|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted September 02, 2013 12:00 AM |
|
|
|
Relativity is the easy way out here, it's hard to argue against it by logical standards alone, since art, beauty, depth etc are not like math or science. Yet, if someone argues if the Beatles or Rolling Stones is better cant be measured and its relative, I'd say okay. However, if you apply that same logic to Bach and Justin Bieber, you are taking a fair aspect to an extreme and it then turns into a special kind of demagogy. Something that is just a word-play, something nobody really applies in their real life when it comes to tastes but just say around to sound cool or different.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 12:06 AM |
|
|
It's true that few people apply in their lives, but it's not uncommon for people to be inconsistent. If there's no objective quality difference between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones - that is, if which one is better is completely subjective - why wouldn't that be the same when comparing Bach to Justin Bieber? They sound different, but there's no objective quality of "better". It's all taste.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 12:07 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 00:17, 02 Sep 2013.
|
I have a really hard time understanding that cultural elitist perspective. My theory is that some people just want to feel special and more enlightened than others when in fact, there's nothing objectively better about Justin Bieber than Mozart. This thread surprises me because I had the impression that Artu was of the opinion that almost everything is subjective and relative. (anyway won't get into that kind of philosophy since I think it's completely uninteresting and irrelevant)
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 12:11 AM |
|
|
Led Zep will crush most metal band not because their Heavy Blues Rock is the better music style but because they composed better songs and interpreted them with virtuosity and conviction.
Is it me? No, is JJ quote. So if I dare to say Bach is better than Beatles I am the worse racist/elitist out here, but Led Zep (wtf is this) is better than any other metal band (are there bands made of metal??!!) because...they composed better songs. Oh people, when you go the hypocrite way...
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 12:14 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 00:19, 02 Sep 2013.
|
Tastes evolve, they are equal in the sense that we have no right to interfere but they are not equal in perimeter. Someone can like Justin Bieber more than Bach, I dont care. But if he states that Justin Bieber is as quality music as Bach, then it simply means he does not know **** about music.
@xerox
I dont know how you got that impression, if it's the morality thread you are referring to, linking morals to their historical context and saying they are not universal does not mean everything is totally relative, yippieee. That's just post-modern non-sense overreacting to the modernist trust in reason.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 12:16 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 00:17, 02 Sep 2013.
|
You can admit that Bach is more complex or something and still like Justin Bieber better.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 12:21 AM |
|
|
okay so it will again here matter on which of several perspectives you want to take when judging between bach and bieber
obviously...
I am not able to say how well either of them would do writing in the others genre.. I would guess neither would do as well as the other.
Sure a lot of people may value classical a good deal more, and for good reason, but feel free to stay in whatever perspective you feel is 100% true.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 01:24 AM |
|
|
Sal:
It's not hypocritical, because there's an obvious but unstated "in my opinion" or "in many people's opinions" before your quoted statement. It's still all opinion.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 05:35 AM |
|
|
Corribus said:
You can compare anything you want, provided you have a proper metric to do so.
Well, I'm a little confused here Corb, in the OSM rules thread I remember you quoting a judge about porn, it was something like "you can't exactly define it but you know it when you see it. " You said that was also true for deciding what's punishable unfriendly behavior and made it clear that you were going to use it as a functioning categorization tool as a moderator. Now, how come when deciding what's porn or unfriendly behaviour we have this hidden code based on common sense, but when it comes to the -very obvious- difference between Karamazov Brothers and Spider-Man, we suddenly switch to a world of TOTAL subjectivity just because we have no metric to compare them?
While I agree that not having a metric sometimes complicates things, I find it hard to argue that it necessarily throws us into world of complete uncertainty and subjectivity. There are art experts and critics, they disagree on many things amongst each other but none of them would disagree if I say Rembrandt is more important than Eric Larsen. And although not proffesional critics, none of us are in total darkness in such matters, are we?
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 06:20 AM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 07:38, 02 Sep 2013.
|
In order to be appreciative of the correct art we have to adjust. (??)
I don't believe we have to become informed by one group in society if we want to know what good art really is. That's good art according to them. Shakespeare, Mozart, etc, have their qualities but they are by no means part of some Universal Superiority simply because they excel in some ways. They do not set universal standards for what is best, or superior. They do not define quality.
|
|
Biobob
Famous Hero
the Bobler
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 08:17 AM |
|
|
The Great thing about classical music is, that it is actually still heard in our Times. If Bieber's music will be still heard After 300 years, well, then I have no Argument about it being very good music. But I doubt it. Seriously People, classical music has withstood the test of time, and by that must be better in some aspects. Music of the last century is already getting labeled as "oldies", more or less implying we won't hear them by 2100...
Greets,Biobob
____________
Maps
The Mapmaker's Thread
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 08:30 AM |
|
|
|
I think comparing pop/rock (not the cheapest stuff like Bieber) to classical is misguided for totally different reasons. I consider those genres as the folk music of the city. So if you are going to compare it to something from the 18th century fairly it should not be Bach but the folk music of that era or what they used to listen to in the taverns etc etc. In that sense, there is not a movement backwards like Sal says but great development.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 08:37 AM |
|
|
Sure there is a niche that finds orchestra exhilarating. It's to bad and ironic all in the same why these composers and writers are all from a few hundred years ago. If it was the best outside of the opinions of those who find it so, then I couldn't compare them to the sort of people who greatly value hand carved antique furniture.
You're right, they don't make it like they used to. I don't wonder why so many people prefer modern.
It's the oldest music really anywhere close to mainstream so I can understand why it can be felt that it suggests superiority.
Am I getting this right? Are people in this thread claiming that a sort of art and music is inherently the best? Shakespeare and Beethoven are a better and finer in such a way that they consist of what defines literal quality?
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 08:38 AM |
|
|
Bach and Pink Floyd
Amadeus and Madonna
Shakespeare and Quentin Terrintino
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 08:39 AM |
|
|
My comment about backward was towards Biobob who linked modern classical music. Was funny to listen, as I already hear that every day in music schools. It is rather pathetic, but they continue to promote it, despite people joking about. It remains a mystery to me how some students can enjoy such non sense.
I mean, is embarassing.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 08:39 AM |
|
|
Celfious said:
Bach and Pink Floyd
Amadeus and Madonna
Shakespeare and Quentin Terrintino
I also like all of these.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 08:42 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 09:38, 02 Sep 2013.
|
Celfious said:
Am I getting this right? Are people in this thread claiming that a sort of art and music is inherently the best? Shakespeare and Beethoven are a better and finer in such a way that they consist of what defines literal quality?
No, nobody's saying one writer or musician is the best beyond any doubt, we (at least me) are saying there are qualitative differences between works of art, some require a more educated and evolved taste and that these differences are not TOTALLY relative.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 09:58 AM |
|
|
And we protest against this elitist snobbism - "refined taste" is nonsense, because there is no such thing as a "refined taste". Who would define what a "refined taste" is? Those who have the money to afford it?
Cor has it right, by the way, with saying, you can compare everything as long as you have the right metric, and when it comes to RATE ART there is no metric. Most critics are wannabees that would like to be creative as well, but since they are not they claim to understand things and start to rate, although for most art, once the brain gets in analyzing gear, most of it is lost anyway.
You can obviously compare, say the different artists working on long time comic characters like Batman or Spider-Man, but it would still be difficult to really come up with an objective rating. So I wouldn't get overboard, just because I've been laxly dissing a so-called Heavy Metal Band in a discussion centered around Heavy Metal. I could compare Beatles songs as well and say, Revolution No. 9 is crap while A Day in the Life is great. So? I can argue for that, but I haven't read any argument that would support Bach being better than the Beatles? On what grounds?
Consider the educational level in the baroque: people would not have had to study to appreciate Bach's music when played in a service. It was meant as something for the recreation of the spirit, not as something to dissect and study. Music is made to BE LISTENED TO.
Comparisons become all the more far-fetched, the bigger the "differences". especially the cultural ones. Can you really compare Shakespeare and Tarantino?
The question is actually, why we even should: what is gained by claiming that something so complex that it appeals only to few would be better than something "simple" appealing to the "masses"? It just barks, "hey, I'm better than the masses because I understand what they can't".
We also have to consider the extremely high output of art nowadays and the matter-of-factness people "consume" art nowadays. The Louvre is PACKED each day, and they have to send people home, because they didn't get in line early enough to be admitted. More interest just isn't possible.
Moreover, when you look at things of old, things get a different focus. There is no such thing as "art for the public" in earlier times: all art was commissioned by the high and mighty and has either a religious purpose or motive or is some kind of praise or history thing of a ruler. That's something completely different from art produced for "the masses", because that's what is necessary to live off it. Art has to SELL, otherwise you can't be an artist nowadays.
As mentioned, Bach's motives for his music were religious. In my opinion most of his work is best performed in a cathedral, and with that in mind it should be listened to, although you don't have to be religious to let this uplift you, if you are in the mood. You don't have to have studied either mathematics or music to do that. The Beatles have been making a different kind of music - but that's true for Mozart as well. Or Cole Porter. Or Miles Davis. And you don't have to have studied either music or art to listen to them as well and either like it or not. If you DO NOT like it, understanding the hows and whys won't make you like it better.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 10:30 AM |
|
|
Now, you're repeating yourself ignoring the objections that has already been made to your argument. I'm not going to deny the obvious just because it sounds elitist or snobish or politically incorrect. And it's not even that. Btw, "analysing" art is not necessarily a separate action, you can do it without even knowing it while absorbing it but I'm not sure to analyse is even the right word here because that was not what I'm talking about.
And having money, just like in any situation, of course helps (remember it was you who said we are as civil as we can afford) but in today's world you dont have to be rich to do what we've been talking about. Neither I or Sal are Rockefeller and come from extremely wealthy families, do we?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 11:04 AM |
|
|
When you embrace a specialty and spend your life to improve at, an analytical and critical glance is required. You can't just cover your face and claim "all is equal, there is no ground to define quality, all is nice, everybody is great". This is completely uninteresting and leads nowhere but towards the deepest mediocrity abysses, and in general this is the usual amateur attitude. He does not know much, but he thinks he knows enough to state that there is nothing...to state. If you go professional in art, such impersonal views will not help much.
This is valid for life aspects as well, such as political and moral views. More you are personally and emotionally connected to some ideal, more your views can seem explosive and heretic to those just gentle overflying around. But who cares about those being unproductive because unable to take any straight path? Is not like they achieve anything, except talk and try to look nice.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
