I don't understand Kubric, I was talking about it from the exact same perspective as you. Music being what we make of it and all that.
Eh, I mean yes you were definitely expressing your personal opinion of this album and this general style of music which I can totally respect, but I also think that there was a pretty strong implication of its objective "inferiority" from your words as well. There's nothing wrong with you having the opinion that this music is "inferior" to other bands who are able to create similar sounds with greater nuance and complexity. But that's still a subjective inferiority rather an an objective one. Again, the value of music is 100% entirely determined by the listener. It can't be inherently inferior.
At the same time, music can't be 100% subjective because there wouldn't be any use for music in general!
I definitely don't understand why music being 100% subjective would make it meaningless and that we'd all just be fine with pots and pans if that were the case. Music being 100% subjective and music having meaning are not mutually exclusive in the slightest. Music has the meaning that you give it and it serves the purpose that you'd like it to serve. The same piece of music could mean everything in the world to one person and absolutely nothing to another. And the beauty of that is that both people are right.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off
Well if music was purely subjective (I'm still leaving looads of scope for how much people take from it) then we'd be happy with just assortments of sounds, wouldn't we? I mean, there would be no point in trying to organise them into music if there's nothing to distinguish music from sounds if music isn't seen as objectively more pleasing. (going to leave out musique concrete- too tangential)
Our subjective experiences aren't so different. We all draw from the experience of being human. There are happy sounds and sad sounds and mixed sounds. We can all describe Tycho as "pretty chilled," for instance. If it were purely subjective you'd have some people calling it angry or terrified or funny as well. There's scope for personal interpretation, yeah, but it all starts from the music itself.
I mean, are you suggesting a 4.6 average album is just as good as a 1.6 rated one? Doesn't seem like any point in sharing opinions if it is.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off
don't know why you keep saying "inferior" - i never said that
|
| |
There's scope for personal interpretation, yeah, but it all starts from the music itself.
What's tricky is that the music comes from us, so it's hard (at least for me) to think of music as some independent
organism when it's so deeply rooted in origin from us. This is the cause for many philosophical discussions that I
think we're hinting towards here- the usual questions about abstract concepts and whether something like 'music'
could've existed before it was tapped into in the first place.
|
| |
I like muzik.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off
For sure, Jacob. Music is conversation, in a way, so would you agree it has to rely on some kind of mutual understanding of what certain things mean and how we should react? We can read into what someone else says -all language is bad translation and I guess music can be said to be the same- but there's still a limitation of what we can draw based on the communication given to us. Words can be empty, and to me music can too.
As far as abstract concepts go (this is kind of tangential) I think we've evolved to have emotional and aesthetic responses to the world. It's easier for vision because I could just scream "golden ration/fibonacci sequence!" but I guess for sounds you have the sound of the sea, rustling leaves etc. - things we find collectively pleasing. Don't really know if we want to get all kung-fu-y over metaphysics though because it's hard ):
|
| |
there's nothing to distinguish music from sounds if music isn't seen as objectively more pleasing
This is where you're going wrong - "objectively more pleasing" is a phrase that doesn't make any sense. It's not possible for something to be "objectively pleasing." Pleasure is a human emotion and is a reaction to a stimulus. It doesn't exist outside of your own mind. By definition, that's what makes it subjective.
There are happy sounds and sad sounds and mixed sounds. We can all describe Tycho as "pretty chilled," for instance.
Yes, you're onto something here and you're referencing an important point. There ARE some objective statements you can make about music. For instance - loud, soft, fast, slow, intricate, simple (although, even here there is some subjectivity as not everyone experiences these things in the same way). You're getting into trouble though when you start saying music can be objectively "happy" or "sad." Again, these are human emotions - you can't directly, objectively attribute them to anything. Just because most people may hear a minor scale as being "sad," it doesn't mean someone is wrong if they think it sounds happy. It's literally all in your mind.
Still tough, that's kind of beside the point. I mean your initial statement about the music being "dumbed down" and your statements about new age music that imply it is less valuable or worth listening to was really the thing I was trying to respond to. You just kind of presented it in a way that implied some kind of objectivity to the value of the music.. all I'm trying to say is that the music can be the most valuable music in the world depending on who's listening. There's nothing that makes it inherently better or worse like you were suggesting.
I mean, are you suggesting a 4.6 average album is just as good as a 1.6 rated one? Doesn't seem like any point in sharing opinions if it is.
Yes! Well, kind of. What I'm saying is that it COULD be depending on the listener. I could listen to an album rated 4.6 and feel nothing at all. Be completely indifferent to it. And then I could listen to an album rated 1.6 and be brought nearly to tears because I loved it so much. The more valuable album to me would be the 1.6 album. The average rating is the the reaction that MOST people seem to have. That's all it is - a collection of subjective opinions in numerical format. It doesn't mean anything for any individual person. And it doesn't give the album any objective value to the music at all.
|
| |
don't know why you keep saying "inferior" - i never said that
Sorry, you're right. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth dude. That was just the word that seemed to most accurately describe what was implied in your original post. I realize you never used the word directly, so if that isn't what you meant my apologies. There still was an implied objectivity to your comments about Tycho and new age music though.. that's really all I was responding to.
|
| |
That was a really cool track. It's been a bright sunny day (for once), so this is definitely hitting the spot right now. Will download this and check it out. Sweet work as always, man.
|
| |
Cheers to Jonny and Kubrick for providing such meaningful discussion here. Nice having a thoughtful conversation around these parts.
And thanks hernan! There's a stream in the first comment if you'd be interested.
|
| |
And cheers to you for the very well-written and thoughtful review! ^_^
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off
Yeah that's cool man, as far as the subjective/objective split goes I think there's some confusion about what we're both meaning by it. When I said objective, I meant something common to everyone's (within reason) experiences. I know that's not really the correct philosophical use for it, but yeah- language, what's it like? (don't say subjective...)
I don't think I am getting myself into trouble with reference to emotions because we have quite standard emotional responses. I mean, to say The Disintegration Loops was happy would need some serious explaining because it's so contrary to the universal view of what "happy" means. To suggest human emotions are completely independent is something I can't agree with- it just doesn't make sense from an evolutionary or developmental standpoint.
That last paragraph is kind of it, though. I just think we're setting out from different perspectives. I'm going for the "in general" route and you're looking for anomalies - one game of tennis on two courts and all that.
Back to Tycho, I just don't even see the potential to affirm much meaning to it. It's not so much a book waiting to be opened but a postcard with a couple of words on the back. The instigators of subjective responses aren't really there in any meaningful way.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
was very disappointed with this aside from the first track. it sounds nice but is pretty inoffensive and boring at time. I don't agree that this is his most memorable work at all. Stuck somewhere between a 2.5 and 3 for this, will give it the benefit of the doubt for now.
|
| |
Dive was pree boring. Gonna check this.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
lol uhh
|
| |
I was bored out of my mind listening to this
|
| |
I've noticed a lot of people go 'EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK!!!!' over this guy
I've never gone 'EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK!!!' over him at all but he's dec and I will deffs be listening to this
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
ek
|
| |
ek eek eeek (??)
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
eeek it's omaha
|
| |
|
|
