God forbid anyone should like anything!
tomb...@jhu.edu
"special snowflake," as Doug puts it. I like most people, even though I
can be kind of an antisocial asshole sometimes, and I like music in
general. So why wouldn't I like most of the music that people make? I
could not care less about chops, hipness, style, and historical
validity, whatever that is. I just enjoy hearing people put their heart
and soul into whatever art they're trying to make.
Shonen Knife is as valuable to me as Coltrane. I understand the
difference, but I still like them both. To say that Coltrane's music is
more valuable than Shonen Knife's music is--for me--almost like saying
that Shonen Knife are less valuable as human beings, and I find that
sentiment extremely disturbing.
The only kind of music I dislike is the extremely commercial disco
stuff, or anything that was made solely for making money. Perhaps
because that's the only kind of music I ever made any serious money
doing myself, or perhaps because it has no "soul"--no sense of the
humanity of the creator.
It's weird to see mini flame wars erupting just because a guy said he
likes some jazz guitar music. Why wouldn't he like it?
dougw...@gmail.com
If what you say is true, then why have you made so many
disparaging value judgements about the music I play on
numerous occasions, Tom?
And by the way, post your music.
Prove me wrong.
Steal my wife.
pmfan57
tomb...@jhu.edu wrote:
> I like most music I hear. In some ways, I do think everyone is a
> "special snowflake," as Doug puts it.
>
> more valuable than Shonen Knife's music is--for me--almost like saying
> that Shonen Knife are less valuable as human beings, and I find that
> sentiment extremely disturbing.
>
I agree about the word valuable. But comparing two people's skills is
not the same thing. It's no more like saying that (less valuable as
human beings) than saying Jeremy Wariner can outrun you means he's more
valuable as a human being. Or Kasparov can out-chess you. It doesn't
mean you're not a good person because you can't play chess as well as
he can. But yet you can't.
If everyone is equal, why try to get better, if better means nothing?
Why did Bach work so hard, to get to the same level as everyone else on
the planet? Wasn't Bach a better musician that someone who was not a
musician at all? How about a part time musician? Is there any level
of skill difference you will admit to?
dougw...@gmail.com
pmfan57 wrote:
> I agree about the word valuable. But comparing two people's skills is
> not the same thing. It's no more like saying that (less valuable as
> human beings) than saying Jeremy Wariner can outrun you means he's more
> valuable as a human being. Or Kasparov can out-chess you. It doesn't
> mean you're not a good person because you can't play chess as well as
> he can. But yet you can't.
What Tom is doing is common in today's world. People who are
deficient in areas they wish they weren't tend to use whatever
means necessary to equalize eveything and remove value from
everything so that they can feel better about their own level,
which is almost always a low one.
Bragging about his money, as Tom does, speaks volumes about
him and his life and what he's upset about not acheiving, even
though he's convinced himself that he's capable of anything
musically. If people like him admit to value in art, it will become
clear to them that they have failed in it, and they do not want
to do this.
He has no problem making value judgements when it suits him,
yet at other times, he compares some ridiculous Japanese
pop band to Coltrane. Because he is lacking in ability to
understand music, he makes the grandiose statement that
music has no value.
That no one but me is willing to call out this nonsense speaks
volumes and makes me wonder if many of you agree with Tom.
If so, I'm sad for you. Pmfan seems to get it. Striving for
improvement is essential. Convincing one's self that their
mediocrity(at best) is of value is pathetic.
Thingo
> I just enjoy hearing people put their heart
> and soul into whatever art they're trying to make.
So you're not actually denying that music differs in value. You're just
stating that your trump value is 'heart and soul'.
> The only kind of music I dislike is the extremely commercial disco
> stuff, or anything that was made solely for making money. Perhaps
> because that's the only kind of music I ever made any serious money
> doing myself, or perhaps because it has no "soul"--no sense of the
> humanity of the creator.
Exactly. You simply have your own definition of 'value' in music. You
value 'heart and soul', I might value balance or delicacy or execution
or progression within a historical traditioin or .. (etc) or any
combination thereof. There are values in music, it's literally
impossible to deny unless you're willing to be totally indiscriminate,
which almost no-one is who actually listens to music.
You're using 'heart and soul' as a trump card is common tactic in
contemporary US popular crap culture. Anyone thinks they can magically
discern 'heart and soul' without effort, hence it's democratising in a
lazy consumer-culture kind of way. It's the same tactic that enables
so-called 'consumers' to believe that Deepak Chopra is a philosopher.
il_du...@yahoo.com
making to be there's nothing wrong with a person who likes, for
example, death metal, also liking Patsy Cline and Beethoven. If a
person likes them both so be it. All I think Tom is giulty of, if
anything, is stating the obvious although I don't mind being reminded
from time to time.
An example relevant to all us jazz fans is Kenny G. I've certainly
sensed a view over the last 5 or 6 years that no self respecting jazz
fan likes the G man... you can be one or other but not both.
Personally, I don't get all bent out of shape by wat he calls his
music, or what he does (see Pat Metheny), the simple fact is his music
just doesn't appeal to me, it doesn't please my ear, however you want
to put it.
How Tom's post has suddenly become "he says Shonen Knife are as
valuable as John Coltrane.." is mystifying. Valuable in terms of what?
Contribution to Outer-Mongolian throat singing?, their respective
record labels in terms of sales?, Jazz? (I don't think Tom was implying
any link between SK and jazz).
> That no one but me is willing to call out this nonsense speaks
> volumes and makes me wonder if many of you agree with Tom.
> If so, I'm sad for you. Pmfan seems to get it. Striving for
> improvement is essential. Convincing one's self that their
> mediocrity(at best) is of value is pathetic.
Is that what music is for you? A pursuit of a greater technical
facility? No offence, but hasn't the 80s/90s shred revolution taught us
anything? Whilst the old blues cliche of a single note is well worn, I
find myself more amazed by composers/songwriters who write a tune that
really catches my ear, particularly when I realize they did it with a
chord progression that I play day after day, and they just added a
twist to the melody. That's talent. A more relevant example might be
Miles Davis - I don't think anyone would disagree that throughout his
life there were more technically accomplished trumpeters, but he had a
talent for selecting sidemen which, when combined with his unique
voice, produced something quite spectacular. You can learn all the
Miles licks/Wes licks and any other players from history that you want,
but you'll never understand what they were thinking.
Pursuing technique for techniques sake is a bit of an empty goal if you
can't then create a simple song at the end of it, something that's
genuinely your own, not lifted from others and just dropped in a
different context.
Thingo
guitar-centric 'technique'. It's terribly sad that an adult might
believe such nonsense.
dougw...@gmail.com
il_du...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Is that what music is for you? A pursuit of a greater technical
> facility? No offence, but hasn't the 80s/90s shred revolution taught us
> anything?
Excellent straw man! Well done.
I said nothing of technical facility. There's much more to music
than that, and I always acknowledge that. You're trying to have
an argument over a point that was not made.
Striving for greatness as an artist goes way beyond technique.
dougw...@gmail.com
Thingo wrote:
> You're using 'heart and soul' as a trump card is common tactic in
> contemporary US popular crap culture. Anyone thinks they can magically
> discern 'heart and soul' without effort, hence it's democratising in a
> lazy consumer-culture kind of way. It's the same tactic that enables
> so-called 'consumers' to believe that Deepak Chopra is a philosopher.
Ouch.
However, that was well-stated. I agree completely.
Thingo
> You're using 'heart and soul' as a trump card is common tactic in
> contemporary US popular crap culture. Anyone thinks they can magically
> discern 'heart and soul' without effort, hence it's democratising in a
> lazy consumer-culture kind of way. It's the same tactic that enables
> so-called 'consumers' to believe that Deepak Chopra is a philosopher.
To be fair, I should replace 'US' with 'corporate'. The US is first and
best at thus enfeebling itself, but the rest of us are catching up
fast.
daniel_anth...@yahoo.com
that's dear to you ,but if you're always driving it home with a
sledgehammer over tom--or whoever's--head, then i find thaT all the
chest thumping and name-calling is louder than the message; he did say
" I understand the difference, but I still like them both"! Anyway, i
think you're letting your natural combativeness and problems with
various posters blot out any of the good in what they're saying....
Johnny Cash is never going to be John Coltrane, and the opposite is no
less true ,but that doesn't obviate either's contribution in my view
.It might be hard to reconcile the differences, but that's the
postmodern dilemma I guess....and to that end i take your comments as a
positive thing,but if you're always just sticking it to Tom and Joey or
whoever, and it's all so personal, I just kind of shut out the good in
it .just my opinion fwiw.
daniel stearns
http://kronoson.station185.com/kronosonic/contrib/dan.htm
tomb...@jhu.edu
>
> If what you say is true, then why have you made so many
> disparaging value judgements about the music I play on
> numerous occasions, Tom?
I haven't done that. I like your music, and I even like you. I just
disagree with some of your opinions and behavior from time to time.
> And by the way, post your music.
I don't have anything worth posting. As I said, the music I made money
from was pure commercial crap. It's in boxes in my attic on old reel to
reel tapes. Jazz guitar has never been anything more than a hobby for
me. I am a competent but mediocre jazz guitarist at best.
il_du...@yahoo.com
I may have misunderstood the point you were making.
"he compares some ridiculous Japanese pop band to Coltrane". In what
sense are the pop band ridiculous?
"Because he is lacking in ability to understand music," - what do you
mean by the statement understand music?
tomb...@jhu.edu
> tomb...@jhu.edu wrote:
> > I just enjoy hearing people put their heart
> > and soul into whatever art they're trying to make.
>
> So you're not actually denying that music differs in value. You're just
> stating that your trump value is 'heart and soul'.
I don't even know what that means. I just like a lot of music, and I
feel no need to justify my preferences according to some external value
system.
> > The only kind of music I dislike is the extremely commercial disco
> > stuff, or anything that was made solely for making money. Perhaps
> > because that's the only kind of music I ever made any serious money
> > doing myself, or perhaps because it has no "soul"--no sense of the
> > humanity of the creator.
>
> Exactly. You simply have your own definition of 'value' in music. You
> value 'heart and soul', I might value balance or delicacy or execution
> or progression within a historical traditioin or .. (etc) or any
> combination thereof. There are values in music, it's literally
> impossible to deny unless you're willing to be totally indiscriminate,
> which almost no-one is who actually listens to music.
There are values, but there are no objective standards to measure those
values.
> You're using 'heart and soul' as a trump card is common tactic in
> contemporary US popular crap culture. Anyone thinks they can magically
> discern 'heart and soul' without effort, hence it's democratising in a
> lazy consumer-culture kind of way. It's the same tactic that enables
> so-called 'consumers' to believe that Deepak Chopra is a philosopher.
I wasn't arguing that my tastes are superior according to any value
system. And once you get to know me better, you'll realize that new age
philosophy and me are worlds apart.
Dave Stephens
Stereophile and other sources I also consider the reviewer. My tastes agree
with some reviewers and not with others. Over time my view of whether to
follow so and so's recommendation will mature and I find myself skipping the
reviews of certain people and seeking the reviews of other people. It's not
that one is "better" or "more accurate" than the other it's that's one more
closely coincides with my tastes.
So long as the reviewer is just giving his opinion and doesn't make outright
"wrong" statements I don't write the magazine saying "Joe Smoe's reviews are
worthless crap. You should fire him" because I figures someone else must
have taste closer to Joe Smoe's or the magazine wouldn't employ him.
As long as someone is just giving opinions here, then I think the rest of us
should respect them. This IS a forum so it is ok to say "I don't understand
why you like him so much, because I don't like the distortion he uses or I
don't like the picture of his guitar on the cover of the album." All that is
part of the reason we frequent this group. We can interact.
When I reviewed MK's latest album I said what I felt, but I did say part of
it in a way to see if I got certain reactions. I haven't been a music
reviewer over at JJG, but I'm thinking of dipping my toe in there, so I was
curious to see reactions here. In general I don't think the reviewers at JJG
stick their necks out in any meaningful way. I can't really tell anything
about an album from most of the JJG reviews. There was even one raving about
the sound quality of a particular album which sucked, IMHO, compare to an
alternative release of the same basic materal by the same artist. So I'm
thinking of giving it a try starting this year.
BTW, if I do write music reviews for JJG you guys are welcome to write in
and say, "Fire that dumb ass Dave Stephens" cause I won't be making any
mortgage payments with the compensation. (I don't even get a complimentery
subscription). ;-)
Ciao amigos,
Dave
Thingo
> I don't even know what that means. I just like a lot of music, and I
> feel no need to justify my preferences according to some external value
> system.
But, Tom, you did. You said:
> > > The only kind of music I dislike is the extremely commercial disco
> > > stuff, or anything that was made solely for making money.
You are clearly saying that some music, having money as its sole
motivation, "has no soul', and is therefore deficient in 'soul-value'.
True, you're not saying that everyone has to judge music on the
soul-value scale, but you are saying that *if* soul is what you value,
then some music doesn't have it.
> There are values, but there are no objective standards to measure those
> values.
Actually, this kind of old-fashioned subjectivism is a bit of a dead
duck in my opinion. There's nothing much you can say about any form of
measurement that you can't equally say about matters of 'value'. But I
guess this isn't a philosophy forum, and I'm not a competent
philosopher.
> I wasn't arguing that my tastes are superior according to any value
> system.
And once you get to know me better, you'll realize that new age
> philosophy and me are worlds apart.
I didn't think you were saying your tastes were superior. I said that
you were simultaneously denying that you had any objectivism in your
outlook, whilst pointing out that actually you did. Extreme
subjectivism always self-destructs that way.
> And once you get to know me better, you'll realize that new age
> philosophy and me are worlds apart.
Glad to hear it!
dougw...@gmail.com
tomb...@jhu.edu wrote:
> I haven't done that. I like your music, and I even like you.
Funny way of showing it. You're more transparent than you
think. I'm not buying your ruse.
> I don't have anything worth posting. As I said, the music I made money
> from was pure commercial crap. It's in boxes in my attic on old reel to
> reel tapes. Jazz guitar has never been anything more than a hobby for
> me. I am a competent but mediocre jazz guitarist at best.
But just a while ago, you told a very different story, Tom. You
claimed that you were something much more than that. Why
the retraction now?
Joey Goldstein
Dave Stephens wrote:
>
>
> So long as the reviewer is just giving his opinion and doesn't make outright
> "wrong" statements I don't write the magazine saying "Joe Smoe's reviews are
> worthless crap. You should fire him" because I figures someone else must
> have taste closer to Joe Smoe's or the magazine wouldn't employ him.
His name's Joe Shmoe, not Smoe!
Why are we supposed to take you seriously if you can't even do this
basic research? Eh?
(Just joking...Calm down.)
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Joey Goldstein
pmfan57 wrote:
>
> tomb...@jhu.edu wrote:
> > I like most music I hear. In some ways, I do think everyone is a
> > "special snowflake," as Doug puts it.
> >
> > To say that Coltrane's music is
> > more valuable than Shonen Knife's music is--for me--almost like saying
> > that Shonen Knife are less valuable as human beings, and I find that
> > sentiment extremely disturbing.
> >
>
> I agree about the word valuable. But comparing two people's skills is
> not the same thing. It's no more like saying that (less valuable as
> human beings) than saying Jeremy Wariner can outrun you means he's more
> valuable as a human being. Or Kasparov can out-chess you. It doesn't
> mean you're not a good person because you can't play chess as well as
> he can. But yet you can't.
>
> If everyone is equal, why try to get better, if better means nothing?
Because it means something to you, and maybe because you want to share
it with others.
> Why did Bach work so hard, to get to the same level as everyone else on
> the planet?
Because he could.
> Wasn't Bach a better musician that someone who was not a
> musician at all?
Of course. You can't be a better musician than Bach if you're not even a
musician to begin with.
> How about a part time musician? Is there any level
> of skill difference you will admit to?
Skill, sure. But "worth" is more relative than that.
The Canadian dollar is worth more now than it used to be, relative to
the US dollar. There was a time when they were at par.
Something's worth is relative to the needs and wants of the person
possessing it or experiencing it, as well as to the value systems of the
world at large.
dougw...@gmail.com
il_du...@yahoo.com wrote:
> "he compares some ridiculous Japanese pop band to Coltrane". In what
> sense are the pop band ridiculous?
In the sense that they sound ridiculous and play poorly and
acheive nothing of real value. They're like musical Snickers.
Nothing wrong with candy, but it's not of the same value
as a fresh ripe tomato. I'm sure you'll find a way to use
debate class 101 to refute me, but it doesn't change the
underlying truth.
>
> "Because he is lacking in ability to understand music," - what do you
> mean by the statement understand music?
Being intentionally obtuse does nothing to further your argument.
Tom is an amateur/fan, and the statements he makes about music
show me that he doesn't have a basic understanding of music, in
the sense that there is intrinsic value in it.
Joey Goldstein
dougw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> pmfan57 wrote:
> > I agree about the word valuable. But comparing two people's skills is
> > not the same thing. It's no more like saying that (less valuable as
> > human beings) than saying Jeremy Wariner can outrun you means he's more
> > valuable as a human being. Or Kasparov can out-chess you. It doesn't
> > mean you're not a good person because you can't play chess as well as
> > he can. But yet you can't.
>
> What Tom is doing is common in today's world. People who are
> deficient in areas they wish they weren't tend to use whatever
> means necessary to equalize eveything and remove value from
> everything so that they can feel better about their own level,
> which is almost always a low one.
Everyone's at a low level at something.
Everyone's at a low level anyway.
We're all gonna die y'know. One day the bugs and bacteria eating your
dead body will be doing more creative work than you'll be able to do.
(Don't know where I'm going with this...Stop me now!!!!)
And Tom's not removing value from anything. He's imbuing value in places
where you don't happen to sse it. And your personal attacks on him
aren't really helping you to make your case.
> Bragging about his money, as Tom does, speaks volumes about
> him and his life and what he's upset about not acheiving, even
> though he's convinced himself that he's capable of anything
> musically. If people like him admit to value in art, it will become
> clear to them that they have failed in it, and they do not want
> to do this.
Most artists are failed artists, and yes it is a bitter pill to swallow.
But even a failed musician can still have a great time playing music. He
might even make someone else's life a little bit richer with music.
> He has no problem making value judgements when it suits him,
> yet at other times, he compares some ridiculous Japanese
> pop band to Coltrane. Because he is lacking in ability to
> understand music, he makes the grandiose statement that
> music has no value.
I wonder if Coltrane felt he was as grandiose as you make him out to be.
> That no one but me is willing to call out this nonsense speaks
> volumes and makes me wonder if many of you agree with Tom.
> If so, I'm sad for you. Pmfan seems to get it. Striving for
> improvement is essential.
Certainly. If improvement's what you want then striving for it will be
necessary. I don't think Tom's against striving. I think he thinks we
all strive for different things. Even those of us who strive for the
same thing will have to strive for it in different ways probably
arriving at different outcomes.
> Convincing one's self that their
> mediocrity(at best) is of value is pathetic.
Well it must be rough seeing the vast majority of people on the planet
as being pathetic, even if it's true. But trying to rise above the
ultimate pathetic nature of existence is a fool's game. You'll never get
there. Just try to enjoy the ride man.
Joey Goldstein
Thingo wrote:
>
> tomb...@jhu.edu wrote:
> > I just enjoy hearing people put their heart
> > and soul into whatever art they're trying to make.
>
> So you're not actually denying that music differs in value. You're just
> stating that your trump value is 'heart and soul'.
>
> > The only kind of music I dislike is the extremely commercial disco
> > stuff, or anything that was made solely for making money. Perhaps
> > because that's the only kind of music I ever made any serious money
> > doing myself, or perhaps because it has no "soul"--no sense of the
> > humanity of the creator.
>
> Exactly. You simply have your own definition of 'value' in music. You
> value 'heart and soul', I might value balance or delicacy or execution
> or progression within a historical traditioin or .. (etc) or any
> combination thereof. There are values in music,
Right. subjective values. You've got yours. Tom's got his. I've got
mine. Thanks for agreeing with us.
> it's literally
> impossible to deny unless you're willing to be totally indiscriminate,
> which almost no-one is who actually listens to music.
Nobody's denying it. We're denying that these values are objective.
> You're using 'heart and soul' as a trump card is common tactic in
> contemporary US popular crap culture. Anyone thinks they can magically
> discern 'heart and soul' without effort, hence it's democratising in a
> lazy consumer-culture kind of way. It's the same tactic that enables
> so-called 'consumers' to believe that Deepak Chopra is a philosopher.
Yep. To the people with your values (mine too, maybe) it's a bitch.
But there are also ways that what you or I see as good or even great art
can find it's place in a democracy, as it seems to continue to do.
People who are driven to do art just seem to keep doing it even without
the patronage of kings and queens and princes. Some within the masses of
ignorant plebes are drawn to it too from time to time. All is well.
What's your beef? You'd rather have a philosopher king, a benevolent
dictator type of thing? Yeah, well they only live for so long and then
some dick comes along and takes their place and you've just got a
dictator.
Joey Goldstein
Thingo wrote:
>
> tomb...@jhu.edu wrote:
>
> >
> > There are values, but there are no objective standards to measure those
> > values.
>
> Actually, this kind of old-fashioned subjectivism is a bit of a dead
> duck in my opinion.
OK. We know your position. Now prove it, or at least back it up somehow.
> I didn't think you were saying your tastes were superior. I said that
> you were simultaneously denying that you had any objectivism in your
> outlook, whilst pointing out that actually you did.
No he didn't. His values are subjective. Where did he mention objective values?
> Extreme
> subjectivism always self-destructs that way.
How so.
tomb...@jhu.edu
> tomb...@jhu.edu wrote:
>
> > I don't even know what that means. I just like a lot of music, and I
> > feel no need to justify my preferences according to some external value
> > system.
>
> But, Tom, you did. You said:
>
> > > > The only kind of music I dislike is the extremely commercial disco
> > > > stuff, or anything that was made solely for making money.
>
> You are clearly saying that some music, having money as its sole
> motivation, "has no soul', and is therefore deficient in 'soul-value'.
> True, you're not saying that everyone has to judge music on the
> soul-value scale, but you are saying that *if* soul is what you value,
> then some music doesn't have it.
I don't really know why I like some music more than other kinds. I'm
sorry I used the word "soul" because it doesn't mean anything to me.
Like most people, I occasionally say stupid things that I don't really
believe, just because I can't articulate what I'm trying to say. You
caught me on one of those moments. You're right that what I said about
"heart and soul" was bullshit, but you're wrong in attributing it to my
core epistemology. It was just my failure to communicate, mostly
because I don't totally understand why I like what I like.
> > I wasn't arguing that my tastes are superior according to any value
> > system.
> And once you get to know me better, you'll realize that new age
> > philosophy and me are worlds apart.
>
> I didn't think you were saying your tastes were superior. I said that
> you were simultaneously denying that you had any objectivism in your
> outlook, whilst pointing out that actually you did. Extreme
> subjectivism always self-destructs that way.
I don't claim any objectivism. I mostly claim ignorance when it comes
to what moves me. I don't think I can specify why some music appeals to
me and other music doesn't. I think it's more a matter of familiarity
and socialization than anything else.
il_du...@yahoo.com
better understand your argument and you have to go on the offensive (re
debate class 101 comment). The problem is Doug, that in order to be
truly patronising you have to be of an intellectual level higher than
the people your talking to. You may have studied the shit out of all
types of american music, but that's all you've got. You remind me of
the guy in the bar with the blonde ponytail in Good Will Hunting who is
caught quoting everybody else but can't actually come up with any
original view of his own.
> In the sense that they sound ridiculous and play poorly and
> acheive nothing of real value.
Maybe they intend to play poorly. It has happened in the past, ie the
Sex Pistols and punk in general, as a reaction to the kind of musical
intellectualism that you seem to be all too much a part of.
> They're like musical Snickers.
> Nothing wrong with candy, but it's not of the same value
> as a fresh ripe tomato.
Interesting you should use that analogy given the photo on your
website. Too much former and not enough latter?
>I'm sure you'll find a way to use
> debate class 101 to refute me, but it doesn't change the
> underlying truth.
You're obviously the only one party to THE TRUTH tm.
> > "Because he is lacking in ability to understand music," - what do you
> > mean by the statement understand music?
> Being intentionally obtuse does nothing to further your argument.
Actually the point I was going to make was that being able to empathise
with the sentiment of the song could be said to be understanding music.
If YOU mean understanding the mechanics of how the song is put together
then I think you are talking about understanding composition, not
music. But of course, you know all there is to know about jazz guitar
since the year dot... and you copped all the licks etc... good for you.
> Tom is an amateur/fan, and the statements he makes about music
> show me that he doesn't have a basic understanding of music, in
> the sense that there is intrinsic value in it.
You don't have to understand music to appreciate it. It's often an
emotional reaction... you like, you don't necessarily understand why.
No doubt you could analyse my musical likes/dislikes and tell me that
it's because I prefer a certain interval/chord type/beat... I'm happy
for you.
As far as I can see, you sound like a jazz encyclopedia, have some
chops but don't actually bring much to rmmgj. As others have more
tactfully pointed out your approach is inappropriate if you are trying
to contribute worthwhile content. This is meant to be a forum for like
minded individuals, maybe you should start rec.music.makers.guitar.doug
How magnanimous of you to lower yourself to taking the controversial
stance on everything. Actaully, this is very easy, there's no skill in
it. Most of us actually call it "being contrary", as in Mary, Mary...
and nursery rhymes are about an appropriate level for you abilities to
debate.
Apologies to the rest of the group for this attack, but Tom was just
trying to start some discussion, it wasn't particularly controversial,
and yet Schmoug has to open his trap yet again.
Hasn't he got any gigs to practice for? Oops, forgot, he knows it all
already... grrr.
Thingo
.
>
> Yep. To the people with your values (mine too, maybe) it's a bitch.
> But there are also ways that what you or I see as good or even great art
> can find it's place in a democracy, as it seems to continue to do.
> People who are driven to do art just seem to keep doing it even without
> the patronage of kings and queens and princes. Some within the masses of
> ignorant plebes are drawn to it too from time to time. All is well.
I don't think all is well at all. There's a lot of deep unease amongst
many about extremist consumerist culture. You may not share that
unease, and you may be right not to. But it's not just *obvious* that
'all is well'. Read Jared Diamond, Jane Jacobs, Ronald Wright, Clive
Hamilton and others.
> What's your beef? You'd rather have a philosopher king, a benevolent
> dictator type of thing?
(well, yes, but only if it's me).
Well, my beefs in this context are 2: (1) radical subjectivism. I think
it's false, and it's certainly a waning star in philosophy/aesthetics.
A lazy ahistorical hangover '60's thing, really. (2)
consumer-fundamentalist culture, as (perhaps?) invented in the US and
now a fast-spreading virus. I think there's a philosophical link
between the two (ie. if someone's susceptible to one, they'll tend to
fall for both).
tomb...@jhu.edu
>
> But just a while ago, you told a very different story, Tom. You
> claimed that you were something much more than that. Why
> the retraction now?
I've never claimed to be anything but mediocre at guitar playing. I do
think that I reached a level of professional competence as a
composer/arranger, and the musicianship and ear training I acquired in
that endeavor allows me to listen to any kind of music and hear most of
what's going on, regardless of whether I can reproduce it on my guitar
or not. Ear training and guitar chops are two different things.
But I've already established that I don't think that any level of
musicianship qualifies one to make absolute value judgments about
music. All it does is qualify you to make a technical analysis. Those
are also two very different things.
Thingo
> OK. We know your position. Now prove it, or at least back it up somehow.
I can't (just as you can't prove 'subjectivism'). And if I could, it
would need a book. Others have written those.
I'm mainly challenging the automatic assumption of subjectivity. It's
become a bit of a dogma; let's just keep aware that it's just one way
to think about music (or ethics, or anything with values involved), and
not everyone accepts it. Accepting it tends, I think, to acceptance of
fundamentalist consumerism. And that's dangerous.
> No he didn't. His values are subjective. Where did he mention objective values?
Depends what you mean. He said he ranks music on a 'heart and soul'
scale, and that some (commercial) music doesn't have it. That's a
statement regarding an objective value. He's since retracted that,
falling back to the 'I just like what I like' position, which is a
different matter entirely.
> > Extreme
> > subjectivism always self-destructs that way.
>
> How so.
Because when pressed, a subjectivist is always at some point going to
say what it is about music (books, behaviour) that they like. Then it's
easy to point out how that's a judgement no less 'objective' (or
subjective) than any other, and then they retract for a while. Sooner
or later, if pressed, they'll try a different formulation for what they
like, and the game starts again.
I'm not saying that music judgements are objective, either, by the way.
The objective/subjective distinction just doesn't mean that much when
looked at closely. But once the distinction's gone, you no longer have
any sequestered set of 'subjective' judgements, immune from criticism.
We all make judgements, they can all be discussed /criticised etc as
judgements. That's it.
il_du...@yahoo.com
> musicianship qualifies one to make absolute value judgments about
> music. All it does is qualify you to make a technical analysis. Those
> are also two very different things.
I agree entirely Tom. That's the point I was trying to make below. I
was trying to clarify Doug's position on this one before I stuck my oar
in the water and all I got back was attitude and aggression.
Unfortunately, I rose to the bait (which Doug will probably say I was
meant to), now now find myself thinking twice about some statements I
made although not the sentiment behind them. I could perhaps have been
a tad more tactful. It's the only time in 9 years of reading usenet
that I've lashed out.
Mea culpa.
Thingo
>
> I don't really know why I like some music more than other kinds. I'm
> sorry I used the word "soul" because it doesn't mean anything to me.
> Like most people, I occasionally say stupid things that I don't really
> believe, just because I can't articulate what I'm trying to say. You
> caught me on one of those moments. You're right that what I said about
> "heart and soul" was bullshit, but you're wrong in attributing it to my
> core epistemology. It was just my failure to communicate, mostly
> because I don't totally understand why I like what I like.
I believe if we were sitting over a beer I could press you on the
point, and get you to admit (or see it in your face if you weren't
prepared to) that some of the commercial/purely-money-making stuff you
don't like is just *not as good* as some of the stuff you like.
Commerce does sometime create things that are of no intrinsic value,
and when we compare these with things that we love, we can see clearly
that the difference isn't *purely* a matter of taste. There is
intrinsic value. I'm avoiding the use of the word 'objective'.
> I don't claim any objectivism. I mostly claim ignorance when it comes
> to what moves me. I don't think I can specify why some music appeals to
> me and other music doesn't. I think it's more a matter of familiarity
> and socialization than anything else.
Fair enough. There's no pressing need for us to be articulate about our
tastes, in general.
Greger Hoel
>I'm mainly challenging the automatic assumption of subjectivity. It's
>become a bit of a dogma; let's just keep aware that it's just one way
>to think about music (or ethics, or anything with values involved), and
>not everyone accepts it. Accepting it tends, I think, to acceptance of
>fundamentalist consumerism. And that's dangerous.
Huh?
>Depends what you mean. He said he ranks music on a 'heart and soul'
>scale, and that some (commercial) music doesn't have it. That's a
>statement regarding an objective value.
Heart and soul is an objective value? Are you insane? When did Tom say
heart and soul was an objective value? Hell, when did anyone but
yourself, anonymous coward, *ever* say that heart and soul was an
objective value?
He's since retracted that,
>falling back to the 'I just like what I like' position, which is a
>different matter entirely.
How is it different. Please explain this in detail.
>> > Extreme
>> > subjectivism always self-destructs that way.
>>
>> How so.
>
>Because when pressed, a subjectivist is always at some point going to
>say what it is about music (books, behaviour) that they like. Then it's
>easy to point out how that's a judgement no less 'objective' (or
>subjective) than any other, and then they retract for a while. Sooner
>or later, if pressed, they'll try a different formulation for what they
>like, and the game starts again.
I see. You have no clue whatsoever what the word "objective" even
means.
>I'm not saying that music judgements are objective, either, by the way.
>The objective/subjective distinction just doesn't mean that much when
>looked at closely.
Ahh, so "subjective" and "objective" really means the same in the end?
What a hilarious notion.
>But once the distinction's gone, you no longer have
>any sequestered set of 'subjective' judgements, immune from criticism.
Why's anything subjective immune from criticism?
>We all make judgements, they can all be discussed /criticised etc as
>judgements. That's it.
Yes, and some judgements are based on objective observation,
quantification and deduction. Others are based on subjective notions.
Both can be, and are being, criticised, but on vatly diffrerent
grounds.
--
_______________________________________________
Always cross a vampire, never moon a werewolf
To reach me, swap spammers get bent with softhome
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerry
> If what you say is true, then why have you made so many
> disparaging value judgements about the music I play on
> numerous occasions, Tom?
Please Tom, don't talk about Doug. Surely in the big wide wonderful
world of music there is some train of thought that can occupy our time
that isn't about Doug, what he thinks, why folks like him or don't,
what he's wearing to today and his favorite color. Surely.
It's tough enough to avoid going ballistic over SRV or Benson. It
would likely be much more difficult to do the same ruminations on
actual participants. As the past has proven.
Again and again and again.
--
What a day this has been, what a rare mood I'm in.
Gerry
>
> pmfan57 wrote:
>> I agree about the word valuable. But comparing two people's skills is
>> not the same thing. It's no more like saying that (less valuable as
>> human beings) than saying Jeremy Wariner can outrun you means he's more
>> valuable as a human being. Or Kasparov can out-chess you. It doesn't
>> mean you're not a good person because you can't play chess as well as
>> he can. But yet you can't.
>
> What Tom is doing is common in today's world. People who are
> deficient in areas they wish they weren't tend to use whatever
> means necessary to equalize eveything and remove value from
> everything so that they can feel better about their own level,
> which is almost always a low one.
This really sickens. I'm going to have to kill file yet another
thread. This makes about 12 in the past few weeks that become another
repository of your apparently endless angst.
Thingo
> Huh?
Grunt.
> Heart and soul is an objective value? Are you insane? When did Tom say
> heart and soul was an objective value? Hell, when did anyone but
> yourself, anonymous coward, *ever* say that heart and soul was an
> objective value?
Please drop the slashdot 'anonymous coward' stuff. There are many
reasons someone might not use their real name. Cowardice is one, I
suppose. Anonymity is reasonable on the Internet, for those that want
it.
Tom said:
> I just enjoy hearing people put their heart
> and soul into whatever art they're trying to make.
and also offered:
> perhaps because it has no "soul"--no sense of the
> humanity of the creator.
He was claiming that there was a property that inhered in some music,
and offering some causal factors for its presence or absence (money
motivation VS humanity).
> >falling back to the 'I just like what I like' position, which is a
> >different matter entirely.
>
> How is it different. Please explain this in detail.
Because it's pre-articulate, and thus may not be a real 'position' at
all. Most people can begin to articulate what underlies at least some
of their tastes given some prodding. Also, as people learn more about
music (or anything, actually), they can articulate more about their
tastes (which may lead them to reject them). It's possible that someone
may hold fast to "I just like what I like", regardless of conversation,
further learning, etc, but I've never seen it happen, in any domain.
That's not to say we can articulate our tastes comprehensively, either
(nor is it necessarily desirable).
> I see. You have no clue whatsoever what the word "objective" even
> means.
Actually, if I'm right, no-one has, because it's a meaningless word. I
do know how it's been used by people, though.
> Ahh, so "subjective" and "objective" really means the same in the end?
> What a hilarious notion.
No, it's probably a false distinction. I don't claim to be certain
about that, but that's how it looks to me. I can't see how it would be
'hilarious', though. Or are you trying contempt? How edifying.
> Yes, and some judgements are based on objective observation,
> quantification and deduction. Others are based on subjective notions.
> Both can be, and are being, criticised, but on vatly diffrerent
> grounds.
I think the difference between so-called 'objective' and 'subjective'
judgements is usually unfairly set up, because people choose simple
'objective' judgements to contrast with complex 'subjective'
judgements. Is it, or is it not, objectively monstrous to casually stub
a cigarette out in a baby's eye? There: an 'objective' ethical
judgement, if you want. I'd rather emphasise it as a judgement on which
we can command universal assent amongst the sane. But it's in a realm
of 'values', usually thought of as 'subjective'. Most of the
'subjective' judgements that happen to be of interest are hard cases,
so we can't command universal assent. But that doesn't stick them into
a different epistemological (ontological?) category
dougw...@gmail.com
il_du...@yahoo.com wrote:
> You remind me of
> the guy in the bar with the blonde ponytail in Good Will Hunting who is
> caught quoting everybody else but can't actually come up with any
> original view of his own.
OK. Who am I quoting?
> Maybe they intend to play poorly. It has happened in the past, ie the
> Sex Pistols and punk in general, as a reaction to the kind of musical
> intellectualism that you seem to be all too much a part of.
Anti-intellectualism is a sad part of Bush's America. I don't
subscribe to it.
> Interesting you should use that analogy given the photo on your
> website. Too much former and not enough latter?
Nice! Clearly, you're taking the moral highground in this discussion.
> Actually the point I was going to make was that being able to empathise
> with the sentiment of the song could be said to be understanding music.
> If YOU mean understanding the mechanics of how the song is put together
> then I think you are talking about understanding composition, not
> music. But of course, you know all there is to know about jazz guitar
> since the year dot... and you copped all the licks etc... good for you.
Actually, that's not at all what I was saying. You are great at making
these straw man arguments, but they have no bearing on reality.
> You don't have to understand music to appreciate it. It's often an
> emotional reaction... you like, you don't necessarily understand why.
No arguments there. The only think I object to is when amateur/fans
equate their opinions/feelings with that of a more informed person.
I can talk all day about how I prefer Donizetti operas to Mozart, but
someone who knows more than I about opera has a more valid
opinion on the topic and can show me things I do not know. And
I respect those who know more than I do. You, and others, do not.
And this isn't about technical analyses.
> As far as I can see, you sound like a jazz encyclopedia, have some
> chops but don't actually bring much to rmmgj. As others have more
> tactfully pointed out your approach is inappropriate if you are trying
> to contribute worthwhile content. This is meant to be a forum for like
> minded individuals, maybe you should start rec.music.makers.guitar.doug
Fine. Let's take a vote. Y'all "like minded" sheep vote on what you
want.
I'll abide by the majority decision in the spirit of democracy.
> How magnanimous of you to lower yourself to taking the controversial
> stance on everything. Actaully, this is very easy, there's no skill in
> it. Most of us actually call it "being contrary", as in Mary, Mary...
> and nursery rhymes are about an appropriate level for you abilities to
> debate.
Oh, OK.
> Apologies to the rest of the group for this attack, but Tom was just
> trying to start some discussion, it wasn't particularly controversial,
> and yet Schmoug has to open his trap yet again.
Schmoug? Wow.
> Hasn't he got any gigs to practice for? Oops, forgot, he knows it all
> already... grrr.
You're projecting a lot. I don't know shit, compared to some. But
because
it's more than you, you're mad at me.
Joey Goldstein
Thingo wrote:
>
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
> .
> >
> > Yep. To the people with your values (mine too, maybe) it's a bitch.
> > But there are also ways that what you or I see as good or even great art
> > can find it's place in a democracy, as it seems to continue to do.
> > People who are driven to do art just seem to keep doing it even without
> > the patronage of kings and queens and princes. Some within the masses of
> > ignorant plebes are drawn to it too from time to time. All is well.
>
> I don't think all is well at all. There's a lot of deep unease amongst
> many about extremist consumerist culture. You may not share that
> unease, and you may be right not to. But it's not just *obvious* that
> 'all is well'. Read Jared Diamond, Jane Jacobs, Ronald Wright, Clive
> Hamilton and others.
>
> > What's your beef? You'd rather have a philosopher king, a benevolent
> > dictator type of thing?
>
> (well, yes, but only if it's me).
>
> Well, my beefs in this context are 2: (1) radical subjectivism.
What's that? And who are its major proponents or spokespeople?
> I think
> it's false,
Not sure?
> and it's certainly a waning star in philosophy/aesthetics.
And I never knew it was shining at all. Go figure.
> A lazy ahistorical hangover '60's thing, really.
I have a funny feeling that with the current administration in the US
you're about to see a resurgence of 60's values. (At least I hope so.)
And it's about f...... time if you ask me. People at large were into
music for music's sake in the 60's. People were inot social change in
the 60's. I miss the 60's.
> (2)
> consumer-fundamentalist culture,
Fundamentalist consumerism? Oh, you mean "capitalism". Yeah, well,
history is written by the victors. So capitalism is the winner. But, oh
yeah, there's still China. Damn.
> as (perhaps?) invented in the US and
> now a fast-spreading virus. I think there's a philosophical link
> between the two (ie. if someone's susceptible to one, they'll tend to
> fall for both).
--
dougw...@gmail.com
il_du...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I agree entirely Tom. That's the point I was trying to make below. I
> was trying to clarify Doug's position on this one before I stuck my oar
> in the water and all I got back was attitude and aggression.
You're just salty because I asked you to keep your comments
on the forum. If you look back, I actually agreed with your first
post on this topic. Again, technical analysis is not the issue,
but you can't really understand the shit until you delve deeper
into the music. It's no more quantifiable than that, I'm afraid.
Joey Goldstein
Thingo wrote:
>
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> > OK. We know your position. Now prove it, or at least back it up somehow.
>
> I can't (just as you can't prove 'subjectivism'). And if I could, it
> would need a book. Others have written those.
>
> I'm mainly challenging the automatic assumption of subjectivity. It's
> become a bit of a dogma;
It has?
> let's just keep aware that it's just one way
> to think about music (or ethics, or anything with values involved), and
> not everyone accepts it. Accepting it tends,
Accepting it tends to be subjective?
> I think, to acceptance of
> fundamentalist consumerism. And that's dangerous.
>
> > No he didn't. His values are subjective. Where did he mention objective values?
>
> Depends what you mean.
I mean that *he* decides what *he values*.
> He said he ranks music on a 'heart and soul'
> scale, and that some (commercial) music doesn't have it. That's a
> statement regarding an objective value.
No it isn't. It's a subjective value. Sheesh.
How is getting a feeling of heart and soul from a piece of music
objective in any way at all?
> He's since retracted that,
> falling back to the 'I just like what I like' position, which is a
> different matter entirely.
>
> > > Extreme
> > > subjectivism always self-destructs that way.
> >
> > How so.
>
> Because when pressed, a subjectivist is always at some point going to
> say what it is about music (books, behaviour) that they like.
Right. They are going to have values *of their own*.
> Then it's
> easy to point out how that's a judgement no less 'objective' (or
> subjective) than any other,
No it isn't. It's completely subjective.
> and then they retract for a while. Sooner
> or later, if pressed, they'll try a different formulation for what they
> like, and the game starts again.
The only way they could "retract" would be to be forced to accept
somebody else's values as being worth more than their own. That's the
equivalent of intellectual slavery.
> I'm not saying that music judgements are objective, either, by the way.
What are you trying to say then?
> The objective/subjective distinction just doesn't mean that much when
> looked at closely. But once the distinction's gone, you no longer have
> any sequestered set of 'subjective' judgements, immune from criticism.
Who ever said that subjective judgements were immune from criticism?
If I love a piece of music that you think sucks and you explain to me
what it is that you think sucks I either consider closely what you say
or I don't. And then *I* make up *my own mind*.
> We all make judgements, they can all be discussed /criticised etc as
> judgements. That's it.
Well then we agree.
Thingo
> > I think
> > it's false,
>
> Not sure?
No, people have been debating this stuff since .. well, since people
have been debating anything, I guess. If it were simple enough for
certainty, we might have stopped by now. I'm content to have a
contingent position on the matter.
> I have a funny feeling that with the current administration in the US
> you're about to see a resurgence of 60's values. (At least I hope so.)
> And it's about f...... time if you ask me. People at large were into
> music for music's sake in the 60's. People were inot social change in
> the 60's. I miss the 60's.
Me too, even though I wasn't there. I'm not attacking the '60's en
bloc. I think I would have felt more at home then than now. I'm just
attacking one intellectual thread that emerged strongly from that
period (and there were probably good political reactive reasons to
object to the 'objectivism' about values of the '50's). Of course it's
been around in one form or other forever.
>
> > (2)
> > consumer-fundamentalist culture,
>
> Fundamentalist consumerism? Oh, you mean "capitalism".
No. There are as many forms of 'capitalism' as their are OECD members.
Huge differences between equally 'capitalist' countries on dimensions
such as happiness, violence, trust, etc.
What makes something 'fundamentalist' is a (usually inconsistent,
intemperate and hypocritical) elevating of one value above all others.
Consumer fundamentalism is paradoxical in pretending it endorses *no*
values (subjectivism), hence elevating consumer choice above
everything. Forgetting, for example, that we're also all producers (so
attacking workers' rights, collective action etc). Forgetting that
large corporations gain ever more control over what's presented to
kids, which will affect their so-called 'choices' in the future, etc.
Some countries seem to do a better job than others of blending
consumerism with other stuff. The Anglo countries are the worst, for
some reason.
Joey Goldstein
dougw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Anti-intellectualism is a sad part of Bush's America. I don't
> subscribe to it.
It started *WAY* before Bush.
Early 1900's probably. Some would probably even see early jazz as a
symptom of it, along with the DaDa art movement.
I see punk and hip-hop as the current evolution of it.
Still, there are some Dada pieces I've seen that I liked. Something
about a toilet I think.
I liked the Sex Pistols version of My Way.
I'm starting to like Eminem a bit too.
Do I think that stuff's great? Nope.
But somebody does. And that somebody probably know a shitload more than
i do about Dada, punk rock and/or hip hop.
Thingo
> No it isn't. It's a subjective value. Sheesh.
> How is getting a feeling of heart and soul from a piece of music
> objective in any way at all?
Put the way Tom put it, it's a property of the music itself (not one's
perception of it), hence objective (on one gloss of the term, anyway).
He even suggested causal factors that led to the presence/absence of
the property (moneymindedness vs humanity).
>
> The only way they could "retract" would be to be forced to accept
> somebody else's values as being worth more than their own. That's the
> equivalent of intellectual slavery.
That's not true. We might only know what it is about music we like
after reflection; and that reflection might be aided by, amongst other
things, conversation about music.
I'm not claiming we can somehow 'prove' that one piece of music is
better than another. That doesn't follow from a critique of a
subjectivist position.
>
> Who ever said that subjective judgements were immune from criticism?
> If I love a piece of music that you think sucks and you explain to me
> what it is that you think sucks I either consider closely what you say
> or I don't. And then *I* make up *my own mind*.
That's fair enough. I put my point clumsily.
> > We all make judgements, they can all be discussed /criticised etc as
> > judgements. That's it.
>
> Well then we agree.
>
Good.
Joey Goldstein
You mean that they temper capitalism with socialism. Canada, my country,
is a pretty good example of that, on a good day. But capitalism is a
greedy proposition by definition. Both capitalism and communism need to
have the whole world capitalist or communist in order to really work
though. I think in the long run they'll both burn out, probably taking
us all with them.
I tend to believe in the middle ground in all things, especially
politics.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Was that Jesus or a
Greek dude?)
Everything in moderation.
That's as close as I come to absolutes in my life. But obviously, even
this is subjective.
Oh, and Semper Ubi Sub Ubi (Always Where Under Where).
And...Never pee into the wind.
Thingo
> You mean that they temper capitalism with socialism. Canada, my country,
> is a pretty good example of that, on a good day.
My current country (Australia) had some elements of that also.
Unfortunately we've been ruled since 1996 by a ghastly little retro
50's accountant wannabee-redneck. Homoerotically deep with the US
neocons. We call him Bonsai.
>
> Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Was that Jesus or a
> Greek dude?)
I remember reading a paper by some anthropologist claiming that a
version of it was near-universal. But it was written in the '60's.
>
> That's as close as I come to absolutes in my life. But obviously, even
> this is subjective.
Oh no it's not ..
Joey Goldstein
Thingo wrote:
>
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
> > No it isn't. It's a subjective value. Sheesh.
> > How is getting a feeling of heart and soul from a piece of music
> > objective in any way at all?
>
> Put the way Tom put it, it's a property of the music itself (not one's
> perception of it), hence objective (on one gloss of the term, anyway).
> He even suggested causal factors that led to the presence/absence of
> the property (moneymindedness vs humanity).
>
> >
> > The only way they could "retract" would be to be forced to accept
> > somebody else's values as being worth more than their own. That's the
> > equivalent of intellectual slavery.
>
> That's not true. We might only know what it is about music we like
> after reflection; and that reflection might be aided by, amongst other
> things, conversation about music.
And then we make up *our own minds*.
> I'm not claiming we can somehow 'prove' that one piece of music is
> better than another.
That's exactly Doug's position, assuming I understand him.
> That doesn't follow from a critique of a
> subjectivist position.
A critique of *a* single subjectivist position, or, a critique of the
subjective nature of the "worth" of art? We are discusiing the latter,
or so I thought.
And it does follow that, if there are objective criteria for the worth
of art, we can indeed prove that one piece of music is better than
another. Of course that's the opposite of my own position though.
But hey, I'm a musician. If someone can demonstrate these absolutes to
me in a way that convinces me, then I'm all for it. Even then though,
I'd still be making up my own mind. But I'm, admittedly, pretty
entrenched in my present world-view.
Thingo
> That's exactly Doug's position, assuming I understand him.
Doug's position is stronger than mine.
> A critique of *a* single subjectivist position, or, a critique of the
> subjective nature of the "worth" of art? We are discusiing the latter,
> or so I thought.
> And it does follow that, if there are objective criteria for the worth
> of art, we can indeed prove that one piece of music is better than
> another. Of course that's the opposite of my own position though.
'Criteria' muddles things here. We don't have any 'criteria' for many
so-called physical (and 'objective' to some) judgements either. Some
(eg. involving complex dynamic systems) are even *in principle*
undecideable, but we don't assume that results from 'subjectivity'.
All judgements are uncertain. Some classes of judgmements (especially
in ethics and aesthetics) have seemed to some more uncertain than
others, so they've stuck them in a seperate epistemological category,
and in many cases taken this to derive from something
metaphysical/ontological (ie. objective physical stuff in the world,
subjective values in the mind/brain/soul/whatever). I see no reason for
that move. And it's up to those who think there's a reason to split
reality into these utterly distinct categories to give a good reason
for it.
>
> But hey, I'm a musician. If someone can demonstrate these absolutes to
> me in a way that convinces me, then I'm all for it. Even then though,
> I'd still be making up my own mind. But I'm, admittedly, pretty
> entrenched in my present world-view.
>
Just because values are no more 'subjective' than anything else,
doesn't make anyone's judgements about anything else are 'absolute'.
There are better and worse judgements. There is expertise. But experts
can still make worse judgements than plebs, and often do. There is a
'fact of the matter' (in my opinion) just as much regarding a judgement
regarding music as regarding weather predictions, but that doesn't mean
we can be certain of either. No 'absolutes' to be found in our
judgements (in the world, perhaps, but we can only perceive and make
our own judgements about that).
Out of interest, haven't you ever (say, when you were younger) had
someone point something out to you about a piece of music that you
hadn't noticed, or hadn't had the ears to hear, which later spoilt your
pleasure in it because you realised that they were *right*? Or the
opposite--as a result of ear training or conversation or familiarity
with other music in a tradition, come to hear something after all in a
piece of music you had previously disliked? Do you think these are
changes are *merely* a result of taste? It seems to me that sometimes
they result from growth in *knowledge*.
Tone
> judgements is usually unfairly set up, because people choose simple
> 'objective' judgements to contrast with complex 'subjective'
> judgements. Is it, or is it not, objectively monstrous to casually stub
> a cigarette out in a baby's eye? There: an 'objective' ethical
> judgement, if you want. I'd rather emphasise it as a judgement on which
> we can command universal assent amongst the sane. But it's in a realm
> of 'values', usually thought of as 'subjective'. Most of the
> 'subjective' judgements that happen to be of interest are hard cases,
> so we can't command universal assent. But that doesn't stick them into
> a different epistemological (ontological?) category
Interesting. Not sure about the assent among the sane - might get a
little recursive there trying to get universal assent on who's sane -
but the basic point is intestesting.
Pt
Wow!
A flame war!!
Kuwell!!!!
Pt
ken
> What Tom is doing is common in today's world. People who are
> deficient in areas they wish they weren't tend to use whatever
> means necessary to equalize eveything and remove value from
> everything so that they can feel better about their own level,
> which is almost always a low one.
It's like the schools; if you get bad grades, it's not the kids, it's
the system. It's the tests. The kids aren't too stupid, it's just
that that the tests are too hard! Come on!
I agree, there is a lot of this going on everywhere that really reduces
the quality of many things.
Anyway Doug, I completely agree with what you're saying, but I don't
know why you even bother arguing these same points over and over.
There are many people that agree with you, I'm sure, but don't want to
bother with this stuff, especially when you have to deal with the same
people (and you know it's gonna get personal!)
It's just mind-boggling to me that there is any question to this
stuff...
On the other hand, I think I see evidence here why our culture is going
down the tubes..
It's just ironic because I wouldn't have expected that here...
Anyway, I'm not here to jump into the argument... I've already been
through it once just last month. So don't bother responding to this.
It's just my impression and reaction to this thread. No facts, just my
humble, worthless opinion.
Ken
Thingo
>
> Interesting. Not sure about the assent among the sane - might get a
> little recursive there trying to get universal assent on who's sane -
True. But that's equally true of perceptual judgements: if someone
doesn't see something everyone else does, or sees something everyone
else doesn't, ultimately we don't dive into 'subjectivity', but rather
assume something's wrong with their equipment, so to speak. We might be
making a mistake, of course, so our judgment isn't 'absolute', but
that's how we go on.
Joey Goldstein
They result from a change in *my* experience of the music.
Joey Goldstein
ken wrote:
>
> dougw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > What Tom is doing is common in today's world. People who are
> > deficient in areas they wish they weren't tend to use whatever
> > means necessary to equalize eveything and remove value from
> > everything so that they can feel better about their own level,
> > which is almost always a low one.
>
> It's like the schools; if you get bad grades, it's not the kids, it's
> the system. It's the tests. The kids aren't too stupid, it's just
> that that the tests are too hard! Come on!
That's got nothing to do with this. Sheesh.
If I'm teaching a music course there will be absolutes as far as knowing
the course material or not. Someone who doesn't know the material will
fail. That doesn't mean that music has absolutes that govern its worth.
It means that music courses, a very very small part of the overall scope
of what music is, have absolutes. You guys are ridiculous. You're
equating a whole world of PC related bullshit to a discussion that has
little if anything to do with that. Try starting another thread maybe if
you all want to pine about the way political correctness has gotten out
of hand. And then you can get back on topic and list some musical absolutes.
Doug and Ken:
Please arrange the names of the following artists according their
absolute rank in the categories of best to worst music (top to bottom
respectively please) as well as greatest to least great (also top to
bottom).
And give us your reasons, the ones that are in the nature of being "absolutes".
Duke Ellington
Louis Armstrong
Charlie Parker
Igor Stravinsky
J. S. Bach
Beethoven
Lennon-McCartney
George Gershwin
Ornette Coleman
If you can do this with reasons that are reasonable then I might take
your position more seriously. Otherwise you're just as subjective as the
rest of us.
And again...
Who is more absolutely beautiful: Kate Bosworth or your own wife?
With reasons please.
> I agree, there is a lot of this going on everywhere that really reduces
> the quality of many things.
>
> Anyway Doug, I completely agree with what you're saying, but I don't
> know why you even bother arguing these same points over and over.
> There are many people that agree with you, I'm sure, but don't want to
> bother with this stuff, especially when you have to deal with the same
> people (and you know it's gonna get personal!)
>
> It's just mind-boggling to me that there is any question to this
> stuff...
My sentiments exactly.
> On the other hand, I think I see evidence here why our culture is going
> down the tubes..
>
> It's just ironic because I wouldn't have expected that here...
>
> Anyway, I'm not here to jump into the argument... I've already been
> through it once just last month. So don't bother responding to this.
>
> It's just my impression and reaction to this thread. No facts, just my
> humble, worthless opinion.
>
> Ken
--
Thingo
>
> They result from a change in *my* experience of the music.
OK, so on a holiday, you go out into the Australian bush, and hate it.
Just gum trees that look drab and wilted, and with diseased-looking
bark that's peeling off. A friendly native with a corked hat "nah,
mate, you've got it all wrong. Let me show you around, cobber". You
spend some days with this generous fellow, and he shows you how the
'one' kind of tree is actually a variety of different eucalypts. Over
time you learn to name and thus differentiate them. You discover that
the 'wilted' appearance of the leaves is an adaptation to Australia's
fierce sun, and that the bark peels off to protect from pests, exposing
the beautiful bone-white of the trunk. Soon you find that you see
everything differently, and find it beautiful.
Your 'experience' has been transformed, certainly. But this has
happened via a deepening of your *knowledge*. You see more,
differentiate more, understand the relations between things better.
Your initial judgement was *in error*.
I don't see any relevant difference between this kind of case and what
happens when you learn to like/dislike music as you develop your ear,
historical knowledge, etc.
tomb...@jhu.edu
>
> OK, so on a holiday, you go out into the Australian bush, and hate it.
> Just gum trees that look drab and wilted, and with diseased-looking
> bark that's peeling off. A friendly native with a corked hat "nah,
> mate, you've got it all wrong. Let me show you around, cobber". You
> spend some days with this generous fellow, and he shows you how the
> 'one' kind of tree is actually a variety of different eucalypts. Over
> time you learn to name and thus differentiate them. You discover that
> the 'wilted' appearance of the leaves is an adaptation to Australia's
> fierce sun, and that the bark peels off to protect from pests, exposing
> the beautiful bone-white of the trunk. Soon you find that you see
> everything differently, and find it beautiful.
Meanwhile, a dingo is eating your baby...
> Your 'experience' has been transformed, certainly. But this has
> happened via a deepening of your *knowledge*. You see more,
> differentiate more, understand the relations between things better.
> Your initial judgement was *in error*.
>
> I don't see any relevant difference between this kind of case and what
> happens when you learn to like/dislike music as you develop your ear,
> historical knowledge, etc.
I buy this comparison. Fits in with my speculation that musical tastes
stem more from familiarity and socialization than anything else. But
there is still no rational basis for saying the Australian outback is
more beautiful than California's Death Valley, or that an experts in
deserts is better at determining which one is most beautiful.
Thingo
No, I'm assuming the holidaymaker is Texan. His baby sits on a dingo ..
> I buy this comparison. Fits in with my speculation that musical tastes
> stem more from familiarity and socialization than anything else.
But it's more than familiarity, it's knowledge. The experienced
traveller knows more at the end of the trip than he initially did. His
initial reaction was a *mistake*.
> But
> there is still no rational basis for saying the Australian outback is
> more beautiful than California's Death Valley, or that an experts in
> deserts is better at determining which one is most beautiful.
Well, such a comparison would be vastly complex and undecideable, just
like figuring out how a complex physical system works. The problem in
such a case wouldn't be that the aesthetic difference is 'subjective',
but that it's too complex to figure out, or a simple preference/liking
judgement would be too crude to map onto such a huge and complex
comparison.
Some judgements can be made just because we happen have the language to
express them in, but that doesn't mean they always make sense.
Joey Goldstein
Thingo wrote:
>
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
> >
> > They result from a change in *my* experience of the music.
>
> OK, so on a holiday, you go out into the Australian bush, and hate it.
> Just gum trees that look drab and wilted, and with diseased-looking
> bark that's peeling off. A friendly native with a corked hat "nah,
> mate, you've got it all wrong. Let me show you around, cobber". You
> spend some days with this generous fellow, and he shows you how the
> 'one' kind of tree is actually a variety of different eucalypts. Over
> time you learn to name and thus differentiate them. You discover that
> the 'wilted' appearance of the leaves is an adaptation to Australia's
> fierce sun, and that the bark peels off to protect from pests, exposing
> the beautiful bone-white of the trunk. Soon you find that you see
> everything differently, and find it beautiful.
Except that *I'm* not likely to find *that* beautiful. Me, in the
outback? Not bloody likely.
Of course I might. But that's up to me.
My denstist is trying educate me now about why he thinks I need to spend
$2k for a crown on my right-side lower molar even though most of my
actual pain is happening in a right side upper molar. He can't see
anything wrong with the upper but notices a small crack in the lower.
Now that I've received his letter of assessment and his projected
invoice I know a lot more about molars and dentistry than I did
previously. But I still hate getting my teeth drilled.
> Your 'experience' has been transformed, certainly. But this has
> happened via a deepening of your *knowledge*. You see more,
> differentiate more, understand the relations between things better.
Yes, music appreaciation very often increases with familiarity with the
material and with study of the material. Happens to me all the time. But
sometimes it doesn't.
> Your initial judgement was *in error*.
Nonsense. Just because you love the bush doesn;t mean that I will, even
if you show me why you love it. My initial understandings and
assumptions may have been in error. My judgement can only be seen as
having been in error if I decide to change it and if I decide to see it
that way.
In music judgement errors take the form of playing ahead or behind the
beat when trying to play on the beat. Playing noticeably sharp or flat
when trying trying to play with 3 or 4 cents of 12 TET A = 440. Playing
a Bb when I intended to play an A. But, after having played Bb I might
decide that I like it better.
> I don't see any relevant difference between this kind of case and what
> happens when you learn to like/dislike music as you develop your ear,
> historical knowledge, etc.
You're right. That was a pretty good analogy. It's just not a convincing
argument, that's all. Show me why I absolutely have to love that tree
and the outback and then we can talk.
Thingo
>
> You're right. That was a pretty good analogy. It's just not a convincing
> argument, that's all. Show me why I absolutely have to love that tree
> and the outback and then we can talk.
>
What I'm arguing is that many transitions in what some people like to
call 'taste' are not a matter of mere 'subjective' changes in
experience, but result from greater knowledge. It's a further move on
my part to break down what I see as an intrinsically implausible
objective/subjective distinction.
No-one could force you to like the landscape. I already agreed with you
on the lack of any means of making 'absolute' judgements that could
somehow force agreement. How would that happen, with this or any other
domain of knowledge?
But they could help you see enough distinctions and detail such that
you might eventually come to do so (and you have no way of denying that
possibility without going through the process, just as I have no way of
knowing that I wouldn't come to like Charles Ives if I listened enough
with the right kind of attention, with the right kind of teacher). If
you continued not to like that landscape, well, you would at that point
at least be disliking it in a different way. It wouldn't be the same
negative judgement as you made in the beginning. So it would be open to
new challenges, and the conversation would move on differently. But
please note that if you did after all come to like that landscape, it
would be a result of seeing and experiencing it, not just differently,
but *better*, more accurately.
Mike C.
news:1136959227.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> tomb...@jhu.edu wrote:
>>
>> Meanwhile, a dingo is eating your baby...
>>
>
> No, I'm assuming the holidaymaker is Texan. His baby sits on a dingo ..
>
>> I buy this comparison. Fits in with my speculation that musical tastes
>> stem more from familiarity and socialization than anything else.
>
> But it's more than familiarity, it's knowledge. The experienced
> traveller knows more at the end of the trip than he initially did. His
> initial reaction was a *mistake*.
This is ludicrous. How can one's opinion be a *mistake*? An opinion is an
opinion. My opinion about something is valid; it's my opinion. If my opinion
changes, it is because my viewpoint has changed for some reason or another.
The first thing I would tell someone else about the subject at hand(the
Australian outback, in this example) is to not come into it the same way
that I did, else they will have a bad opinion of it. Their opinion will be
correct, considering the circumstances. However, having my own experience,
or said expert having more or different experience, one of us may be able to
give insight into how to change that opinion, to change one's experience
with the Australian outback. The original opinion is still valid, for *that*
person, in *that* set of circumstances.
Sheesh, nice to hear from an oracle who can actually tell us when our
opinions and/or reactions are wrong or mistakes. Pretention will get you
everywhere.
>> But
>> there is still no rational basis for saying the Australian outback is
>> more beautiful than California's Death Valley, or that an experts in
>> deserts is better at determining which one is most beautiful.
>
> Well, such a comparison would be vastly complex and undecideable, just
> like figuring out how a complex physical system works. The problem in
> such a case wouldn't be that the aesthetic difference is 'subjective',
> but that it's too complex to figure out, or a simple preference/liking
> judgement would be too crude to map onto such a huge and complex
> comparison.
Oh, what a crock. You like the heat, so you have a different version of what
beautiful is. How complex is that? You're going to put absolute criteria on
one's aesthetic experience? Fraud.
> Some judgements can be made just because we happen have the language to
> express them in, but that doesn't mean they always make sense.
Mental masturbation. How much of this stuff are you reading right from the
encyclopedia?
Thingo
> (nothing with any content, so excised)
Mike, as all you're willing to write is abuse, you're only just worth
responding to, and I can only be bothered to because I'm
procrastinating on some more significant stuff I have to do today. The
account I've sketched out wouldn't be totally unfamiliar to anyone who
reads, well, just about anything about contemporary philosophy or
cognitive science. Just because a blank unargued-for subjectivism has
been pushed in pop culture for the last x years and thus framed your
unquestioning stare, doesn't make it the only position worth talking
about.
If you don't think anything other than subjectivism about values is
worth even thinking about, just don't read it.
FirstAlternate
> stuff, or anything that was made solely for making money.
I'll differ with you there. If I like the tune, I don't care why the guy
wrote it. If I don't like it, all the soul and humanity he throws at it
won't change anything. To me the music stands alone, regardless of the
intentions or emotional state of the composer.
ken
some of the greats has nothing to do with my argument that there is
more to music than liking and hating it.
The basic argument you guys are making that I disagree with completely
is that you guys say that all that matters is whether you like
something or not and that there is nothing more to music than that.
That's what I disagree with completely. We've been through this
before, but again, that view completely disregards or disrepects any
sort of accomplishment (whatever you feel that may be) of
artists/musicians, and it's a blatant refusal to acknowledge that there
might be something deeper in music and art.
You made a comment in the last round that "all that matters is whether
you like something or not...".
That's true for music fans and consumers, and even other musicians when
it comes to deciding what you want to listen to. That's totally fine.
I never disagreed with that as a factor in choosing what you listen
to.
It's when you refuse to believe there is anything more to it than that
where I disagree.
The other comment that I don't understand is when someone said of
Myle's clip "I don't even have to hear the clip to be able to tell you
that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it."
That comment makes no sense to me.
Another comment is:
"Shonen Knife is as valuable to me as Coltrane. I understand the
difference, but I still like them both. To say that Coltrane's music is
more valuable than Shonen Knife's music is--for me--almost like saying
that Shonen Knife are less valuable as human beings, and I find that
sentiment extremely disturbing."
I find this comment extremely disturbing, especially coming from
someone who claims to be a musician. It just makes no sense. It's
like, Shonen Knife is not doing this stuff for money?
Anyway, there's just too much wrong with this that I don't even know
where to start...
When I speak of absolutes, I don't mean that I can put numbers on
something and rank it like someone's height or track speed.
I mean that there is something called artistic merit or whatever that
goes beyond merely liking something or not.
Brown likes Trane and Shonen Knife. That's perfectly fine with me.
But to put them on equal footing artistically speaking because they are
both "human beings" just makes no sense to me. I just don't get it.
This is what I mean by saying "no wonder our culture is going down the
drain..."
I just don't understand how any of you can agree with this stuff...
But that's OK. Like I said, that's enough for me this round. I'm not
going to ride this thread to 400 posts!
Anyway, have fun.
Ken
Tom Walls
dougw...@gmail.com says...
>
> That no one but me is willing to call out this nonsense speaks
> volumes and makes me wonder if many of you agree with Tom.
> If so, I'm sad for you. Pmfan seems to get it. Striving for
> improvement is essential. Convincing one's self that their
> mediocrity(at best) is of value is pathetic.
>
Cutting edge, innovative, world-renown, virtuoso jazz is remarkable and
fascinating and it's also the tip of the iceberg. The majority of jazz
is being played by amateur and semi-professional players. Some of it is
dreck, most of it is mediocre, and some is beautiful. All of the above
keeps the music alive, and convincing yourself that only the elite music
is meaningful is a trap. Ear of the behearer, snowflake.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
dougw...@gmail.com
Tom Walls wrote:
>convincing yourself that only the elite music
> is meaningful is a trap. Ear of the behearer, snowflake.
Straw men galore.
If you ever dealt with what I actually said, things would be
a lot different.
I never said anything was without meaning. But you, like others,
can't or don't want to have the real argument so you make your
cute little straw men and try to attribute an argument to me
that I'm not making.
It's not working.
Tom Walls
dougw...@gmail.com says...
You said "That no one but me is willing to call out this nonsense speaks
volumes and makes me wonder if many of you agree with Tom.
If so, I'm sad for you. Pmfan seems to get it. Striving for
improvement is essential. Convincing one's self that their
mediocrity(at best) is of value is pathetic."
I'm just answering your question. I say that all this mediocre jazz is
meaningful to the players and listeners, and important to the future of
the music, and therefor has value. Do you think that's "pathetic" or was
this a poor choice of words on your part?
If I misuderstand you, let me assure you that it's genuine. I have no
agenda, noone to impress, nothing invested in the argument: I'm just
participating in the dialogue. That's why I'm here.
dougw...@gmail.com
Tom Walls wrote:
> I'm just answering your question. I say that all this mediocre jazz is
> meaningful to the players and listeners, and important to the future of
> the music, and therefor has value. Do you think that's "pathetic" or was
> this a poor choice of words on your part?
No I do not.
If something has meaning to someone, that's all well and good,
and I respect that. What I don't respect is equating that meaning
with overall artistic value, and not only that, but what Tom Brown
does, is elevate mediocrity or worse to the level of greatness
solely based on two things.
One, the feelings of a particular individual.
Two, this notion that because a written thesis cannot be given
to prove on a newsgroup that there is objective artistic value,
that it does not exist. Furthermore, it is amateur musicians
who assert this and claim victory over it, which only reinforces
my contention that these people are not content to be where
they are at, but are more concerned with the fallacy that
because there is no artistic value, whatever they can do
themselves must be equal to the things they find to be
meaningful to them. It makes them feel better. And when
a sincere, talented young guitarist comes on here and
wants criticism and is told that there is no point, that
what he does is beautiful and needs no improvement,
that feeds into the perpetuation of mediocrity and the
acceptance of it that is so prevalent today.
Tom Walls
dougw...@gmail.com says...
I get your point, but still think that the "snowflake" argument has
merit, even though it didn't seem to be pertinent in that particular
instance. I'd like to point out, though, that Miles got a lot of good
constructive criticism, which is what he came for, so all's well in
mudville!
I'm wondering whether you -- or anyone else -- thinks that everyone who
posts clips should be held to the same standard. The young student who
aspires to a career as a professional guitarist, and the middle-aged guy
who aspires to a once-a-week gig in a restaurant. I, personally, play a
lot of stuff that I can enjoy listening to, but on the other hand, you
give me a tune that's constantly shifting key centers and I'm in over my
head. Do you think it's phony and hypocritical to give the amateur who
struggles through ATTYA without any major errors a "well done!"? I often
will congratulate players on their accomplishments and leave the
criticism to those with more insight, and I don't see anything
hypocritical or pathetic about doing so.
Tone
Yeah, in a way. But if you're a student or whatever you get a
handicap... or you're in the minor leagues or AA or juniors, or masters
or whatever. The non-pro sports leagues arose because there is an
objective standard - the pro's - but people need to come up and need
somewhere to do it, or they are no longer at pro level due to phyiscal
infirmity but they still have it all upstairs. Same with music. There
is a real standard - the big league. And if you're not in it you're not
judged at that level, for practical reasons. You're in the BSO or
you're not. You might get called for an audition when a seat opens and
in the mean time you play in the community orchestras or the Vermont
Symphony Orchestra or whatever, where you'll be judged according to the
VSO standards, which are not as high as the BSO's and everyone involved
knows it.
But I think the rub is about whether you hold everyone's opinions of
music to the same standard.
You say you leave criticism to those with more insight, which seems
reasonable. Will being a professional musican will have resulted in a
poster's insight into music being greater than that of a young student
or middle-aged guy who aspires to once-a-week restaurant gigs? For the
most part I assume it will.
Tom Walls
a.ko...@computer.org says...
>
> You say you leave criticism to those with more insight, which seems
> reasonable. Will being a professional musican will have resulted in a
> poster's insight into music being greater than that of a young student
> or middle-aged guy who aspires to once-a-week restaurant gigs? For the
> most part I assume it will.
>
>
>
opinion according to the individual's credibility and proven expertise,
and -- in the end -- the opinion will stand or fall based on it's own
merits, regardless of the source.
FWIW I'm not averse to criticism when I feel I have something to offer.
I'd also like to add that I may very well enjoy the efforts of the
"middle-aged-guy-WATOAWRG" every bit as much or more than the "pro-mu".
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
>
> Bragging about his money, as Tom does, speaks volumes about
> him and his life and what he's upset about not acheiving, even
> though he's convinced himself that he's capable of anything
> musically.
I've never heard Tom say he's capable of anything musically.
If people like him admit to value in art, it will become
> clear to them that they have failed in it, and they do not want
> to do this.
>
> He has no problem making value judgements when it suits him,
> yet at other times, he compares some ridiculous Japanese
> pop band to Coltrane. Because he is lacking in ability to
> understand music, he makes the grandiose statement that
> music has no value.
>
> That no one but me is willing to call out this nonsense speaks
> volumes and makes me wonder if many of you agree with Tom.
I agree with Tom. Sorry Doug. Value isn't a popularity contest, even
a popularity contest among your very smartest peers.
BTW, everyone makes value judgements. This is part of being a grownup,
and not a bad thing as you imply. Accepting the fact that other people
will make different value judgements than you is also a part of being a
grownup. A lack of tolerance of other people's values and judgements is
one reason our political discourse is at such a wonderful level here in
the states.
You are far younger than I, but IIRC you are a new father. I think
that the experience of parenthood will change your view of this in ways
you may not yet anticipate. Enjoy the trip.
Best,
Steve
> If so, I'm sad for you. Pmfan seems to get it. Striving for
> improvement is essential. Convincing one's self that their
> mediocrity(at best) is of value is pathetic.
>
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
>
>
> Everyone's at a low level at something.
> Everyone's at a low level anyway.
> We're all gonna die y'know. One day the bugs and bacteria eating your
> dead body will be doing more creative work than you'll be able to do.
> (Don't know where I'm going with this...Stop me now!!!!)
I'm gonna write this down and repeat it over and over to myself
whenever I start to feel too good--thanks! ;-)
>
> And Tom's not removing value from anything. He's imbuing value in places
> where you don't happen to sse it. And your personal attacks on him
> aren't really helping you to make your case.
>
>
>>Bragging about his money, as Tom does, speaks volumes about
>>him and his life and what he's upset about not acheiving, even
>>though he's convinced himself that he's capable of anything
>>musically. If people like him admit to value in art, it will become
>>clear to them that they have failed in it, and they do not want
>>to do this.
>
>
> Most artists are failed artists, and yes it is a bitter pill to swallow.
> But even a failed musician can still have a great time playing music. He
> might even make someone else's life a little bit richer with music.
Well, a musician who has a great time playing music, and who knows he
has made someone's life a little bit richer doesn't sound like a failure
to me. But we have to make our own judgements about what constitutes
success for ourselves.
>
>
>>He has no problem making value judgements when it suits him,
>>yet at other times, he compares some ridiculous Japanese
>>pop band to Coltrane. Because he is lacking in ability to
>>understand music, he makes the grandiose statement that
>>music has no value.
>
>
> I wonder if Coltrane felt he was as grandiose as you make him out to be.
>
>
>>That no one but me is willing to call out this nonsense speaks
>>volumes and makes me wonder if many of you agree with Tom.
>>If so, I'm sad for you. Pmfan seems to get it. Striving for
>>improvement is essential.
>
>
> Certainly. If improvement's what you want then striving for it will be
> necessary. I don't think Tom's against striving. I think he thinks we
> all strive for different things. Even those of us who strive for the
> same thing will have to strive for it in different ways probably
> arriving at different outcomes.
>
>
>>Convincing one's self that their
>>mediocrity(at best) is of value is pathetic.
>
>
> Well it must be rough seeing the vast majority of people on the planet
> as being pathetic, even if it's true.
This is of course not an objective truth. Doug sees a lot of behavior
as pathetic that others may not. This gets back of course as to who has
the right to make that judgement. Not to bring this up again, but I
think he has every right to decide that this Japanese pop bang is silly,
pathetic or any other descriptor--for himself. Not for Tom, and not for me.
Steve
But trying to rise above the
> ultimate pathetic nature of existence is a fool's game. You'll never get
> there. Just try to enjoy the ride man.
charles robinson
newsgroup. Statements such as Tom's have to be viewed from a jazz music
perspective. To suggest, in that light, that some Japanese rock bands music
is as important as John Coltrane's is heresy of the highest order. There are
places where such statements will start a riot.
Charlie
as"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message
news:Ukaxf.6056$Xo5.3018@trnddc02...
Max Leggett
<robins...@comcast.net> wrote:
>True enough but you are forgetting that this this is a jazz guitar
>newsgroup.
Well, I've taken the subject header to heart and I've decided I just
don't like anything. It's all lame. Problem solved.
----------------------------------------
I have had to be diligent. Anyone with equal diligence would have done as much.
Johann Sebastian Bach
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> True enough but you are forgetting that this this is a jazz guitar
> newsgroup. Statements such as Tom's have to be viewed from a jazz music
> perspective. To suggest, in that light, that some Japanese rock bands music
> is as important as John Coltrane's is heresy of the highest order. There are
> places where such statements will start a riot.
Yes I fully expect most (including myself) would value Coltrane's music
over this pop bands. I should make the caveat that I haven't heard the
band, but history and influence speak for themselves.
That of course was my point--judgements are NOT a popularity contest.
One can say that Coltrane has influenced a vastly greater number of
musicians. One can say that Coltrane helped revolutionized harmonic
structure in jazz. One can say all these things--but you cannot say
that Coltrane SHOULD therefore be more valuable to Tom than the Japanese
band.
Yes, there are places where statements like this will start a riot, but
I don't want to live in those places.
Steve
misterwilliamc
> We're all gonna die y'know. One day the bugs and bacteria eating your
> dead body will be doing more creative work than you'll be able to do.
> (Don't know where I'm going with this...Stop me now!!!!)
Finishing up something with elements thereof. Both in terms of body of
clay and music.
Elsewhere:
> I have a funny feeling that with the current administration in the US
> you're about to see a resurgence of 60's values. (At least I hope so.)
> And it's about f...... time if you ask me. People at large were into
> music for music's sake in the 60's. People were inot social change in
> the 60's. I miss the 60's.
Some things are timeless. That bloomings take place here and there at
this time, that, a good thing.
Working on it.
Will probably drop by here with the latest oldest when done.
Max Leggett
<mister...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>> We're all gonna die y'know. One day the bugs and bacteria eating your
>> dead body will be doing more creative work than you'll be able to do.
>> (Don't know where I'm going with this...Stop me now!!!!)
>
>Finishing up something with elements thereof. Both in terms of body of
>clay and music.
Then worms will come and eat thee up, eat thee up
On Ilkley Moor bar t'at
Then worms will come and eat thee
Then worms will come and eat thee
Then worms will come and eat thee up
On Ilkley Moor bar t'at, on Ilkley Moor bar t'at
On Ilkley Moor bar t'at
RickH
Joey Goldstein wrote:
> Thingo wrote:
> >
> > Joey Goldstein wrote:
> > >
> My denstist is trying educate me now about why he thinks I need to spend
> $2k for a crown on my right-side lower molar even though most of my
> actual pain is happening in a right side upper molar. He can't see
> anything wrong with the upper but notices a small crack in the lower.
> Now that I've received his letter of assessment and his projected
> invoice I know a lot more about molars and dentistry than I did
> previously. But I still hate getting my teeth drilled.
>
Joey, this is OT but I had a hairline crack in a lower molar but
strangely all the pain was felt in the upper. One day while eating a
bagel, (the morning of my fathers funeral), the lower tooth peak, where
the crack was, finally cracked off all the way. Suddenly all pain in
the upper was gone. The nerves in this area criss-cross or something.
To this day whenever I feel that cracked lower tooth, I think of my
dad. As I was leaving the house to go bury him that morning, I was
chomping a sticky a bagel that pulled the broken the tooth fragment
off. For a couple years prior I lived with the pain thinking the upper
tooth was bad, when it was really the lower. I dont go to dentists
often enough, and I think my dad somehow left me this little reminder
of him in my mouth. 2k is steep but at least Canada will pay for some
of it.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Your experence is typical--pain is often reflected up and down (not
side to side though).
I had a tough-to-pin down probable crack in a lower molar--sharp pain
to biting. My brother adjusted the bite last month. It felt better (I
wasn't putting as much pressure on it), but I knew something wasn't
quite right.
New Year's eve I pulled out a chunk of the tooth with my floss. My bro
cemented my first crown yesterday, and it's still throbbing. Sometimes
it's good to get a dose of your own medicine...
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
>
>
> My denstist is trying educate me now about why he thinks I need to spend
> $2k for a crown on my right-side lower molar even though most of my
> actual pain is happening in a right side upper molar. He can't see
> anything wrong with the upper but notices a small crack in the lower.
> Now that I've received his letter of assessment and his projected
> invoice I know a lot more about molars and dentistry than I did
> previously. But I still hate getting my teeth drilled.
2K for a single crown--no root canal? Didn't know Toronto was such a
high-rent town.
Steve
>
>
>>Your 'experience' has been transformed, certainly. But this has
>>happened via a deepening of your *knowledge*. You see more,
>>differentiate more, understand the relations between things better.
>
>
> Yes, music appreaciation very often increases with familiarity with the
> material and with study of the material. Happens to me all the time. But
> sometimes it doesn't.
>
>
>>Your initial judgement was *in error*.
>
>
> Nonsense. Just because you love the bush doesn;t mean that I will, even
> if you show me why you love it. My initial understandings and
> assumptions may have been in error. My judgement can only be seen as
> having been in error if I decide to change it and if I decide to see it
> that way.
>
> In music judgement errors take the form of playing ahead or behind the
> beat when trying to play on the beat. Playing noticeably sharp or flat
> when trying trying to play with 3 or 4 cents of 12 TET A = 440. Playing
> a Bb when I intended to play an A. But, after having played Bb I might
> decide that I like it better.
>
>
>>I don't see any relevant difference between this kind of case and what
>>happens when you learn to like/dislike music as you develop your ear,
>>historical knowledge, etc.
>
>
> You're right. That was a pretty good analogy. It's just not a convincing
> argument, that's all. Show me why I absolutely have to love that tree
> and the outback and then we can talk.
>
--
misterwilliamc
>>Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>>(Don't know where I'm going with this...Stop me now!!!!)
> Then worms will come and eat thee up, eat thee up
> On Ilkley Moor bar t'at
> Then worms will come and eat thee
> Then worms will come and eat thee
> Then worms will come and eat thee up
> On Ilkley Moor bar t'at, on Ilkley Moor bar t'at
> On Ilkley Moor bar t'at
Kin to the variants of that old chestnut, The Hearse Song...
Max Leggett
<pass...@windcrestsoftware.com> wrote:
>of him in my mouth. 2k is steep but at least Canada will pay for some
>of it.
Nah - dentistry isn't covered. Which is a REALLY good reason to floss.
dougw...@gmail.com
> I'm wondering whether you -- or anyone else -- thinks that everyone who
> posts clips should be held to the same standard.
No, I do not.
> Do you think it's phony and hypocritical to give the amateur who
> struggles through ATTYA without any major errors a "well done!"?
Not at all. I objected to the extreme position Tom Brown took which
was to say that the young guitarist shouldn't better himself and
look for criticism.
charles robinson
What I am saying is that when you introduce a group into a jazz environment
for comparison with other jazz musicians or groups the criteria for analysis
has to be the same as it is for the jazz groups.This criteria would incude
such things as "Do they swing?, Do they improvise at the same level of
competence as our top level jazz groups? etc.The absurditity of it all is
overwhelming. It doen't matter how good they make Tom and three quarters of
Japan feel,there is no basis for comparison to John Coltrane in within this
context.
Charlie
"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message
news:9Qaxf.2736$7l4.1450@trndny03...
dougw...@gmail.com
Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>I've never heard Tom say he's capable of anything musically.
Then you haven't read all he's written. Particularly on one
occasion, he flat out said that what I've done with my life
is nothing special, for the very reason that he could have
done it if he'd wanted to. He thinks it's just about making
a decision, and that talent has no bearing.
> I agree with Tom. Sorry Doug. Value isn't a popularity contest, even
> a popularity contest among your very smartest peers.
OK. Once again, this is off topic and not related to anything I've said
so far.
> BTW, everyone makes value judgements. This is part of being a grownup,
> and not a bad thing as you imply.
OK, dude. You've been sucking the nitrous at work too much. If you
could go back and read, you would see that it is I who is saying that
value judgements should be made. I think it is a good thing. The
problem
with you and others is that your dislike for me prejudices you in any
discussion where I'm involved, and then you figure out what you think,
and assume that since I'm such a dick, I _must_ disagree with you/
This makes you look ridiculous, Doc. I never said making a value
judgement is a bad thing, in fact, I said the opposite.
> You are far younger than I, but IIRC you are a new father. I think
> that the experience of parenthood will change your view of this in ways
> you may not yet anticipate. Enjoy the trip.
Being a father has changed my entire life for the better. But having
him makes me more and more confident about my beliefs in some
areas. I'm enjoying every minute of the trip. Thanks.
dougw...@gmail.com
charles robinson wrote:
>absurditity of it all is
> overwhelming. It doen't matter how good they make Tom and three quarters of
> Japan feel,there is no basis for comparison to John Coltrane in within this
> context.
Yes, but since you can't "prove" it, Tom will always be able to
"refute" you and feel better about his choices.
Mike C.
news:1136965200.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snipped because you obviously didn't have the tools to answer perfectly
good questions>
So, who is that deems you the judge to decide which opinions are mistaken?
Nice try, troll.
jeff...@yahoo.com
>
> > Your 'experience' has been transformed, certainly. But this has
> > happened via a deepening of your *knowledge*. You see more,
> > differentiate more, understand the relations between things better.
>
> Yes, music appreaciation very often increases with familiarity with the
> material and with study of the material. Happens to me all the time. But
> sometimes it doesn't.
>
> > Your initial judgement was *in error*.
>
> Nonsense. Just because you love the bush doesn;t mean that I will, even
> if you show me why you love it. My initial understandings and
> assumptions may have been in error. My judgement can only be seen as
> having been in error if I decide to change it and if I decide to see it
> that way.
>
Yeah, he makes a good case that music education can influence the taste
of listeners, so we should be promoting it, but I would argue that if
you asked a Keith Jarrett and a Wynton Marsalis about the greatness or
importance of different artists then you might get very different
answers. So even from two experts there is no absolute determination
of the better artist.
Tone
But if you widen the field from Keith Jarrett and Wynton Marsalis to
everyone that's still alive that those two have played with, I bet
there would be a lot of artists that a big majority agreed on as far as
their relative artistry. That kind of consensus is what drives or used
to drive big label recording contracts among other things.
There's no absolute determination of whether somebody is qualified to
be a big league sports player either, other than a consensus of people
who have their job on the line concerning who can play and who's not
quite there. Two individual players or scouts or managers could easily
disagree even with all the objective statisics they keep on players.
Thingo
> Yeah, he makes a good case that music education can influence the taste
> of listeners, so we should be promoting it, but I would argue that if
> you asked a Keith Jarrett and a Wynton Marsalis about the greatness or
> importance of different artists then you might get very different
> answers. So even from two experts there is no absolute determination
> of the better artist.
Perfectly true. But this is true of all expert judgement (just try
spending a day in court). There's nothing special about musical
judgement in this respect.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> No one is suggesting that you move somewhere that you don't want to live.
> What I am saying is that when you introduce a group into a jazz environment
> for comparison with other jazz musicians or groups the criteria for analysis
> has to be the same as it is for the jazz groups.This criteria would incude
> such things as "Do they swing?, Do they improvise at the same level of
> competence as our top level jazz groups? etc.The absurditity of it all is
> overwhelming. It doen't matter how good they make Tom and three quarters of
> Japan feel,there is no basis for comparison to John Coltrane in within this
> context.
>
> Charlie
With all due respect, Charlie, that is what Doug would call a "straw man".
Perhaps the result and the reception may have been different had Tom
prefaced his post with an "OT", but I doubt it.
No one doubts that Coltrane will have greater musical significance to a
jazz musician AS jazz than a Japanese pop group. But that wasn't what
Tom said, so I'll quote one paragraph of the original post:
Shonen Knife is as valuable to me as Coltrane. I understand the
difference, but I still like them both. To say that Coltrane's music is
more valuable than Shonen Knife's music is--for me--almost like saying
that Shonen Knife are less valuable as human beings, and I find that
sentiment extremely disturbing.
I can understand that this could be interpreted broadly as a troll, but
I don't see it that way at all. I think it is clear from the language
and the context that Tom in no way is promoting Shonen Knife as the next
big thing in jazz. The way I see it is that Tom perceives a certain
intolerance toward people of different opinions.
Frankly, I think he has a point.
Steve
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
>>I've never heard Tom say he's capable of anything musically.
>
>
> Then you haven't read all he's written. Particularly on one
> occasion, he flat out said that what I've done with my life
> is nothing special, for the very reason that he could have
> done it if he'd wanted to. He thinks it's just about making
> a decision, and that talent has no bearing.
Oooh, Tom--did you really say this???
>
>
>> I agree with Tom. Sorry Doug. Value isn't a popularity contest, even
>>a popularity contest among your very smartest peers.
>
>
> OK. Once again, this is off topic and not related to anything I've said
> so far.
>
>
>> BTW, everyone makes value judgements. This is part of being a grownup,
>>and not a bad thing as you imply.
>
>
> OK, dude. You've been sucking the nitrous at work too much. If you
> could go back and read, you would see that it is I who is saying that
> value judgements should be made.
I never said you were against value judgements. You just don't seem to
value many of the judgements of others sometimes.
I think it is a good thing. The
> problem
> with you and others is that your dislike for me prejudices you in any
> discussion where I'm involved, and then you figure out what you think,
> and assume that since I'm such a dick, I _must_ disagree with you/
> This makes you look ridiculous, Doc. I never said making a value
> judgement is a bad thing, in fact, I said the opposite.
Actually Doug I have no reason to dislike you. I've liked all of your
music that I have heard. Tom is just someone that, PIA that he can be,
is funny and provocative and caring.
We can probably all afford to be a bit less defensive.
>
>
>> You are far younger than I, but IIRC you are a new father. I think
>>that the experience of parenthood will change your view of this in ways
>>you may not yet anticipate. Enjoy the trip.
>
>
> Being a father has changed my entire life for the better. But having
> him makes me more and more confident about my beliefs in some
> areas. I'm enjoying every minute of the trip. Thanks.
I can't even remember the first three months or so. I was just bumping
into things. I don't even have nitrous to hit.
My daughter is 9 now--it only has gotten better.
Happy New Year.
Steve
charles robinson
who decide to become jazz musicians do so because we have already detemined
for ourselves that this is the country's highest form of musical expression,
a music that we like to hear and participate in.When someone comes to a
place which is a forum for our particular choice of music and expouses the
veiw that a Japanese rock group is as meaninful to them as John Coltrane
they immediatly become suspect to those who have made the aforementioned
decision. I too like some music that falls outside the sphere of jazz., but
I would never have the audacity to even mention the name of a rock band in
the same sentence with John Coltrane (unless it was to say that he might
have had an influence on them) much less even imply that their music might
be in any way as meaninful to me.
Charlie
"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message
news:enexf.37834$rG5.29335@trndny02...
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> I understand where you are coming from. My perspective is this: most of us
> who decide to become jazz musicians do so because we have already detemined
> for ourselves that this is the country's highest form of musical expression,
> a music that we like to hear and participate in.When someone comes to a
> place which is a forum for our particular choice of music and expouses the
> veiw that a Japanese rock group is as meaninful to them as John Coltrane
> they immediatly become suspect to those who have made the aforementioned
> decision. I too like some music that falls outside the sphere of jazz., but
> I would never have the audacity to even mention the name of a rock band in
> the same sentence with John Coltrane (unless it was to say that he might
> have had an influence on them) much less even imply that their music might
> be in any way as meaninful to me.
>
> Charlie
I have no problem accepting that. ;-)
dougw...@gmail.com
Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> Oooh, Tom--did you really say this???
Here are Tom's words. Yeah, he's a caring guy all right.
"My goodness, Doug, you assume that because I disagree with you that
I'm
not only inadequate, but jealous. Let's get this clear--you do not
possess anything that I could not have if I wanted it, and that
includes your career and your wife. You may find this difficult to
understand, but living in NYC and pursuing a career as a jazz guitarist
does not appeal to me in the slightest. If I wanted to do that, I would
have done it and been successful at it, but it just doesn't hold any
attraction for me."
jeff...@yahoo.com
charles robinson
Charlie
"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote in message
news:4Uexf.2527$JT3.1692@trndny06...
Thingo
> So, who is that deems you the judge to decide which opinions are mistaken?
>
We are all capable of assessing each others' judgements of anything,
with various degrees of expertise in different domains. You and me
alike.
> Nice try, troll.
Mike, you are remarkably angry over a discussion of theoretical
aesthetics. Joey disagrees robustly with me, sometimes (it seems) to
the point of exasperation, but he engages without personal insult.
Do you want to engage in conversation on this topic or not? There's no
reason why you should, but if you do, why not keep it polite, or at
least free of direct personal insult? I know internet discussion tends
to be exaggeratedly combative compared to the real world (there'd be
far more fisticuffs over coffee otherwise), but isn't that worth
tempering in the interests of communication?
dougw...@gmail.com
charles robinson wrote:
> but I would never have the audacity to even
> >> mention the name of a rock band in the same sentence with John Coltrane
> >> (unless it was to say that he might have had an influence on them) much
> >> less even imply that their music might be in any way as meaninful to me.
Here's where the confusion lies. I could care less if Tom Brown is
as moved by lame Japanese girl bands as he is by Coltrane. That
simply tells you about his tastes or lack thereof. Hell, I download
some atrocious shit to my iPod sometimes, heaven knows.
But Tom is going the extra mile, saying that because they are
all human, their art is of the same value OVERALL, not just
to him. That's where the problem lies, I think.
If he thinks some pop stuff is as meaningful to him as Trane,
that's his prerogative. But he said another thing altogether in
an attempt to make someone "prove" him wrong, which he
knows can't be done on a forum like this, and thereby it
makes him appear to be validated, even though you and
I know better.
Thingo
> Who cares if it is true of other fields?
Because if a categorical objective/subjective distinction is to be
maintained, you have to uphold that there's some domain where
'objective' judgement is typical, in contradistinction to the
'subjective'. Common 'objective' candidates are those pertaining to the
physical sciences, because one version of the objective/subjective
distinction is that the former relates to stuff 'out there' (in the
physical world), whereas the latter relates to vaporous 'values' (or
tastes etc) in the head.
I'm denying that there are two different classes of judgements, hence
comparing fields is essential.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Wow--you guys really piss each other off. You don't think he's
exaggerating to clarify?
tomb...@jhu.edu
> >
> > Then you haven't read all he's written. Particularly on one
> > occasion, he flat out said that what I've done with my life
> > is nothing special, for the very reason that he could have
> > done it if he'd wanted to. He thinks it's just about making
> > a decision, and that talent has no bearing.
>
> Oooh, Tom--did you really say this???
Of course not. If Doug attributes something to me, your best bet is to
assume that I said the opposite. The truth is that I think Doug's
career is very special. He's made a rather unique path, and I admire
him for it.
Doug's thesis is that I disagree with him because I am jealous of him,
because he has a career that I covet. This made me respond in an angry
manner, which I regret, and which I've already apologized for once. It
made me angry because he accused me of being a failure in something
that I've never even aspired to, much less undertook. I let Doug's
reprehensible ad hominem argument get under my skin. He won that troll
contest.
I wonder what this ng would be like if we all held our babies on our
laps while we typed.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Having seen you interact with MO on rmcg, I'm just trying to imagine
him with a baby in his lap.
You, Doug (and MO for that matter) let too much of this personal crap
cloud the issues, and the anger allows you to fight about what was said
in anger (or sarcasm) rather than what your true feelings are.