Words of Wisdom.....

[blackwasp]

Hmm...I'm not really sure where I stand on his critique. I'm so wishy-washy on these things. I think that is why I can see the beauty in White Light/White Heat and in Abbey Road at the same time, despite their differences. I don't really like punk rock, but I think the earlier punk bands (Ramones, Sex Pistols, Clash, ie) were the best. I think, as Arwen brightly pointed out, during the time this was written, I may have agreed with him. I hate most of the late 70s rock that, well, was just bad. And talent doesn't go anywhere without songwriting. That is why a "pure-power chords" song, such as "Glycerine" by Bush can be better than any Steve Vai number. I don't think this bird would be singing the same tune if punk music in his time was considered New Found Glory.

Good thread though.

 

[nadroj1985]

Hmm...I'm not really sure where I stand on his critique. I'm so wishy-washy on these things. I think that is why I can see the beauty in White Light/White Heat and in Abbey Road at the same time, despite their differences. I don't really like punk rock, but I think the earlier punk bands (Ramones, Sex Pistols, Clash, ie) were the best.

I'd be in full agreement with you there, actually.

I think, as Arwen brightly pointed out, during the time this was written, I may have agreed with him. I hate most of the late 70s rock that, well, was just bad.

Don't throw away an entire generation of music, man. Good grief, the late '70's were a high watermark in music, IMO, with the emergence of punk and the new wave.

And talent doesn't go anywhere without songwriting. That is why a "pure-power chords" song, such as "Glycerine" by Bush can be better than any Steve Vai number.

"Songs" are overrated

 

[cygnusx1]

I have never liked Rock 'critics' they irritate me. I think 99% of what they write is drivel,posturing.


About 9 months ago there was this program on Prog Rock.
Most of the DJ's interviewed from that time were embarrased to admit they were 'into' it .They soon chucked it in when Punk came their way.So how much were these fakers really 'into' it? bah-humbug!

Most critics can't even play an instrument, perhaps that is why they liked punk so much. (I like some punk, but as a genre' it is a bit thin imo)

Give me a fan who really likes a band , and is so impressed and inspired that they go and buy an instrument anyday, compared to the posturing poser fashion driven 'critic' anyday.

I bought a guitar when I was 14 because I was inspired by Hendrix and Brian May.(Queen)

 

[Arwen Undomiel]

Don't throw away an entire generation of music, man. Good grief, the late '70's were a high watermark in music, IMO, with the emergence of punk and the new wave.

If I may speak for blackwasp ( ), I think he meant the rock that was coming out at the time, not punk or new wave. But I somewhat disagree, there were a few mighty fine rock albums put out in the late '70s/early '80s. Such as Some Girls (1978), The Wall (1979), Rust Never Sleeps (1979), Permanent Waves (1980), and others that I can't really think of right now.

 

[nadroj1985]

If I may speak for blackwasp ( ), I think he meant the rock that was coming out at the time, not punk or new wave. But I somewhat disagree, there were a few mighty fine rock albums put out in the late '70s/early '80s. Such as Some Girls (1978), The Wall (1979), Rust Never Sleeps (1979), Permanent Waves (1980), and others that I can't really think of right now.

Ah, I apologize, blackwasp, if that's what you meant

 

[blackwasp]

I don't care much for the music from that time period, other than Tom Petty (and his Heartbreakers), who, in my opinion, saved rock. However, I'm sure many who are keen on the punk of that time would disagree.

Btw, what do you mean "Songs" are overrated? Did i miss something?

 

[nadroj1985]

I don't care much for the music from that time period, other than Tom Petty (and his Heartbreakers), who, in my opinion, saved rock. However, I'm sure many who are keen on the punk of that time would disagree.

Like me! The late '70's are probably my second choice for rock's golden age, after the late '60's.

Btw, what do you mean "Songs" are overrated? Did i miss something?

I meant that rock music (or any type of music, really) does not have to be in song format, with the verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus type formats. Songs are one great format to present music in; they are not the only one.

 

[ps139]

Most critics can't even play an instrument, perhaps that is why they liked punk so much. (I like some punk, but as a genre' it is a bit thin imo)

Wow I could not have said it better myself.

Give me a fan who really likes a band , and is so impressed and inspired that they go and buy an instrument anyday, compared to the posturing poser fashion driven 'critic' anyday.

Ditto to what I said above.

I bought a guitar when I was 14 because I was inspired by Hendrix and Brian May.(Queen)

I used to play when I was little, I suppose the Grateful Dead and Beatles were my biggest inspiration...but then I quit because I got way more into football. about 8 years later Phish made me pick up the guitar again.

 

[ps139]

Actually, if Ebert was interested in music, I'd still be interested in his opinion. It depends more on the actual arguments they have or feelings they have experienced through music than the actual person.

See, I think the foundation for any argument like that is extremely weak if the arguer (is that a word??) is not a musician.

For instance, if Bach told me that classical music was the height of music and that rock music is pitiful and worthless in comparison, I would not respect that opinion, because I don't think it's a good argument. If Ebert told me that (or Bangs, for that matter) I still wouldn't respect that opinion.

I dont think that there's a chance that Bach would say that. Honestly I dont. The best musicians can recognize quality in all genres. From a purely taste-oriented viewpoint he might say he did not like rock in the least bit, but he would never call it pitiful and worthless. He would recognize great musicianship and composition just expressed through different sounds, arrangements, time signatures etc.
There is more of a chance that a non-musician will write off a whole genre like that because since he is inexperienced his determination of quality will be much more subjective.

Hahaha, I sense a little hate towards Ebert. Do you disagree with him a lot or something?

Well I just think he is some fat guy who gets paid to watch movies when I could do the same, and look better doing it!

Anyway, I think our main disagreement here is the same one from earlier: I think there is no objective standard for music, and you do. In that case, everyone's opinions have the same inherent value.

So if someone says that Sister Ray is just the worst song ever, and that its composition is terrible, that VU cant play their instruments, that Lou Reed would be more productive working in Shop-Rite....would you really believe their opinion was inherently valuable?? I'd say it was inherently worthless and that this person knows nothing about music. People can give an opinion on anything, but for it to have value, they must know what they are talking about.

 

[oldrooster]

I do have more respect for musicians opinions, and if it is a band that I truly love, I will check out what they listen to. Sometimes I find a gem, sometimes I dont. Critics who do not play have about as valid opinion as mine.

 

[nadroj1985]

See, I think the foundation for any argument like that is extremely weak if the arguer (is that a word??) is not a musician.

But your argument against them is still ad hominem. You're addressing the man who's making the argument rather than the argument itself.

I dont think that there's a chance that Bach would say that. Honestly I dont. The best musicians can recognize quality in all genres. From a purely taste-oriented viewpoint he might say he did not like rock in the least bit, but he would never call it pitiful and worthless. He would recognize great musicianship and composition just expressed through different sounds, arrangements, time signatures etc.
There is more of a chance that a non-musician will write off a whole genre like that because since he is inexperienced his determination of quality will be much more subjective.

Of course, but you're missing my point. The point is to look at the argument made, and not the person making it. Perhaps you might get a better ratio of good arguments to bad ones from a musician, perhaps not.

Well I just think he is some fat guy who gets paid to watch movies when I could do the same, and look better doing it!

Yeah, but you can't write like Ebert does.

So if someone says that Sister Ray is just the worst song ever, and that its composition is terrible, that VU cant play their instruments, that Lou Reed would be more productive working in Shop-Rite....would you really believe their opinion was inherently valuable?? I'd say it was inherently worthless and that this person knows nothing about music. People can give an opinion on anything, but for it to have value, they must know what they are talking about.

Yes, that opinion would be inherently valuable, even though I would not agree with it. Who am I to tell them that they're wrong, that it's really a wonderful composition, and that they have bad music taste? What basis do I really have to make such a statement? I have searched, and found nothing on which to base that statement, so the only thing I can conclude is that everyone's opinion on it is equally valuable.

 

[ps139]

But your argument against them is still ad hominem. You're addressing the man who's making the argument rather than the argument itself.

They are inextricably interrelated. So I suppose it must be ad hominem. Would you ask an uneducated ghetto drug dealer his opinions on why the Roman Empire collapsed? Would you ask a Roman senator who was better, Tupac or Biggie? The less experience one has with it, the less valuable his/her opinion is of it.

Of course, but you're missing my point. The point is to look at the argument made, and not the person making it. Perhaps you might get a better ratio of good arguments to bad ones from a musician, perhaps not.

Like I said before the person produces the argument, and the argument is a reflection of that person.

You mentioned "good arguments" and "bad arguments"
I thought you did not believe these existed? If each opinion is inherently equal in value the "quality of the argument" would be an impossible phrase.

Yeah, but you can't write like Ebert does

I'd blow him out of the water! Hmmm maybe not he is a pretty heavy guy...I'd at least succeed in moving him a little bit!

So if someone says that Sister Ray is just the worst song ever, and that its composition is terrible, that VU cant play their instruments, that Lou Reed would be more productive working in Shop-Rite....would you really believe their opinion was inherently valuable?? I'd say it was inherently worthless and that this person knows nothing about music. People can give an opinion on anything, but for it to have value, they must know what they are talking about.

Yes, that opinion would be inherently valuable,

What value would it have? What is it good for??? It is blatantly false.

even though I would not agree with it. Who am I to tell them that they're wrong, that it's really a wonderful composition, and that they have bad music taste? What basis do I really have to make such a statement?

The basis that you listen to a lot of music - I dont know if you play a lot - but you know your stuff. And you know VU a hell of a lot better than whoever would make that statement.

I have searched, and found nothing on which to base that statement,

The basis that you know music and you know VU much much much better than that person.

For instance, I used to think Phish was terrible. Its because I didnt understand them. I was biased for other reasons as well, making my opinion less valuable. There was this one smelly, cynical pseudo-hippie kid I knew who was obsessed with Phish and I associated the music with him. So I didnt like them, I said they were terrible. I was wrong. I didnt know what I was talking about. I could not appreciate a rock solo because I was looking for drums and synthesizers. Me 4 years ago did not have a valuable opinion about lots and lots of music.

so the only thing I can conclude is that everyone's opinion on it is equally valuable.

Experience factors in value. Everyone does not have the same experience therefore their opinions are not equally valuable.
A 2 year old thinks pots banging together is music...its not!

 

[ps139]

I do have more respect for musicians opinions, and if it is a band that I truly love, I will check out what they listen to. Sometimes I find a gem, sometimes I dont. Critics who do not play have about as valid opinion as mine.

Exactly my point, but much more concise. Well said rooster!

 

[nadroj1985]

They are inextricably interrelated. So I suppose it must be ad hominem. Would you ask an uneducated ghetto drug dealer his opinions on why the Roman Empire collapsed? Would you ask a Roman senator who was better, Tupac or Biggie? The less experience one has with it, the less valuable his/her opinion is of it.

Opinions on the Roman Empire are a bit different than opinions on Tupac and Biggie; however, I will grant you that experience listening to music can make someone's opinion more informed. I'd ask the Roman senator what he thought of Tupac and Biggie if he'd heard the music. That's the extent of the information he needs to evaluate the music.

Like I said before the person produces the argument, and the argument is a reflection of that person.

Yes, but the argument is what you agree/disagree with, not the person making it.

You mentioned "good arguments" and "bad arguments"
I thought you did not believe these existed? If each opinion is inherently equal in value the "quality of the argument" would be an impossible phrase.

You're right. Good and bad are hard words to avoid, since we use them so much, and I often fall into that trap What I meant was "arguments I (or any one person) find convincing." Does that clear it up?

I'd blow him out of the water! Hmmm maybe not he is a pretty heavy guy...I'd at least succeed in moving him a little bit!

Hahaha, maybe. Ebert's really a great writer, IMO, and I find a lot of his opinions unique and interesting.

What value would it have? What is it good for??? It is blatantly false.

It most certainly is not. I had to wince a little when I said that ( ), but I meant it.

The basis that you listen to a lot of music - I dont know if you play a lot - but you know your stuff. And you know VU a hell of a lot better than whoever would make that statement.

There are many who would make that statement who know quite a bit about music. VU, and especially "Sister Ray," certainly has its detractors. They look at the music a different way than I do. They don't look at it in a better or worse way, though.

The basis that you know music and you know VU much much much better than that person.

To quote Phish, maybe so, maybe not

For instance, I used to think Phish was terrible. Its because I didnt understand them. I was biased for other reasons as well, making my opinion less valuable. There was this one smelly, cynical pseudo-hippie kid I knew who was obsessed with Phish and I associated the music with him. So I didnt like them, I said they were terrible. I was wrong. I didnt know what I was talking about. I could not appreciate a rock solo because I was looking for drums and synthesizers. Me 4 years ago did not have a valuable opinion about lots and lots of music.

That's an interesting point. Lemme think about it

Experience factors in value. Everyone does not have the same experience therefore their opinions are not equally valuable.
A 2 year old thinks pots banging together is music...its not!

But I thought music was any kind of sound made by one human being that moves another one. Wouldn't the pots be music then, if they moved the 2-year-old? Granted that's an extreme case, but we're testing the barriers of music here. I don't know for sure, but I might call it "music."

 

[nadroj1985]

Here's the fundamental question, I think, that you have to answer me to convince me there is some sort of objective standard for good music. We've been hinting at it peripherally, but I'd like to lay it out explicitly:

What is this objective standard for good music (i.e. what is it based on)? If we can't know what it is, what makes you believe there is one in the first place?

 

[ps139]

Opinions on the Roman Empire are a bit different than opinions on Tupac and Biggie; however, I will grant you that experience listening to music can make someone's opinion more informed. I'd ask the Roman senator what he thought of Tupac and Biggie if he'd heard the music. That's the extent of the information he needs to evaluate the music.

Yeah they are two different species, but my point is that you have to know something to be able to give a good evaluation of it, you need to get past whatever prejudices you may have and see it as objectively/unbiased as possible, and then your opinion or whatever on it is more valuable than that of the ignorant or biased, because it is probably closer to the truth of the matter, whatever it may be. Wow that was a long sentence!

Yes, but the argument is what you agree/disagree with, not the person making it.

You lost me there. My point is that a person's judgement in music gets better the more he plays and listens to and knows music.

You're right. Good and bad are hard words to avoid, since we use them so much, and I often fall into that trap What I meant was "arguments I (or any one person) find convincing." Does that clear it up?

The "convincingness" of the argument, its worth, is dependent on the critic's knowledge of and experience with the subject at hand. Thats why the person and his argument are intertwined.

There are many who would make that statement who know quite a bit about music. VU, and especially "Sister Ray," certainly has its detractors. They look at the music a different way than I do. They don't look at it in a better or worse way, though.

What do they say about it? Hey, I havent heard it, and when I do, I may hate it. There is a big difference between not liking a certain style, and saying something is a worthless song. Like with country music, I absolutely hate the style but there are some really treally excellent musicians out there with great songs. I dont like them but it doesnt mean I dont think theyre good. Its the same reason we all have our guilty pleasures of liking the latest Justin Timberlake song or whoever is popular this week. The cliched lyrics, 3 chord song is catchy, I may enjoy it and still think its a bad song.

To quote Phish, maybe so, maybe not

Sometimes in live versions they end the song with "Maybe so...."

But I thought music was any kind of sound made by one human being that moves another one. Wouldn't the pots be music then, if they moved the 2-year-old? Granted that's an extreme case, but we're testing the barriers of music here. I don't know for sure, but I might call it "music."

You are right. Lets consider it music - really really bad music!!! The baby may enjoy it, heck I might even enjoy it, but its bad music~!! Anyone could do it and it takes no talent. Now if the baby had talent, he'd start developing a style, refining his beats and maybe be the next Keith Moon. And then he would tell you that the music he made when he was 2 was terrible, and now his music is alot better - even though he may have enjoyed the terrible music as much as he enjoys his good music.

 

[ps139]

Here's the fundamental question, I think, that you have to answer me to convince me there is some sort of objective standard for good music. We've been hinting at it peripherally, but I'd like to lay it out explicitly:

What is this objective standard for good music (i.e. what is it based on)? If we can't know what it is, what makes you believe there is one in the first place?

I want to answer this question right, and for the last hour or so I've been looking for what musicians say about this topic - I know what one thinks (take a wild guess at who he is ) but I want to read some others. I'll get back to you with a clear post rather than my usual rambling.

 

[nadroj1985]

Yeah they are two different species, but my point is that you have to know something to be able to give a good evaluation of it, you need to get past whatever prejudices you may have and see it as objectively/unbiased as possible, and then your opinion or whatever on it is more valuable than that of the ignorant or biased, because it is probably closer to the truth of the matter, whatever it may be. Wow that was a long sentence!

I made those two words bold on purpose, and I particularly want to point out "biased." You'll never be unbiased. All that happens when you gain more knowledge about music is that your biases change, IMO.

You lost me there. My point is that a person's judgement in music gets better the more he plays and listens to and knows music.


The "convincingness" of the argument, its worth, is dependent on the critic's knowledge of and experience with the subject at hand. Thats why the person and his argument are intertwined.

I think the convincingness can be dependent on that, but doesn't have to be. That's my point.

What do they say about it?

Oh, all kinds of things. That it's pointless, that the lyrics promote immorality, that it's indulgent. Of course, I think that they miss the point entirely, but maybe I'm missing the point entirely

Hey, I havent heard it, and when I do, I may hate it. There is a big difference between not liking a certain style, and saying something is a worthless song. Like with country music, I absolutely hate the style but there are some really treally excellent musicians out there with great songs. I dont like them but it doesnt mean I dont think theyre good. It's the same reason we all have our guilty pleasures of liking the latest Justin Timberlake song or whoever is popular this week. The cliched lyrics, 3 chord song is catchy, I may enjoy it and still think its a bad song.

I've never been able to make that distinction quite so easily. Why do you like it if it's not "good," in some way?

Sometimes in live versions they end the song with "Maybe so...."

You are right. Lets consider it music - really really bad music!!! The baby may enjoy it, heck I might even enjoy it, but its bad music~!! Anyone could do it and it takes no talent. Now if the baby had talent, he'd start developing a style, refining his beats and maybe be the next Keith Moon. And then he would tell you that the music he made when he was 2 was terrible, and now his music is alot better - even though he may have enjoyed the terrible music as much as he enjoys his good music.

We'll just keep going around in circles here. Let's just wait until you answer my question from earlier before moving forward.

 

[ps139]

We'll just keep going around in circles here. Let's just wait until you answer my question from earlier before moving forward.

Good idea

 

[ps139]

Jordan I have not gotten around to this yet although I have got my ideas pretty much in place. Seriously I'm approaching this like a term paper, and in college I might have been the biggest procrastinator on campus (thank God for caffeine!). And I always came through with a bang. So first I will put down a quote from Trey Anastasio. From all I know this man is not religious in the least, and what he says comes purely from personal experience. (not that the two ate mutually exclusive at all)
-----------------------
Guitar World Magazine: What attracts you to a guitar player?

ANASTASIO: Well, purity of intent and playing in a way that is beyond the ego. I never even feel like I'm performing. I feel like I'm there to be an intermediary between music that's in the universe and the audience. It sounds silly, but I believe it more than I believe anything in my life. When I'm onstage I feel this incredible togetherness and intense energy that is like fuel for goodness. It's something that I've felt so strongly that in the last few years I started researching it, reading interviews with musicians to see if others have felt this way-and they have. I've read interviews with Brahms, Bach, Jimi Hendrix, Sun Ra, Duke Ellington, [jazz trumpeter] Art Farmer and many others and found similar themes running through them. All of them essentially say, "There are vibrations there, a natural order to the universe, and I'm not really making music. I'm just hearing it and channeling it so that other people can hear it." Everyone calls it something different-Brahms said it was coming from God and Sun Ra said it was coming from Saturn-but it's always a very similar experience.

The problem is when you try to verbalize it, it sounds weird, but only in a world that's completely lost touch with its spirituality. I think the world has become a commercial, surface place where every aspect of ritual and spirituality has been systematically turned into a way to make money for somebody.
=============
The basis of what I will explain is that objectively good music is closer to this natural order than bad music. In fact, closeness to this order is the determinant of musical quality.

Hopefully I will get my theory down in print tomorrow. Right now its in my head and on a few bits of scattered paper.