hate movies he thinks are amazing, but that's just taste). He's an expert, and his opinion is worth listening to.
Music is crafted, and has a structure that can have meaning. It might sound good, but lack any grounding or support. It will be pleasant to listen to, but any attempt to probe beneath the surface will reveal that there's just nothing to it and cannot be appreciated on any other level.
An appreciation, perhapes, but it still will not sound better, the metric by which most people judge music.
Actually, I'd say that most people judge it by how much they enjoy listening to it. If you gain a greater understanding that allows you to enjoy music you previously did not, I'd say that you like it better. Wouldn't you? Seems self-evident to me, and you seem to be just rephrasing what I wrote as if you disagree.
No, you go to a mechanic if you want to find out how mechanically sound a car is. You go to an art critic if you want to find out what the level of technical skill or inovation is in a particular painting.
Yeah. You're just stating what I meant in different words and phrasing it like you disagree with me. Again. I'm not an expert, so I'll defer to the opinions of the experts... but ultimately, if I don't really like it I won't buy it, whatever the expert's opinion is.
All I'm trying to say here is that with an in-depth knowledge of a given art form, you are qualified to make judgements on the artistic merit of a given work of art. If you don't have that knowledge, all you're doing is expressing personal taste. Such personal tastes are irrelevant to discussions of artistic merit. That I do or don't like a given musical work in my music history class has no bearing on what I feel its place in the development of our musical tradition is. Even if I can't stand listening to a symphony by Bruckner, I can admire the craft with which it was built and without reservation label him a great composer.
They can also inform decisions. If I want to go see a movie, I might consult the internet to see what Ebert thinks of it. He knows more than me about films, and is able to judge these things more thoroughly. I use what he writes to inform my decision (I sometimes like movies he thinks are terrible, and sometimes hate movies he thinks are amazing, but that's just taste). He's an expert, and his opinion is worth listening to.
No it isnt. His opinion is only worth listening too if his taste is often the same as yours. It dosnt matter how terrible a movie is or how poorly made if you enjoy it.
Music is crafted, and has a structure that can have meaning. It might sound good, but lack any grounding or support. It will be pleasant to listen to, but any attempt to probe beneath the surface will reveal that there's just nothing to it and cannot be appreciated on any other level.
This is not purpose. This is wankery. You dig to find meaning to enjoy it and to point it out to others so that the others who dug to find it can also gush with you about it in the corner, ignored by all the people who didn't bother. A small group interacting with itself for its own enjoyment, that is teh definition of wankery, right?
Actually, I'd say that most people judge it by how much they enjoy listening to it. If you gain a greater understanding that allows you to enjoy music you previously did not, I'd say that you like it better. Wouldn't you? Seems self-evident to me, and you seem to be just rephrasing what I wrote as if you disagree.
No. Apreciating how hard something is to do, or how they did it in just a certain way, does not make it more enjoyable. Knowing the techinques they used for all the fight scenes and being able to tell from experience what type of green screen they used for the CGI does not make a movie any more entertaining for most people. Edit: It's like a magic show. Learning how they did all the tricks can be amusing in it's own right, but that won;t necessairly make the actual show more fun to watch. Alot of people would argue quite the opposite.
Yeah. You're just stating what I meant in different words and phrasing it like you disagree with me. Again. I'm not an expert, so I'll defer to the opinions of the experts... but ultimately, if I don't really like it I won't buy it, whatever the expert's opinion is.
All I'm trying to say here is that with an in-depth knowledge of a given art form, you are qualified to make judgements on the artistic merit of a given work of art.
And what I'm saying is that, the artistic merit of a work of art has less merit to someone who dosn't care about the artistic merit of said work than the gas mileage of a sports car has to a billionaire. Art and Music are for enjoyment, to be asthetically or audibly pleasing to the vast majority of people, innovation or artistic merit be damned. Experts are not in a position to judge art, atleast not in any way that has any value to the masses. Analyze it, yes, but not judge its worth to anyone except thoes who share to some exstent their knowledge and views.
Edit: In other words, how closely it follow or builds upon the principals and ideals that you where taught during your training is meaningly less and worthless to thoes who do not go through the same or similiar training, whereas the mechanical soundness of a car can often be very important information for someone to have, even if they do not understand the specifics to any degree, as it will probably directly affect them regadless of wether they understand it or not.
False dichotomy. I think the OP allowed for differing tastes. It is elitist, to be sure, but there is also some room for enjoying different kinds of music.
You're right, that is a false dichotomy. That was sort of the point. I believe there are other viewpoints, but the OP seems to think if you don't like his music, you're either not worthy of it or it went over your head (see the post I quoted and his original post).
I don't believe that is what he was saying. Extra complexity CAN add to music, but it doesn't necessarily do so.
Fully in agreement. A very technical piece isn't necessarily better than a more simplistic one, but it isn't necessarily worse, either.
The only thing that really gets my dander up is uninformed people saying that a given brilliant but inaccessable composer is terrible, or not really music. Saying that you don't like it is perfectly acceptable; I might not like it either. But to declare it to be not even music only displays ignorance. The inevitable follow-up of "Well, everybody is entitled to their opinion," is a pretty weak defense that smacks of willful ignorance (nothing wrong with ignorance; we can't all be experts in everything).
Now show me where I said his music was terrible. I said "Your music can follow any number of musical conventions, and be extremely difficult to replicate, and it can still sound terrible.". That's not the same thing as saying "your music is terrible". I'm saying the sound upon my ears is unpleasant. Others have put the word "music" in quotations, or stated that that it isn't music, but I haven't, because I believe that makes me a music snob as well. So I hope the above was a general response and not directed at me! ;)
Why thank you (again ;)). I must admit, though, that Mock is doing a much better (and much nicer) job of arguing against the blatant hypocrisy and childish snobbery than I have been.
Just doing my part!
....the point was that good music goes right over peoples heads.
The way it goes over your head?
Yeah, people say that. But talk to somebody for five minutes, and it's like "Stravinsky; who?" "Pagliacci? What's that?"
Yeah, people say that. But talk to somebody for five minutes, and it's like "Mike Patton? Who? Was he a general during World War II?
Half shark half alligator guy was downright funny. Come on, its a rap song about a half shark, half alligator with scaly skin and whatnot. I have a hard time imagining anybody would want to listen to the entire song, but the first few bits were hilarious.
I don't know what to say about the techno-thingy. It sounded like a chaotic mess of discord. How could a person hum that?
Faith No More was great back in the day. Who hasn't pondered
What is It? Too bad the fellow is hooked up with whatever that Futoroso thingee is.
In all, Green Day produces music which is both more enjoyable to anything you linked and has deeper meaning. Please explain how half shark half alligator is more relevant or meaningful than the timely political protest of American Idiot.
No it isnt. His opinion is only worth listening too if his taste is often the same as yours. It dosnt matter how terrible a movie is or how poorly made if you enjoy it.
No, I am in complete disagreement. I don't listen to him because his taste is the same as mine; it isn't. Didn't you read the part where I said that I like movies he doesn't and visa versa? I read his opinion because it is better informed than my own; he watches movies and makes a living analysing them. Of course his opinion is better informed than mine! Hence why I take it into consideration. That his taste is different than mine is why I don't slavishly follow his opinion.
This is not purpose. This is wankery. You dig to find meaning to enjoy it and to point it out to others so that the others who dug to find it can also gush with you about it in the corner, ignored by all the people who didn't bother. A small group interacting with itself for its own enjoyment, that is teh definition of wankery, right?
You've never been giddy at discovering connections in music or literature or whatever, clearly. I don't care if anybody else knows that I figured out Thea Musgrave is quoting a Gluck aria in her ballet; noticing the connection and its significance is enough to make me very happy. Noticing the artistry that went into making that one quotation so haunting and beautiful in the new context is delightful, the way an apprentice can notice how well the master has created something. Doesn't matter if I tell anyone or show off how much I know; that she did it is a delight.
No. Apreciating how hard something is to do, or how they did it in just a certain way, does not make it more enjoyable. Knowing the techinques they used for all the fight scenes and being able to tell from experience what type of green screen they used for the CGI does not make a movie any more entertaining for most people. Edit: It's like a magic show. Learning how they did all the tricks can be amusing in it's own right, but that won;t necessairly make the actual show more fun to watch. Alot of people would argue quite the opposite.
If I recall, this is not the first time you've tried to tell me my experience is not my actual experience. I am telling you what I have discovered on my own. With a broader and deeper musical education, my enjoyment of different music has become broader and deeper. Every music student you ever meet will agree with you. Certainly 100% of the students in my programme would, and again... this one is self evident.
And what I'm saying is that, the artistic merit of a work of art has less merit to someone who dosn't care about the artistic merit of said work than the gas mileage of a sports car has to a billionaire. Art and Music are for enjoyment, to be asthetically or audibly pleasing to the vast majority of people, innovation or artistic merit be damned. Experts are not in a position to judge art, atleast not in any way that has any value to the masses. Analyze it, yes, but not judge its worth to anyone except thoes who share to some exstent their knowledge and views.
I agree with you here, to the extent that most people only care about whether or not they like a given art work, and make their value judgements based on that. My entire point is that by studying a given art form, you do gain more insight into it, and it alters what you enjoy in said art form. Before making a serious study of music, I enjoyed playing it and listening to it on a surface level. Now I still enjoy listening to it, and also I enjoy analysing it... figuring out how the composer has evoked a given mood is fun to me. I am better able to understand and thus enjoy more modern types of music that others say is noise. I credit this to my education; even people who educate themselves about music find the same process.
Edit: In other words, how closely it follow or builds upon the principals and ideals that you where taught during your training is meaningly less and worthless to thoes who do not go through the same or similiar training, whereas the mechanical soundness of a car can often be very important information for someone to have, even if they do not understand the specifics to any degree, as it will probably directly affect them regadless of wether they understand it or not.
Okay: my car example, in my head, was the situation where you're buying a new car. You'd trust the review written by somebody who is an expert in cars to tell you the quality of a car, and yourself to determine whether or not it's to your taste. But it was a bad and poorly articulated analogy.
Now show me where I said his music was terrible. I said "Your music can follow any number of musical conventions, and be extremely difficult to replicate, and it can still sound terrible.". That's not the same thing as saying "your music is terrible". I'm saying the sound upon my ears is unpleasant. Others have put the word "music" in quotations, or stated that that it isn't music, but I haven't, because I believe that makes me a music snob as well. So I hope the above was a general response and not directed at me! ;)
It was a general response. I was aware that you did not specifically call these examples terrible; sorry to not make that so clear.
...studying a given art form, you do gain more insight into it, and it alters what you enjoy in said art form
Yeah, pretty much.
I always had a weak spot for Gothic architecture, especially after a European tirp w/ the folks. But, when you get run through the mill later per a BA in Fine Arts, you realize what you didn't know could fill a phone book. You learn to enjoy things that you were otherwise ignorant too.
ex) Gargoyles were pretty cool before, but when you hear of Parisian legends later about them allegedly animating to fish drowning people out of the Sienne River (adjacent to Nortre Dame), that's kinda' intriguing.
ex) Flying Buttresses, ho hum, not really interesting, right? We were aghast to learn that bishops were competeing to stuff more and more stained glass into their cathedrals (keeping up w/ the Jones') which means taller and taller walls in your sanctuary. Well, 1 Christmas Eve mass @ Beauvais Cathedral, lack of supporting structures (buttressing not invented yet) to hold those tall monuments to ego, they came crashing in on the entire congregation. All dead, Merry Christmas everyone!
RELATED: modesty is a virtue, especially when God comes calling in terribly ironic fashion on the alleged b-day of his son, no?
Those little details in education, both formal and informal, color your perception.
But, it cuts both ways.
Long story short, those cheeseball action movies you loved as a kid ("Commando" anyone?) are suddenly revealed to be incredibly stiff and wooden under a more critical eye, usually by age. As we get older, we tend to get more XP and get smarter even w/out formal education.
Before, ignorant of things beyond explosions and the general fluff and filler that often (attempts to) tidies up a mess of bad scripting, plot holes, hoaky dialogue, and bla bla bla.
This doesn't mean it's not your bag. You can still have good entertainment value from it and still, in the back of your mind go, "Yeah, it's corny film, but I'm nostalgic, a sucker for over-the-top action, or like the kitschy value in it, etc." It's alright, just don't lord it over ppl. Teach to not at someone.
Personal taste vs. education: I totally dig most zombie movies even after, say, watching something real top shelf like "Ben Hur". Admittedly, zombies aren't high art, right? I know this, but it's cool, even when my g/f says, "Damn it, we're not watching any more Romero tonight." The understanding is there even when she inflicts her guilty pleasure of subpar anime upon me.
If I recall, this is not the first time you've tried to tell me my experience is not my actual experience. I am telling you what I have discovered on my own.
Tisk. Stop acting like I'm attacking you. You didn't declare your experience from an unassailable position, you asked my opinion:
If you gain a greater understanding that allows you to enjoy music you previously did not, I'd say that you like it better. Wouldn't you?
See? And my answer was "No I would not say you liked the music better, I would say you enjoyed the experience more because of your knowledge but that the must was not actually more enjoyable." It's like saying a **** makes driving more fun.
Show
I'm assuming you mean agree with you, violence jack. If this is not what you intended, let me know.
Every music student you ever meet will agree with you.
I'm assuming you mean agree with you, violence jack. If this is not what you intended, let me know.
Tisk. Stop acting like I'm attacking you. You didn't declare your experience from an unassailable position, you asked my opinion:
See? And my answer was "No I would not say you liked the music better, I would say you enjoyed the experience more because of your knowledge but that the must was not actually more enjoyable." It's like saying a **** makes driving more fun.
Here is where your argument confuses me. Enjoyable is an entirely subjective term. The music is enjoyable because I enjoy it. If you do not, then it is not enjoyable. Now you're saying that my own enjoyment is independant of how enjoyable the music is. That I enjoyed the experience of listening to the music more leads directly to me actually liking it more.
What I'm saying is: artistic merit is independant of taste. With more knowledge (through education or experience), tastes expand to include works that previously were disliked in recognition of artistic merit.
Sure I have, and had alot of fun discussing my find with friends and other fans of the work. That dosn't mean I wouldn't call it wankery. Perhapes I am using that word wrong? You originally posted it, so mabey I am not using it in the way you intended? It serves absolutley no purpose and acheives no end other than my entertainment. And that is fine.
And if you're not talking about it, is it still wankery?
I do not understand this. What value does his 'better information' possibly have if it is not an accurate judge of how well you will enjoy the movie? The only other worth I could see would be a saftey net to make sure you don't choose the wrong side of a debate about how good or bad the movie was.
He has the vocabulary and experience I lack to properly express the merits of a given film and can point out connections/meanings that I would miss. In fact, reading a film guide to better understand references and symbols used in the movie can increase your enjoyment of a film. You are gaining understanding from the movie than you might on your own, if you had not read the opinions of a film critic.
As far as a quick review, the practiced eye of a film critic will give a more accurate summary of the merrits/flaws of a film than your friend who thinks that "Dungeons and Dragons: The Movie" is a masterpiece of cinema.
But the only thing the "quality" of a peice of art means is how well apreciated it will be by other would-be-art-critics. The only reason the quality of art would matter is if you are or are trying to impress said would-be-art-critic by demonstrating good taste that is not actually your own. If you just want something you find appealing to hang on your wall, the actual "quality" of what you like is irrelevant, which is my main point all along.
Here, I sort of agree with you. The quality has nothing to do with taste. However, I would argue that the quality of the piece leads to greater enjoyment of the piece itself once you can comprehend it more fully, not the enjoyment of sounding all snooty at coctail parties.
I enjoyed the Symphonie Fantastique by Berlioz a great deal when I was in highschool. I enjoy it even more now, having learned more and gaining an appreciation of the piece's place in history, its very clever use of orchestration, the musical allusions it makes. I don't have to talk about that to enjoy the piece more; listening to it, I enjoy it more. I like it more now than I ever did before because of my greater knowledge than I had, not because I can talk about it and impress people.
In short: I don't like things better because it will impress other people, I like them better because I have a greater understanding of everything the artist was trying to express. I don't care that much what other people think of me.
In short: I don't like things better because it will impress other people, I like them better because I have a greater understanding of everything the artist was trying to express. I don't care that much what other people think of me.
Which would put you in the category of Would-be-art-critic or possibly some day art-critic if you continue your educaction. In order to enter the category of art snob, you would have to devlope the notion that broad appeal is a bad thing.
And if you're not talking about it, is it still wankery?
Not sure. But you got there somehow, most likley by talking about it, which would be wankery, I think..... stupid confusing slang.
Here is where your argument confuses me.
Okay, let me see if I can be more specific with what I mean. Every experience is made of multiple peices, and each peice can contribute soemthign diffrent. You can take any experience and break it down into its component peices and evaluate them individually, this is what people often do when attempting to explain why they like something. You can also add things to an event, alterting the experience. If we go back to the driving example, we could say driving gives you X enjoyment. The feel of the road, the grip of the wheel, the vibration of the engine, whatever, totals to X enjoyment. A blow job gives you Y enjoyment, and the naughtiyness of doing it in a moving car gives you Z enjoyment. So your sum enjoyment of that event is X+Y+Z, however you still only enjoy driving X. Back to an art example, say a person enjoyes a particular painting X, they enjoy the theme .1X, the colors .3X, the general mood the peice instills in them .4X, and the mystery of the peice .2X. Then they go and learn about the peice, finding out what qualities give it "artistic merit" and what the artist was attempting to convey. Applying this knowledge to the peice as they view it gives them Y enjoyment, but the enjoyment they are actually gaining from viewing the painting is .8X, because the mystery is gone. Thus, they are enjoying the act of viewing the painting more, but not because they necessarily like the painting more, but because they enjoy their knowledge about the painting as well. Does that make sense?
Which would put you in the category of Would-be-art-critic or possibly some day art-critic if you continue your educaction. In order to enter the category of art snob, you would have to devlope the notion that broad appeal is a bad thing.
I care not how broad the appeal is. I do tend to dislike things that, in my judgement, have no artistic merit. I don't really care if people like it anyway, nor do I judge them as people for it. I like some stuff that has no real artistic merit myself, so why should I care?
Okay, let me see if I can be more specific with what I mean. Every experience is made of multiple peices, and each peice can contribute soemthign diffrent. You can take any experience and break it down into its component peices and evaluate them individually, this is what people often do when attempting to explain why they like something. You can also add things to an event, alterting the experience. If we go back to the driving example, we could say driving gives you X enjoyment. The feel of the road, the grip of the wheel, the vibration of the engine, whatever, totals to X enjoyment. A blow job gives you Y enjoyment, and the naughtiyness of doing it in a moving car gives you Z enjoyment. So your sum enjoyment of that event is X+Y+Z, however you still only enjoy driving X. Back to an art example, say a person enjoyes a particular painting X, they enjoy the theme .1X, the colors .3X, the general mood the peice instills in them .4X, and the mystery of the peice .2X. Then they go and learn about the peice, finding out what qualities give it "artistic merit" and what the artist was attempting to convey. Applying this knowledge to the peice as they view it gives them Y enjoyment, but the enjoyment they are actually gaining from viewing the painting is .8X, because the mystery is gone. Thus, they are enjoying the act of viewing the painting more, but not because they necessarily like the painting more, but because they enjoy their knowledge about the painting as well. Does that make sense?
Well, that makes a lot more, yes. But the end result is the same: I like the Symphonie Fantastique more now than I did before. Whether the source of my enjoyment is the music itself of the greater understanding of Berlioz' techniques and all is immaterial. I like it more.
When I first heard about John Cage's infamous 4'33",* I thought it was stupid. Learning more about his intent and opinions on music, I greatly respect what he was doing and honestly like it (welll it's a special case. I like the concept of it). I mean, listening to a recording of it would be stupid and defeating the entire purpose, but if a concert programme featured it, I'd go, and enjoy it.
*It consists of 4 minutes, 33 seconds of silence. It's three movements for solo piano. When first performed the pianist signalled the beginning and end of each movement by closing and then opening the keyboard cover on the piano (Entertainingly, even that it's for piano is mutable. His instructions on the score are for it to be played by any instrument, the length of time involved in each movement up to the performer).
It's like saying a **** makes driving more fun.
It doesn't?
It doesn't?
Correct. It dosn't. It can make the drive more enjoyable, but dosn't make driving any more fun than it is without.
I know, because I've also been a little bit brainwashed, and I'm still working on undoing my brainwashing so I can enjoy a wider variety of music, including music I would have previously considered beneath me.
I don't consider any music beneath me. I just, with 10+ years of musical experience behind me, make no apologies for saying that this is better than this.
In all, Green Day produces music which is both more enjoyable to anything you linked and has deeper meaning. Please explain how half shark half alligator is more relevant or meaningful than the timely political protest of American Idiot.
First of all, the reason why I'll never write or play anything that deals in political protest - it's very briefly relevant.
But anyway - Kool Keith's work as Dr. Octagon was largely surrealistic - it's intended to not make sense. As surrealism, "Halfsharkalligator" is well written. It uses tangible, concrete things in impossible ways, and uses vivid wordplay - lots of descriptive words, and (more importantly) lot's of color. The song is given a "B-Horror Movie" flavor from the instrumentation, reminiscent of '50's martian invasion movies (the Dr. Octagon persona was an extraterrestrial).
Not to say Green Day doesn't have anything intellectual going on in their music, and their stuff generally sounds good...but it's written so that middle-schoolers can understand it.
Personal taste vs. education: I totally dig most zombie movies even after, say, watching something real top shelf like "Ben Hur". Admittedly, zombies aren't high art, right? I know this, but it's cool, even when my g/f says, "Damn it, we're not watching any more Romero tonight." The understanding is there even when she inflicts her guilty pleasure of subpar anime upon me.
As a horror buff, a lot of zombie films (especially Romero's work) are actually pretty smart. Zombies strike at a lot of different fears, such as the fear of being eaten, loss of self-identity, and (especially) fear of our own mortality. You also tend to see better uses of gore in zombie movies than in other horror sub-genres.
Really, it was slasher flicks that killed the American horror film. The majority are sexist, involve little-or-no story telling and character development, and created a formula where filmmakers could put in little work and money while reaping substantial returns.
That being said, I've noticed a kind of "neo-slasher" movement over the past...maybe ten years, with some fairly well made slasher films popping up. Lucky McKee's "May" is one of my favorite films (easily my favorite horror film), and Rob Zombie's "Halloween" films actually turned that franchise around.
I don't consider any music beneath me. I just, with 10+ years of musical experience behind me, make no apologies for saying that this is better than this.
Please remember that your 10+ years of musical experience DOES NOT make your opinion more valid than someone with 0 years of musical experience.
Please remember that your 10+ years of musical experience DOES NOT make your opinion more valid than someone with 0 years of musical experience.
Depending on what he means by "better," I would actually argue that it very much does make it more valid.
If it's just a matter of taste, then yes, you are correct that his opinion doesn't matter. But if discussing artistic merit or how well constructed a piece of music is, it very much matters. Somebody with no knowledge is not really qualified to comment more than whether or not they like it, and maybe a few of the reasons why or why not.
But ... that's all that matters. There truly is only one question, here: Do you like it? If the answer is 'no', the rest is utterly meaningless. What's the point if the music sounds like crap to you?
For most people, there is no point. It is meaningless to them.
For others, the artistic intent can hold great interest. "Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima" is a good example. That sounds positively awful to me; it's full of horrifying discords, ends with a huge chord consisting of pitches separated by less than a semitone (meaning they're really, really close together... but noticably different from each other). It is extremely unpleasant to listen to. That's part of the point. I'll never listen to the piece for fun; it's not fun, it's not enjoyable. But it accomplishes what it sets out to accomplish. Even just looking at the score is interesting and is inspiring for new ways in which to notate music (well... they were new in 1960), using blocks to indicate a range of pitches that the performer should play in. Lots of innovation there that in this specific case sounds horrible, but can be used to create things that most would agree is beautiful.
The fact that this piece has a very profound emotional effect on the listener makes it actually useful for a purpose it was not intended for; film. It is used during a couple movies. Think of the shower scene from Psycho. The music there is incredible. I'd certainly call it very good; but it's not enjoyable of itself. It is very good at evoking the correct emotional response, but it sounds unpleasant... as well it should.
I can also tell you that, were I to start a book I didn't like - even if it is considered to be a classic or innovative or award-winning, whatever - I'd also stop. For me, the depth cannot be reached if the surface is impassable. And I think that's kind of the gist a lot of the music mentioned in this thread's detractors are trying to get at.
I think that this minute dissection stuff is what some consider wankery. There's plenty of subjects that I can (and, unfortunately do) follow a similar process with. IMO, it's above what's needed. The bottom line is whether or not what's presented is likable (good - in my terminology ;)). My friends have done a great job of bashing this sad truth into my head. See, I tell them about books I read and get blank stares - at best. I can go on and on and on about the subtleties and innovation, the reflection of the time when they were produced, etc, etc and, to them, it means nothing. The subject material is not anything they find interesting (despite my excellent taste in books ;)) and they can't be bothered to read it. So I get that stuff. I do. But I also understand where they're coming from. If it isn't interesting or entertaining to them, there is no point in it at all. To me, that means that to some extent the greater depth at which I may look at a certain work (depends - not all warrant such an endeavor) is kind of pointless overall.
I can also tell you that, were I to start a book I didn't like - even if it is considered to be a classic or innovative or award-winning, whatever - I'd also stop. For me, the depth cannot be reached if the surface is impassable. And I think that's kind of the gist a lot of the music mentioned in this thread's detractors are trying to get at.
The bolded section is what I most take issue with. Reason I do is because of artistic intent. This is getting more into my philosophies on art in general. I would contend that there is a lot of art that is out there that can offer insight into the "human condition." It might be a commentary on a person's place in society, it might be a very specific message or even a question. If you have a greater understanding of a given art form, you can start to understand what the artist is trying to communicate.
Literature is a great example, actually. For my current English class we read the novel "Stanley Park." Good story, very gripping. If you were not interested in analysing it for a lit class, it would be a fun read. I liked it, a lot. But I also have to look at what the author is doing with all these Biblical allusions strewn throughout the book. I'm writing my essay on what he's trying to tell us through the use of two different knives used by a chef, as symbols that have a bearing on society as a whole.
By analysing it on this level, I can enjoy the craft of the novel, the nuts and bolts the author has used to give additional meaning to the words on the page, separate from the surface plot of a chef rebuilding a relationship with his strange anthropologist father. Reading beneath the surface here, there are comments on society and connections to our origins that the author very deliberately put there.
Most people who read it aren't going to care; they're going to just get the story on the surface. They'll judge it on that basis, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But the points left beneath the surface are ones that the author put in there for a reason, and it's not meaningless to look for them and talk about them... whether you agree or not, the author is delivering a message. If you get the message and think about it from a new perspective, that's of value.
If I then gush about these ideas to my friend who has no interest in literature, I'm wasting everyone's time. If I judge somebody harshly because they have no idea what I'm talking about and don't really care to, I'm being a snob.
Not everybody does care, and not everybody has to. But if you do care about these kinds of things, it's not a useless endeavour. Ideally you're growing in understanding on some level; whether it's about your place in society or the value of recycling or the impracticality of romantic love, hopefully you will have added to or transformed your understanding of the world around you in some way.
Really what we end up discovering through analysis of art can be pretty meaningless as well. After all, a work is generally created by one person or maybe a few. So, all we know after digging through it is what this person or people were thinking about at the time they created it. Basically, all we're doing is forming an opinion about someone else's opinion. While occasionally this can teach us something, it will also quite often fail to do so. This, of course, is only concerning a message or reflection. More mechanical things - such as construct, easter eggs, etc - are something we can learn from, but only in a skeletal sense. Something that seems to be forgotten when engaging in the study of art is that art was still created by a person (or people) and that anything created in such a way will bear the tint of the glasses worn by its creator. While that can be interesting in and of itself, it really can't teach us much more than what that one person was thinking when it was created.
Again, ideally, the artist's take on it is challenging or enlightening in some way. Of course, that's not always the case. It's just the ideal. I think it's why most "great" artists tend to be outsiders in some way... by being outside of regular society, they have a different perspective than people who are more accepted in society. It's that slightly skewed perspective on the same thing that makes it worth paying attention to.
Again, ideally, the artist's take on it is challenging or enlightening in some way. Of course, that's not always the case. It's just the ideal. I think it's why most "great" artists tend to be outsiders in some way... by being outside of regular society, they have a different perspective than people who are more accepted in society. It's that slightly skewed perspective on the same thing that makes it worth paying attention to.
Ted Kaczynski (two mentions in two days? maybe I should talk to someone ... :P) had a unique perspective and was an outsider himself. I suppose we should have paid more attention to him, but it wasn't because of any great insight. ;)
Basically this is analysis for analysis' sake. It's its own art, in a way. This is something done to be done, not because there is any need to do it. And that's why - I think - some see it as wankery.
Ted Kaczynski (two mentions in two days? maybe I should talk to someone ... :P) had a unique perspective and was an outsider himself. I suppose we should have paid more attention to him, but it wasn't because of any great insight. ;)
Or maybe he should have been an artist. :D
Basically this is analysis for analysis' sake. It's its own art, in a way. This is something done to be done, not because there is any need to do it. And that's why - I think - some see it as wankery.
Most of what we do has no real need to be done; we do it because we want to.
I think we're just gonna have to disagree on this one. I'm on the side that there is, at least ideally, an element of self-discovery or personal growth in the endeavor. I also will recognize that there is a lot of wankery and snobbery that comes from the practice of artistic analysis.
Most of what we do has no real need to be done; we do it because we want to.
=wankage
Or maybe he should have been an artist. :D
:D Fair 'nuff. Though, in a way, he was. Author, wild hair fanatic, bomber ...
Most of what we do has no real need to be done; we do it because we want to.
I think we're just gonna have to disagree on this one. I'm on the side that there is, at least ideally, an element of self-discovery or personal growth in the endeavor. I also will recognize that there is a lot of wankery and snobbery that comes from the practice of artistic analysis.
I actually can agree with that. To the person interested, there is value. And to those outside the entire thing stinks of wankery and, depending upon the wanker involved, snobbery and elitism. Luckily there are people out there that can achieve the first without succumbing to the second. ;)
Depending on what he means by "better," I would actually argue that it very much does make it more valid.
If it's just a matter of taste, then yes, you are correct that his opinion doesn't matter. But if discussing artistic merit or how well constructed a piece of music is, it very much matters. Somebody with no knowledge is not really qualified to comment more than whether or not they like it, and maybe a few of the reasons why or why not.
Fair enough, but to me the original poster seems to be talking primarily about a matter of taste.
Fair enough, but to me the original poster seems to be talking primarily about a matter of taste.
Carry on, then.
Or maybe he should have been an artist.
Depending on your sensibilities, frame of mind, etc., many great killers, poilitical or otherwise, can perform their artistry
w/ suprising intrigue upon retrospection. Not endorsing it, so much as trying to understand it. Here's a thinker: If war is the ultimate in human expression and art is a matter of personal expression, what kind of gravity does that bear for murder and it's ilk. They say you gotta' suffer for your art you know...;)
Show
There is the old metaphor of a surgeon wielding his scalpal like a brush. With each stroke he is creating (destroying) a work of art. I'm reminded of the Vampire the Masquerade cliche of the Tzimisce (think old Carpathian horrors) that use vicissitude (maleable skin/bone, shapechanging, etc) upon their thralls and victims. Very best at making ghouls (human retainers). Not surprisingly, they make awesome plastic surgeons, artists, and torturers. Their is an artistry, though demented by our standards, to that sorta' work.
How many songs, films, books are there about Jack the Ripper? Ed Gein had a penchant for making furniture out of ppl too. Hitler, had he been accepted to Vienna, well, we know all that could've/wouldn't have been, bla bla bla.
There is the old metaphor of a surgeon wielding his scalpal like a brush. With each stroke he is creating (destroying) a work of art. I'm reminded of the Vampire the Masquerade cliche of the Tzimisce (think old Carpathian horrors) that use vicissitude (maleable skin/bone, shapechanging, etc) upon their thralls and victims. Very best at making ghouls (human retainers). Not surprisingly, they make awesome plastic surgeons, artists, and torturers. Their is an artistry, though demented by our standards, to that sorta' work.
How many songs, films, books are there about Jack the Ripper? Ed Gein had a penchant for making furniture out of ppl too. Hitler, had he been accepted to Vienna, well, we know all that could've/wouldn't have been, bla bla bla.
Zillions of paintings of the Annunciation, Resurrection, whatever tell us the artist's slant (what he was thinking), but more importantly, they tell us that during the time they were created, the Church was a killer patron ($$$), and religious subject matter was very popular, etc...not merely, "Oh, yeah, that painter, he's got this thing for painting angels and so forth."
This transcends the bounds of art theory however. It is, whats the word for it? Not archeology, not paleotology.... I know this word, its just slipping my mind. Odd work shift today. You know, the study of past events and people. Good god, did I Just describe 'history'? There is another word I was thinking about but I suppose that word is mostly used for things further back in time than most paint lasts for even under the best of circumstances.
This transcends the bounds of art theory however. It is, whats the word for it? Not archeology, not paleotology.... I know this word, its just slipping my mind. Odd work shift today. You know, the study of past events and people. Good god, did I Just describe 'history'? There is another word I was thinking about but I suppose that word is mostly used for things further back in time than most paint lasts for even under the best of circumstances.
Anthropology, mayhap?
Not to say Green Day doesn't have anything intellectual going on in their music, and their stuff generally sounds good...but it's written so that middle-schoolers can understand it.
Uhm. Yeah. You know. That's their audience. If everyone only made music that only people with 10+ years of musical experience could understand, then we'd go devoid of music for the first 20 years of our lives.
Also I've missed large parts of the topic because it's hard to wrap my mind around all of this stuff, but seriously; some people put time in music and understanding it, and the technique behind them.
Some people don't give a ****. They just listen to the end result and judge on that. These people, believe it or not, are not stupid. They just put their time in something else that you don't care about, and call you stupid for not putting time in that.
The next time you make fun of a vegan for his musical taste for example, remember that all the time you put in understanding a musical masterpiece, he put in understanding exactly what was in the thing you ate while listening to it ;)
We don't have the time to know everything. That's why there are different kinds of music. Some is made for those who consider it important. Some is made for those who put it in the background while they are working on something they consider important.
That's just what I'm talking about. You might not see much difference, but a real connoisseur can pick out all the subtleties of a dish, from taste to texture and everything in between, and find a much deeper and involving experience.
The way you described eating is utilitarian - your filling your stomach, not appreciating the artistry of the dish.
I'm really into food (though I won't claim I truly understand food, and can appreciate it while all you cretins roll about in your McDonald's), and coming from myself, all of the cooks and chefs I know, and all of the cooks and chefs I've read/heard speak- we don't eat saffron kissed pork flamberge chased with a white truffle sauce. It's tacos. Dirty water hot dogs. Pork sandwhiches. Connoisseurs can keep their high faluting, too-fragile-to-look-at-meals, I'd much rather have food that doesn't miss the point.