|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted October 06, 2019 06:03 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 18:04, 06 Oct 2019.
|
Zenofex said:
Not sure why you think that a circus trick can't be artistic expression but bar that.
I haven't said a circus trick can't be an artistic expression. What I said was an artistic expression isn't a circus trick.
We'll deal with the rest later. I am drunk at the moment.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 06, 2019 06:13 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Quote:
What I say, believability.
But they didnt react because his singing style or what he was singing about changed. They were just conservative and opposed him "going rock." So, I'd say it's irrelevant regarding the subject at hand.
He was supposed to be a folk-singer, and then suddenly "folk" is played on electric instruments? And with a band? You cannot just plug in and sound the same - sing the same songs with the same arrangements. I mean, Neil Young also did both and it's completely different songs, solo accoustic or plugged in with Crazy Horse. Same thing with Dylan and the Band. The folk audience thought he was a traitor to the folk cause and didn't believe him anymore at that point. Because the sound would change.
Quote:
Was Cooke overstating, well, an emphasis always has a tendency to be a little hyperbolic. But if there wasn't any truth in his observation, they wouldn't quote him 50 years later. And while the content of Dylan's lyrics mattered just as well, Dylan's singing doesn't touch you only because of that, he really "acts out" emotions with great nuance and not just tender and delicate ones, that was the norm back then. Just take a look at Baby, Let Me Follow You Down from his 1962 debut album. The songs's lyrics are nothing special or political. It's a simple love song. He is this excited kid begging a girl, he deliberately sounds so clueless, like a complete rookie. Had Sinatra sung about being clueless, he'd never sound clueless, he'd sound dramatic.
Well, there have been lots of moments - the Stones singing I can't get no Satisfaction and Let's Spend the Night Together, the Doors singing Girl we couldn't get much Higher live on TV against the rules and so on. Or even Elvis being called Elvis the Pelvis because of his hip swing. There have been many moments, and in general, Bob Dylan is part of everything male happening in popular music. I think Suzi Quatro was the first woman in rock music who played in a bad and didn't just sing but also played an instrument, so y ou might say, "from now on every girl will be able to play an instrument in a rock band" - how do you rate that?
Lastly, I don't like Bob Dylans voice. Probably because of the tinny-speaker-sound and his squeezing-out the words, slurring them somewhat, so it does touch me, but the wrong way.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 10, 2019 01:57 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 04:25, 10 Oct 2019.
|
Zenofex said:
You two are perfectly capable of privatizing any discussion and then going to war over the subject. Capitalists down to the core.
Well, if this is the revolution, good luck with it.
Zenofex said:
Not sure why you think that a circus trick can't be artistic expression but bar that. This is not about how hard something is to play but about knowledge applied to an existing piece of music (take any other art form, the principle is the same) - something which you seemingly admit yourself but mask it as "familiarity". A few months ago I watched a video in youtube of some landscape photographer who was explaining how he progressed through the field to the point where he is now and he gave one example which I think illustrates my point pretty well: When he was still relatively "green", he made a photo which he was proud of for some time. Then, as he improved his technique and gained more experience, he began to spot issues with it - lack of central topic, chaotic distribution of the framed objects, attention-scattering details which confuse the viewer and so on - and in a few years he no longer thought of that photo as an amazing piece, despite being excellent in terms of lightning, colour distribution and whatnot. Translating that into the field of music, someone who knows how to play something or at least grasps the concept beyond "you push those buttons and the piano dings" will have a different opinion of some tune than a regular listener simply because he knows what he's listening to and processes the information from more angles. That doesn't mean "more correct" opinion, mind you, just different.
There is nothing I am masking, you are mistaking one thing for another. As I already said being a musician can help understanding the music better in terms of evaluating performance skills, as in “this piece is very tricky to play with the violin” but if we are talking about the musical expression itself, as in “Charlie Parker is more melodic than Dizzy Gillespie, Chopin is tender compared to Beethoven” etc, a musician has nothing over a listener if they are both familiar with the genre and they are cultivated enough to evaluate by proper criteria. Actually, an experienced music critic can even bury a young musician’s performance because of better knowledge. When you hear music, your brain recognizes patterns and then notices subtle differences, nuances about what is different in those patterns. Pattern is too ordinary, you get bored, pattern is to alien to detect, you get bored again, so it is a matter of familiarity indeed, if you want this explained to you with neuroscientific studies, going back to experiments with babies, you can read the book “This is Your Brain on Music,” just a little quote from it:
When a musical piece is too simple we tend not to like it, finding it trivial. When it is too complex, we tend not to like it, finding it unpredictable —we don’t perceive it to be grounded in anything familiar. Music, or any art form for that matter, has to strike the right balance between simplicity and complexity in order for us to like it. Simplicity and complexity relate to familiarity, and familiarity is just another word for a schema.
Needless to say, to recognise a schema and being literate about the terminology of recognizing it are different things. You may not have any formal education, hence not know grammar terms and schemas such as “subject+verb+object+adverb” yet, you can learn and understand a language perfectly just by hearing it. How? By familiarity of being born into it. You can even be illiterate and be some local poet, a bard. Upon very recently, most musical traditions in the world weren’t even textual traditions to begin with. Now, textualizing information makes it much easier to visualize (it’s much easier to memorize a poem by reading it) and to detect schemas, but it is not a requirement. It doesn’t change what you can detect by hearing alone. Keep in mind, I did have piano lessons as a kid and I used to be able to read notation both in the treble clef and the bass clef. You still hear the same music.
Zenofex said:
Yeah, but will all of them find them exactly as good? A joke is as good as the listener understands it. You can make incredibly subtle jokes about engineers which would make a company of engineers literally ROFL, then tell them to a group of farmers and watch them blink suspiciously or confused. Or you can make the same joke to two engineers - one with 30 years of experience and another who's just graduated from the university and it's quite likely to get different response from them. Add more variables and it becomes impossible to apply any sort of objectivity which is not artificially forced.
But you see, this not something absolutely subjective, in your example, the guy with the experience gets it BETTER. This is why you mention his experience in the first place. I am starting to feel like I’m on Flatland here because you guys are so absorbed by thinking in terms with a duality of complete subjectivity versus complete objectivity, you don’t even hear when I emphasize it is not objectivity that I’m talking about but intersubjective categorizations. (You said you haven’t read through the whole thing, I elaborated about it in detail, just check the court argument.)
Zenofex said:
…Don't know what are you talking about regarding Metallica, "St. Anger" wasn't disliked because it was soft (it certainly isn't) but because it deviated from the usual sound of the band too much in an unacceptable way for a lot of people. For me it just sounds terrible, tradition be damned. Yet, some people actually think that album is good, very good even, and they consider themselves just as big fans of the band. You can see a similar pattern among all bands and performers who introduce something new - in a genre, in their own evolution, doesn't matter - some people can't stand it, others praise it, with a thousands shades of grey mass standing between them. Originality on its own does not imply any sort of acceptance or appreciation.
Sorry, momentary lapsus, that was the Black Album with Nothing Else Matters and so on. By the time of St. Anger, I was completely uninterested in Metallica and similar stuff, don’t even remember what it sounds like. Once again, originality can be one of the qualities that gives a piece artistic value, doesn’t mean it will always do that or always get positive reaction. It has its own risks, especially if you have a core listener base that demands what they got used to. Miles Davis famously said he changed his music six times, I dislike many of his periods but that doesn’t mean I’d prefer him to get stuck as the young bebop player he once was. The point is, if something is too ordinary, it will bore us and artistic creativity is not about repeating the same formula over and over again. You can still be original without going through extreme radical change, not everybody has to be like Davis or Dylan, but producing formulaic stuff is something else.
Zenofex said:
Erm... because he doesn't care that you find him shallow? That's quite a subjective definition by the way.  In the "technical" part up there I mentioned about the information processing which obviously isn't the same between one "deep" person and a "shallow" one, which actually means that the first one's being resonates with the song for as many reasons as you like - brain structure, genes, biochemicals running through his body, health condition, etc. - while the second's just isn't as responsive to that kind of external stimulus. Doesn't sound very romantic when put that way but really, the other type of "shallowness" and its antagonisms sound like mysticism to me.
Doesn’t matter what he cares about, contrary to you, what I find to be mystical is this post-modern notion that anything outside the realm of positive sciences is a dreamy cloud of absolute subjectivity and no judgement or evaluation is possible at all. As I said in the very beginning, I never witness anybody living according to such a relativist position anyway, it’s just something people defend in theory but never apply to their behavior in practice.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 11, 2019 10:22 AM |
|
|
Look, artu, I don't see any point in arguing, arts and especially music are too good a thing for that to start nitpicking about "artistic values".
I mean, take, say, Brothers in Arms, written by Mark Knopfler under the impression of the Falkland war. The song ticks a lot of boxes. The music is hauntingly beautiful, the lyrics contain a powerful message, which is fittingly broken-voiced sung it's an original composition, even the video produced for it, although a tad short, is quite decent - in short, in popular music, it might be difficult to find a piece tocking more boxes.
Now, the official video of the song has 100 million views, with over 350.000 likes, but also nearly 15.000 dislikes. The Berlin live version has 21 million views and is, when it comes to Knopflers vocals, if anything even better, because it's simply more broken and therefore fitting.
How do we see cover versions? The artistic value, if there is such a thing, would be automatically lower, because it's just a cover version and no original. There is this really cool Yoni Schlesinger version with 2 million views - but still 177 dislikes. Clearly, no original, no voice/lyrics, no video, ticks a lot less boxes.
Then - Metallica made a cover as well. The most viewed version on Youtube has 3.5 mio views with 12.500 likes and 1000 dislikes.
It ticks more boxes than the instrumental versions, but if'd have to rate all three, the latter would get a dislike, while both former ones would get a like.
Could I argue for those ratings? Possibly. Would I want to argue with either someone disliking the first two or liking the last one? Not really.
Now - I know the context of all these (who wrote it and so on), but what if you don't? What if you just listen to the music as such? Does it change anything? Well, not for me, probably (although I can't know), but it might. (It would render the question of intellectual ownership moot and eliminate probably the most important feature of artistic value.)
And that is just talking about one and the same 5 minute piece of music. What if you pick a different one?
Say, Money for Nothing, same album, different song, killer riff (I would take it as a smartphone ringtone), nice video, intelligent lyrics ...
Or, say, YMCA by Village People. Written by singer and producer in co-work (whatever that actually means), it's one of less than 40 songs selling worldwide over 10 mio. The original version has 5 mio views on Youtube with 55.000 likes and a 1000 dislikes (a much better ratio than the Metallica version above). The song made a lot of people very happy and had them dancing around the world, and the lyrics (not to mention the band as such) convey a message as well.
How do you compare the artistic value of those with each other? I mean, osn't it quite obviously utterly subjective and based on the criteria you use or the mindset of those rating? Why debate with the millions having fun with this record, and tell them it's shallow crap? So what? It doesn't mean anything, because everyone wants to be shwllow sometimes and just be happy and dance away and not think about war and death and how foolish our species is. If you think about it - the more artistic something is rated, the more message there seems to be, the more it seems to be used as an excuse that nothing is actually done. "Hey, what do you want, people sing about it, what more can you expect?"
Or take the album "The Velvet Underground & Nico", released in 1967. Although it was a time really new stuff would be published by the minute, the record sold 30.000 copies (only).
However, 10 years later and on, critics suddenly found something in it and everyone put it on some best record list, resulting in a couple of re-issues and sales of over half a million since 1991. How would we rate that? Is a person born in, say 1985, really able to put this into context, imagining this being written in 1966 and published a year later? Does context even matter? Can we say Run Run Run is a timeless piece of art?
Or is all that just noise - as Sal would say?
Again - why even argue? For Sal it's noise, others think it's beautiful, again others don't know why everyone puts the record on some list.
As a fun fact P.S. - you probably know this, but isn't it funny that most amazing things are the results of, let; s call it handicaps. For example, Tony Iommi cutting off his fingertips and building himself artifical ones to be able to play. Or Ringo Starr, being left-handed, but playing on a right-hander drum kit coming up with this odd drumming rhythms...
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted October 11, 2019 10:33 AM |
|
|
I was just kidding, mostly because Lang Lang's nick online is Bang Bang, haters claim he is just noise as well.
Listening to Metal or many others style does not appeal to me - for various reasons, probably the first one being that I was educated from start to something very different, but I wouldn't mock those who enjoy.
To sum, I don't understand this style of music.
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted October 11, 2019 10:56 AM |
|
|
@Sal
I was also born in classical music environment. I discovered metal as teenager, jazz as adult. I can enjoy other styles of music too but in this context taste is indeed taste. And even if ear evolve with time, one directly likes or dislike a particular style as well.
I don't get how anyone could say a classical pianist is making noise though, it doesn't fit. Metal is more understandable because of high amount of decibels.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 11, 2019 11:15 AM |
|
|
Isn't art (and music) first and foremost "understood" with the heart? (And each try to explain things with the cold intellect weak and feeble?)
Isn't a statement "I don't understand XY" actually the short version of "I do not WANT to understand XY because I cannot emotionally relate to it".
I think, you CAN understand art (music) intellectually - but without any emotional relation that "understanding" isn't worth much. In my opinion. So actually - why bother even trying? Because you may do something great injustice? Well, in my opinion, of something really IS great (whatever that means) whether someone cannot relate to it is pretty irrelevant.
I mean - think school. You read this and that, listened to this and that, saw this and that and LEARNED a lot about it. Interpretations, meanings, harmonies, colors, techniques ... you name it.
But did it really matter - except in those cases where you could relate to ot emotionally?
I mean, even technical mastery loses its meaning if it's "wasted" on stuff you cannot relate to.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 11, 2019 01:07 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:39, 11 Oct 2019.
|
@JJ
Where to begin...
Once again, an overwhelmingly dualist approach from you. What does "to understand it with the heart" mean? I mean, of course, the heart is a metaphor for emotions but is "the heart" and "the mind" so isolated from each other or is your emotional depth and intellectual depth actually molding each other constantly? Why don't children song cheer you anymore like they used to when you were 5 years old? Is it because you are smarter now? Didn't they also speak to your "heart" as a kid?
If you are alien to a genre of music, it will not speak to your heart because your intellect wont be able to relate to its expressions. It is all part of some neurological response in the end. The subjective aspect is what kind of music you have been exposed to, especially as a young person when your taste was about to shape up and how the "persona" of the musician relates to your character. (A barfly is likely to enjoy Tom Waits more for instance.)
And skip aside the fact that a cover can surpass the original, what does all this internet voting have to do with anything I say? Somebody may think that The Green Lantern is a better movie than The Godfather. I'm not suggesting they don't have the right to like it more, I'm not suggesting people who likes various things don't exist. I'm not suggesting to penalize them for it, obviously. What I'm saying is "Green Lantern is a better movie than the Godfather" is not a statement that I would put in the same basket with "my favorite color is blue and yours is red." Because your favorite color is indeed an utterly subjective matter, yet, where as Green Lantern is a formulaic meant-to-be blockbuster with an awful script, bad directing and mediocre acting, the Godfather is a masterpiece in every regard mentioned. There is intelligible criteria to claim the Godfather is a better movie than the Green Lantern, it doesn't have to be some unanimous universal objective measurement tool to function properly, it just have to make sense intersubjectively, such as the statement: Killing a mosquito and choking a puppy dog aren't the same thing emotionally. You don't say "according to who" to that, do you? And I'm sure, among the 7 billion members of our eccentric species, there will be a few who disagree, because there is no objective criteria for that either. But the degree of subjectivity in such a case is very dim.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 11, 2019 01:52 PM |
|
|
I disagree with you on every level.
First of all, of course can something alien speak to your heart. Beatles went to India, and obviously - to a varying degree - they found something there. With their heart. Just as an obvious example.
And then your statement about this one thing being (objectively) better than another? What kind of value does that statement have? Better in which regard? Better says who? Why would that even be important for anything? It doesn't change the facts that are important, and the important facts are, you either like it or you don't. You don't like something because someone declares, this or that is better. Even if someone starts explaining to you WHY this something is better than that - you won't like it any better because of that.
I mean - someone likes someone else and doesn't like another someone. Would it change anything if someone started to explain to them that the second someone looks better, makes more money, is nicer and available?
I don't think so.
So "better" is meaningless, because, frankly, WHO CARES? It's for people who like confirmation (I always knew X was great, didn't I tell you), telling them they have "great taste" if they like it - while if someone is told that something they like is crap and shallow and garbage, well, I don't know anyone who'd react in an understanding way and start "bettering" their taste.
But what is more. In the end, and when it comes down to it "better" just means "likeable for the right reasons", so this boils down to defining better and worse via right and wrong reasons.
Which is, since we are talking about basically emotional things the same thing, than if I'm angry about something someone telling me I actually have no right to be angry because I shouldn't be, since objectively nothing really angerworthy happens.
The fact, however, is that I AM angry, right or no right - it'a a load of bullsh!t - and the reason of lots of heated arguments, because many people cannot accept an emotion for what it is, but try to argue about them.
And this isn't actually what real discussions about are about. You'd offer, say, why you love this Beatles song best, and someone else would offer why they love that one best - but why would there ever be an argument about which Beatles song WAS the best?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 11, 2019 02:31 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 14:32, 11 Oct 2019.
|
The Beatles didn't hear Indian music out of nowhere and grasped it at once, they examined it, there were Indian gurus visiting the U.K., especially Harrison took an interest and it evolved from there gradually.
I am really tired to state the difference between objective and intersubjective again, because it seems like you are reacting to it as if I'm speaking Chinese and keep insisting that I am talking about objectivity, I am not:
"Intersubjectivity" has been used in social science to refer to agreement. There is "intersubjectivity" between people if they agree on a given set of meanings or a definition of the situation.
"Intersubjectivity" also has been used to refer to the common-sense, shared meanings constructed by people in their interactions with each other and used as an everyday resource to interpret the meaning of elements of social and cultural life. If people share common sense, then they share a definition of the situation."
If you have anger issues, and say, you beat your wife for breaking a water glass, people with common sense will agree that you got angry for no valid reason. Their agreement is not based on any objective reality, there were actual times when it was common to beat wives for such trivial stuff, probably, they would have been okay with it in those times. But their consensus is not based on values that are utterly and individually subjective either.
Now, there isn't of course one Beatles song that almost everybody would agree is THE best one, but almost everybody who knows their Beatles would agree that It Won't Be Long isn't one of their best songs or that Come Together's sound is unique as a Beatles song or that McCartney is the one with the most catchy melodies overall and Lennon has a sharper songwriting style or that Harrison eventually learned a lot from the two and evolved significantly as a songwriter by the time of Abbey Road etc. And once you are in this realm of consensus (which also isn't absolute), you are not in the realm of absolute subjectivity anymore.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 11, 2019 02:59 PM |
|
|
No, you are in the realm of likes and dislikes, which one post before you asked what it would have to do with anything.
Inter-subjectivity is just a scientifically sounding word that deals with group consensus, which isn't relevant here. For example, I'd disagree that Harrison had evolved significantly by the time of Abbey Road - he has two contributions on Rubber Soul (If I needed Someone being one of them),three on Revolver, opening it even with Taxman, and has four tracks on the Beatles after Within You Without You, at least two of which pretty much stand out.
Inter-subjectivity is just giving weight via numbers, which is where this began: MJ sold more records than Prince. That's a factual inter-subjectivity.
What is that adding to the actual question at hand? I mean, what exactly makes INTER-subjective MORE than subjective? If it is the fact that a number of people agree on something, you are actually on pretty thin ice (and probably broken in already).
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 11, 2019 03:21 PM |
|
|
"MJ sold more records than Prince" is an objective fact, not intersubjective consensus:
Objective reality: The Earth revolves around the sun/MJ sold more records than Prince
Intersubjective Consensus: Slavery is unjustified/Bach is more important than Duran Duran
Subjective preference: My favorite color is blue/My Favorite Harrison song is Taxman
The issue in the beginning was, intersubjective conensus on the artistic value (or significance, if you will) of music being possible or not, which is not exactly about what you personally like the most anyway.
And yes, I know Harrison had songs before Abbey Road, that's why I finalized with it: "...EVOLVED significantly as a songwriter BY THE TIME of Abbey Road." Giving out two instant classics that now competed with ace Lennon & McCartney material, Something & Here Comes The Sun. (Although my personal favorite will always be While My Guitar Gently Weeps.)
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 11, 2019 03:57 PM |
|
|
Yes, sorry for the wrong example.
However, intersubjective consensus is completely irrelevant for the reasons I've told you a couple dozen times. It doesn't offer anything over and above a specific question asked, and the bigger the consensus the more general the question asked.
Why, for example would the question be relevant who was more important, Bach or Duran Duran? Who cares? Who agrees. Who doesn't? Who knows Duran Duran? Who knows Bach? How would the peiple in India see it?
It's utterly irrelevant, because it doesn't change anything, not with the art as such, nor with the opinion of people, so it's completely hollow.
Take Lord of the Rings. I can't say much about it, because when I tried to read the book I was so bored after a couple dozen oages I wouldn't read on. When I went into the movies to watch part 1 I was so bored about it that the only real reason I didn't fall asleep was the Dolby-surround sound.
So what I can say about it is, I found the book too boring to continue and what I saw from the movie didn't change my mind at all.
Now - what would "consensus" offer me? Answer: nothing. Just because there may be a positive consensus, it's not changing anything - but what's more I can't even discuss it because I'm nit well-informed. What does it bring the people who consent? Nothing, except maybe something like self-confirmation. They liked it - and they are not alone. Lastly, the artists? Well, public confirmation pleases vanity, but every artist and every performer is told - don't look what critics say, just listen to what I say (I being the producer, the director, the manager and so on) - and as an artist you can't make yourself dependent of "consensus".
So what exactly is your point? That not all is subjective? OF COURSE it is, because inter-subjective doesn't make a difference.
And I don't think it is important whether we discuss about George Harrisons evolution as a composer or not and whether we agree or not, because it's irrelevant what we think about it or what consensus there is. The only important thing is what he did (and his arrangement of Drive My Car isn't so bad wither).
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 11, 2019 04:12 PM |
|
|
Raincheck. I’ll reply tomorrow, got a few things to do now.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 11, 2019 04:29 PM |
|
|
And a last word on Bach and Duran Duran. I don't think, any consensus about Bach being more important than Duran Duran would make any difference to Bach's music, but what is even more important, that this consensus would alter anyone's opinion about it. I also don't think it makes any difference to Duran Duran's music - nor that there is any competition in the realm of "importance" - whatever THAT is important for.
What exactly does it mean? Important? For what? For whom? How is that measured? Based on what? Why is that of interest? Would any listener be interested in the question or its answer?
Does this change when it gets less absurd? Who was more important, Bo Diddley or Buddy Holly? Well, how many angels fit on a pinpoint?
EDIT: Flying over a couple of things I just realized:
Quote:
The issue in the beginning was, intersubjective conensus on the artistic value (or significance, if you will) of music being possible or not
Maybe that was your point, but the reason we seem to talk past each other is that I already balk at "artistic value" (or significance), because AT BEST (and it's a very big stretch) "artistic value (or significance) is something very fuzzy and ALSO a matter of intersubjective consensus, which in itseld is not well defined when it comes about the question of WHO is consenting here.
What is more, to give an example, if you ask a number of people about their favorites and then make a list based on the statistics of the survey, the result is no intersubjective consensus. It's a statistics table based on completely subjective entries.
The problem I see is that you can easily say something like:
Boby Dylan has been a significant and influential artist. This will see probably an overwhelming intersubjective consensus - but it's so unspecific that it's a bit like stating what is glaringly obvious. What's more - you can say the same about any number of people. The more specific it gets, the thinner the consensus becomes and the more subjective it gets.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 12, 2019 07:52 PM |
|
|
Such a spot on edit. This is why I love exchanging ideas with you.
Ok then.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 12, 2019 08:39 PM |
|
|
|
But it makes the difference in opinion even more glaring. Because you assume something like at least a consensus can be reached about the meaning of the term "artistic value". Value isn't an absolute term, but by defintion subjective. Nothing has any absolute value (that is, independently from anything).
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 12, 2019 09:02 PM |
|
|
Meeh, Bach is better than Duran Duran.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 12, 2019 09:14 PM |
|
|
Not when it comes to composing and performing pop songs. Or Bond music. 
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 02, 2019 02:12 PM |
|
|
Ok usually I don't care how females dress (outside Islamic fashion ofc) but I think Yuja Wang here is a bit over the top. 
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
