Author Topic: What I Learned Today  (Read 1463779 times)

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28785
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5520 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 #5521 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 #5522 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: 14979
    • Sarah's Kitchen Adventures
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5523 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 #5524 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

saltine

  • Administrator
  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 9800
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5525 on: November 04, 2009, 10:43:23 PM »

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


My dad thought this about himself.  Of course, he was 84 years old and had dementia.

 ;D
Texan Down Under

edgar00

  • 00 Agent
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *
  • Posts: 12131
  • corndogs are better than Die Another Day
    • Between The Seats
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5526 on: November 04, 2009, 10:43:47 PM »
I'm sorry FLY, but I am also unclear as to what you mean by non-lyrical music being nothing but meaningless noise (or something of the like). Let's say I agree with you that orchestral music cannot be properly critiqued due to a lack of lyrics and, consequently, a lack of any universal meaning that we can all use of a jumping point to start an analysis. fair enough. Does that imply however that orchestral music cannot elicit any sort of personal response, be it happy, sad or whatnot, within you ( your usual complaint that it is it just 'noise' being set aside in this one case)?
-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/

Holly Harry

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2222
  • Bite my shiny metal...Well, you know.
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5527 on: November 04, 2009, 10:47:24 PM »
The artform that is closest to Cinema is Music. If there can be academic or scholarly reviews of films, I don't see why not a song or an album.

I completely disagree music is about pure manipulation of feeling through almost mathematical combinations of sounds and words.

Film is much closer to prose and the short story or novel in that it's focus is on telling some kind of story, straight or abstract.

Film is telling a story through the montage of images, and the rythm and the movements in which these images are edited together, in the best of films, gives the viewer the same feeling as music.

"Film as dream. Film as music."-That Ingmar Bergman guy (in a quote about how he thinks Tarkovsky is the greatest director of all time, for context).
"Political questions, if you go back thousands of years, are ephemeral, not important. History is the same thing over and over again."-Woody Allen.

Holly Harry

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2222
  • Bite my shiny metal...Well, you know.
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5528 on: November 04, 2009, 10:52:45 PM »
The artform that is closest to Cinema is Music. If there can be academic or scholarly reviews of films, I don't see why not a song or an album.

I completely disagree music is about pure manipulation of feeling through almost mathematical combinations of sounds and words.

Film is much closer to prose and the short story or novel in that it's focus is on telling some kind of story, straight or abstract.

Film is telling a story through the montage of images, and the rythm and the movements in which these images are edited together, in the best of films, gives the viewer the same feeling as music.

"Film as dream. Film as music."-That Ingmar Bergman guy (in a quote about how he thinks Tarkovsky is the greatest director of all time, for context).


An even better quote to help my point of view:


"A film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later."-That Stanley Kubrick guy.
"Political questions, if you go back thousands of years, are ephemeral, not important. History is the same thing over and over again."-Woody Allen.

Clovis8

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11719
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5529 on: November 04, 2009, 10:55:41 PM »
Citing Bergman and Kubrick to supports one's arguments is not playing fair.   ;)

 

love