Author Topic: What I Learned Today  (Read 776610 times)

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 27218
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5500 on: November 04, 2009, 10:17:39 PM »
Oh FLY, you're so crazy.

I like to think I'm the only rational one left.

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 28127
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5501 on: November 04, 2009, 10:19:32 PM »
Allow me to objectively review this theory.

Processing.

Processing.

Processing.

Processing.

Processing.

Processing.

Processing.

OUTPUT:
FLY is crazy = TRUE
FLY is rational = FALSE
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 27218
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5502 on: November 04, 2009, 10:20:25 PM »
Allow me to objectively review this theory.

Processing.

Processing.

Processing.

Processing.

Processing.

Processing.

Processing.

OUTPUT:
FLY is crazy = TRUE
FLY is rational = FALSE

You should do stand up  :)

Clovis8

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11719
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5503 on: November 04, 2009, 10:20:42 PM »
That's a lot of processing for something we all knew to be true a year ago!  ;)

FroHam X

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 17792
  • “By any seeds necessary.”
    • justAtad
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5504 on: November 04, 2009, 10:25:06 PM »
I am not a musician but I think if you asked one they would say its precisely the opposite. The form, technique and structure of classical and jazz can, and is, critiqued on objective grounds all the time. Of course this has nothing to do with whether a person likes it or not.

But this is my point. You can get into the technical, near-scientific, theoretical breakdowns of what chords and what techniques are appealing to the ear, but it flies over most anybody's head, and so musical criticism is more of a "I like this, I didn't like this" game.

I could write a review of a film where I attempt to break down how each shot subconsciously affects the minds of the audience to make them feel a certain way, or I could write a review going into the structure of the narrative, and the quality of the acting, and even how personally visually appealing the visuals and music are, citing examples of shots and cue and how they relate to their context within the film. With music criticism it seems to me to be either straight theory or unsuccessful attempts at literary-style critiques, often ending up as being crap that looks like this: "This song was good, and this song was good, but this song wasn't quite as good, and this song was solid but a lot darker sounding than the rest of the album, and so I liked the album, but not that much so I give it a B-." There is rarely even deep analysis into the themes of the lyrics.

Music criticism probably could be better than what Pitchfork spits out, but usually it isn't and I submit that it's because music is far too subjective and personal an experience to encourage proper criticism based on objective elements.
"We didn't clean the hamster's cage, the hamster's cage cleaned us!"

Can't get enough FroHam? Read more of my musings at justAtad

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 27218
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5505 on: November 04, 2009, 10:27:08 PM »
I am not a musician but I think if you asked one they would say its precisely the opposite. The form, technique and structure of classical and jazz can, and is, critiqued on objective grounds all the time. Of course this has nothing to do with whether a person likes it or not.

But this is my point. You can get into the technical, near-scientific, theoretical breakdowns of what chords and what techniques are appealing to the ear, but it flies over most anybody's head, and so musical criticism is more of a "I like this, I didn't like this" game.

I could write a review of a film where I attempt to break down how each shot subconsciously affects the minds of the audience to make them feel a certain way, or I could write a review going into the structure of the narrative, and the quality of the acting, and even how personally visually appealing the visuals and music are, citing examples of shots and cue and how they relate to their context within the film. With music criticism it seems to me to be either straight theory or unsuccessful attempts at literary-style critiques, often ending up as being crap that looks like this: "This song was good, and this song was good, but this song wasn't quite as good, and this song was solid but a lot darker sounding than the rest of the album, and so I liked the album, but not that much so I give it a B-." There is rarely even deep analysis into the themes of the lyrics.

Music criticism probably could be better than what Pitchfork spits out, but usually it isn't and I submit that it's because music is far too subjective and personal an experience to encourage proper criticism based on objective elements.

You are truly becoming a Disciple of Cinegasm, it warms my heart.

Clovis8

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11719
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5506 on: November 04, 2009, 10:29:38 PM »
I dont entirely disagree with you Froham, although when FLY so strongly agrees with you, it tends to be a bad sign for the validity of ones argument. :D

edgar00

  • 00 Agent
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *
  • Posts: 12131
  • corndogs are better than Die Another Day
    • Between The Seats
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5507 on: November 04, 2009, 10:31:58 PM »
If I may take a moment to interject (which may prove to be a foolish move on my behalf), I'm having trouble understanding your argument, FLY, about why orchestral (music without words, let's call it) cannot be analyzed properly. Form what I gather, you say that due to a complete lack of meaning, it becomes impossible/pointless to critique it.

When Clovis8 suggested musical genres such as Jazz, classical and the like, your immediate reponse was that those are bad examples because first, they have no meaning (your original argument) and second, because they are mostly terrible. I'm unclear as to how that supports your argument however. If I say April Story (a movie I quickly tossed out of the Far East bracket first round) is pointless to analyse because it is crap, what kind of argument am I getting at? What value does my argument have if I'm saying one shouldn't not properly analyze April Story because it is crap? Of course I don't think it's worth analyzing: I think the movie sucks. That's just a redundant and evident point of view on my own behalf. On that level, I'm not really convincing anyone why they shouldn't critique April Story. It's just a shitty movie.

You have my word FLY, I don't aim to ridicule you for your taste in music, I'm just trying to have a better grasp of your arguments for a remarkably unique point of view.
-Le Chiffre: You changed your shirt, Mr Bond. I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire.

-James Bond: A little. But I won't consider myself to be in trouble until I start weeping blood.

https://twitter.com/Betweentheseats
http://crabkeyheadquarters.wordpress.com/

ses

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 14948
    • Sarah's Kitchen Adventures
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5508 on: November 04, 2009, 10:34:56 PM »
I learned today, that when I work 12 hours, I get nothing accomplished at home, sigh...
"It's a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart"

http://sarahskitchenadventures.blogspot.com/

FroHam X

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 17792
  • “By any seeds necessary.”
    • justAtad
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5509 on: November 04, 2009, 10:36:33 PM »
I dont entirely disagree with you Froham, although when FLY so strongly agrees with you, it tends to be a bad sign for the validity of ones argument. :D

FLY is right that music criticism is inherently problematic. He is even partially right on the idea that it is practically impossible to criticize, in a literary manner, music apart from lyrics.

Where he's wrong is in that he is stupid for also dismissing the quality of music. Doing so actually goes counter to his and my own arguments. How can it be said that music criticism cannot be done on the level of literary or film criticism due to its near-lack of objective qualities to draw reasoning from while also saying that certain types of music are objectively not good for supposedly objective reasons?
"We didn't clean the hamster's cage, the hamster's cage cleaned us!"

Can't get enough FroHam? Read more of my musings at justAtad