OT: The Greatness of Kula Shaker
Digsy
ive been listening to K and especially the more unfamiliar Peasants, Pigs
and Astronauts lately and cant believe how prolific they were.
there is so much going on in these songs and the songwriting is always
fluid.
to those who havent, get these albums. money well spent i assure you.
dIGSY
Saul Sherry
i...@nme.com wrote on 9/20/01 1:55 PM:
Yes a truly superb band, but maybe the split will keep them great and put a
stop on them ever becoming a crusty disappointment.
theseeker
were average, average average, a couple of alright songs, pretentious as
fuck.
David Yates
"theseeker" <watchme...@nd.fadeaway> wrote in message
news:9ocu2e$hs1$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
but they sang songs in eastern languages that may or may not have made sense
THEY MUST BE DEEP AND MEANINGFUL
"hey dude, dont lean on me, man."
Snapper
--
"Breakfast is no longer being served! Prepare
to get Brunch...... in the face!" - Action Hank
"Digsy" <i...@nme.com> wrote in message
news:WMdq7.21948$0%.2376569@news1.busy1.on.home.com...
: i sorely miss this band. it is extremely unfortunate they ended it early.
:
:
:
:
Digsy
i dont listen to them anyways. just the music.
very smooth writing and Peasants.. quite a grower.
i cant remember the last time i listened to an album 7 times in 1 day.
anyways i dont go for deep and meaningful. i am afterall an oasis fan.
dIGSY
"David Yates" <david...@blueyonderSPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5ynq7.70060$TB2.5...@nnrp4.clara.net...
:
: "theseeker" <watchme...@nd.fadeaway> wrote in message
:
:
kaz
"theseeker" <watchme...@nd.fadeaway> wrote in message
news:9ocu2e$hs1$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
but wasn't that pretentiousness perhaps part of their appeal? now i'm almost
timid to ask what you think of divine comedy, who i adore! :)
--
kaz
David Yates
"Snapper" <squeezy...@deadjoke.com> wrote in message
news:3doq7.4032$o%6.46...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Digsy is right for once, they were the epitomy of good song writing.
>
>
yeah but you like queen....
David Yates
> i think their lyrics are their biggest weakness actually.
> i dont listen to them anyways. just the music.
> very smooth writing and Peasants.. quite a grower.
so is ringworm, doesnt make it a good thing
David Yates
almost
> timid to ask what you think of divine comedy, who i adore! :)
pulp are a bit pretentious aswell, but they have good songs and no dodgy
nazi connections.. loads of people got taken in by kula shaker when they
first come out, i must admit i thought they were alright till the first
album came out, but they are pure shit... i cant even think of a word to
describe how bad they are.. they are worse than fucking blur or queen or u2.
they are so bad that they dont actually exist.
kaz
> pulp are a bit pretentious aswell, but they have good songs and no dodgy
> nazi connections.. loads of people got taken in by kula shaker when they
> first come out, i must admit i thought they were alright till the first
> album came out, but they are pure shit... i cant even think of a word to
> describe how bad they are.. they are worse than fucking blur or queen or
u2.
> they are so bad that they dont actually exist.
LOL! david, you've just shot me down big time, as i do like some blur, queen
and u2 *but* in my defense i can at least say jarvis cocker is a song
writing god and pulp are my all-time fav band. what's the nazi thingy about?
and i notice no comments on divine comedy so may i assume it's ok to like
them? :) (ps-i thought kula shaker was split up-in that case, they actually
don't exist) ;)
--
kaz
theseeker
think of how you could have better spent 6 hours.
theseeker
> describe how bad they are.. they are worse than fucking blur or queen or
u2.
> they are so bad that they dont actually exist.
that's not true david, that's not even bordering on marginally truthful.
blur are far, far worse; blur are just wrong. would you rather your
children were kula shaker or blur fans?
Snapper
Roger Taylor are rubbish. Mecury's aren't the best either.
--
"Breakfast is no longer being served! Prepare
to get Brunch...... in the face!" - Action Hank
"David Yates" <david...@blueyonderSPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:10010027...@eos.uk.clara.net...
:
: "Snapper" <squeezy...@deadjoke.com> wrote in message
:
:
David Yates
">
> LOL! david, you've just shot me down big time, as i do like some blur,
queen
> and u2 *but* in my defense i can at least say jarvis cocker is a song
> writing god and pulp are my all-time fav band. what's the nazi thingy
about?
> and i notice no comments on divine comedy so may i assume it's ok to like
> them? :) (ps-i thought kula shaker was split up-in that case, they
actually
> don't exist) ;)
cant remember the details that well, but he was in some band with a couple
of facists and they played at far-right rallies many moons ago, i think a
lot of crispians mysticism might stem from the eastern bollocks that nazis
took for their own... on top of that, and unsurprisingly for a stupid rich
kid he said loads of crass things about abortion and poverty and whatever..
still thats only a reason to dislike him personally, my dislike for kula
shaker stems entirely from their music.
David Yates
"theseeker" <watchme...@nd.fadeaway> wrote in message
news:9od6ku$mgk$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Strange Thing
"theseeker" <watchme...@nd.fadeaway> wrote in message
Strange Thing
Strange Thing
grat escape (which is a bit shit really) but the other 2 are great. I
particulrly like the songs from Blur, so i might get that. Sorry! and U2 are
too pretentious, and Queen im not into really.
--
samuel...@hotmail.REMOVEcom
'He came in our room at 5am, in some Japanese Slippers and a mumu.
'Mr. Duncan-Smith your voice is going all Northern and Unelectable'
Liam: Keep ya fuckin' drink to yourself
Noel: Fucking Belgian
"kaz" <ka...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:C_oq7.234$uj4....@typhoon1.gnilink.net...
Nick S
Strange Thing <samuel...@hotmail.comREMOVETHISTEXT> wrote in message
news:9odgfl$u67$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
kaz
> cant remember the details that well, but he was in some band <snippage>
well that's a shame, i've always liked his mum. :) but he did strike me as a
total poser (poseur?)
--
kaz
kaz
"Strange Thing" <samuel...@hotmail.comREMOVETHISTEXT> wrote in message
> i like Blur, have been listening to their gratest hits and Parklife and
the
> grat escape (which is a bit shit really) but the other 2 are great. I
> particulrly like the songs from Blur, so i might get that. Sorry! and U2
are
> too pretentious, and Queen im not into really.
parklife is what i think they meant it to be, mostly just good fun and i
enjoy it from time to time. i've been a half-assed u2 fan ever since they
played here in the early 80s...and i loved freddy mercury for the showman he
was and the range of his voice-my heart hurt when he died. i'm not even
gonna duck for saying those things-they're certainly no worse than my
momentary fondness for nkotb. hey, they're local boys, i used to eat in the
same soul food place as the wahlberg lads... ;)
--
kaz
gigglygirl
muhaha, did you see the E! true hollywood story episode on nkotb? That was
great, ahhh childhood memories :)
gigglygirl
--
"I think people who don't like us are immensely strange"
- the lovely chris martin
kaz
"gigglygirl" <san2j...@virginia.edu> wrote in message
news:9oed8o$cmfro$1...@ID-49246.news.dfncis.de...
> step by step, oooh baby!!
>
> muhaha, did you see the E! true hollywood story episode on nkotb? That was
> great, ahhh childhood memories :)
hehe! speak for yourself, i wasn't a child then! :D my story is i was just
listening to the local talent, and i'm sticking to that. ;) (sorry i missed
that e story!)
--
kaz
theseeker
and blur aren't?
Barnaby207
album, and the be here now UK tour
theseeker
now
> album, and
damon albarn couldn't be much more of a false lying pretentious cunt, wants
to be everything to everyone. and what happened to his lp of guanian felch
music? or was he just saying it would exist credibility. gorillaz music
sums him up.
> the be here now UK tour
interesting, have you ever seen blur stagesets? i think it was the parklife
tour that featured big dayglow buses, cars, lampposts, everything but
phoneboxes. of which there was one solitary on the bhn tour.
Barnaby207
done by oasis, hands down. If you listen to the album.....it's all over the
place stylistically, which bothers some people....but I dig it. Damon's
soundtrack work has been fab as well....in addition of course to his brilliant
work with blur, probably the best band of the 90's. So who cares if he wants
to be everything to everyone.....a lot of artists desire that very same thing.
He has a mind that spans a wider creative range than "durrr rock rock rock and
more rawk". Which seems to be the brain content of Liam....and for the most
part, Noel as well. Maybe he'll make his album of guanian felch music, or
african tribal rhythms. Maybe the next blur album will have that sort of
sound....who knows. Is he not allowed to change is mind?? What happened to
oasis's 4th LP going to be "the start of a new phase for oasis, something
totally different"...as noel said on US radio during the Be Here Now tour??
What happened to an oasis single being released on october of this year??..Ya
see, Noel Gallagher is a liar as well, probably the biggest liar and
bullshitter in the music business. Blur were much closer to being the 90's
beatles than oasis ever were. Oasis are the fucking SLADE of the 90's. Dumb
feel good rock that holds no importance whatsoever....it's not art, it's just
entertainment. Blur are different, they've expanded with every album.....they
went avant garde BEFORE radiohead....they experiment, they try to challenge
themselves and push boundaries....they make ART. Blur don't use the most
common and overused chord progressions in the world like oasis do......their
melodies don't sound like rehashed classic rock songs......their songs aren't
predictable like oasis songs are. And above all, despite what noel
says.....Damon can out tune Noel anyday......his melodies are catchier, more
clever, bouncier....and any other silly adjective you can describe a melody
with. Damon has a much better sense of how to write a solid pop melody than
noel ever has or ever will. He's simply a better, more talented, musician and
songwriter..... Of course you simple minded northern working class thickos
can't understand that, because all your brains can process is meat and potatoes
rawk n' roll
theseeker
> can't understand that, because all your brains can process is meat and
potatoes
> rawk n' roll
i would have answered and picked up on a fair few points in there (i'll just
stick to your obvious continued beef about liam's high iq), but that racist
wank at the end has put me right off. amo's not a place for racism, it's
about oasis. if you're gonna make a point, try and do it without
disgraceful generalisations and discriminatory insults, yeh?
jamiecè¡¥
news:20010921140504...@mb-ml.aol.com...
> gorrilaz music aint bad at all.....it's definitely more CREATIVE than
anything
> done by oasis, hands down. If you listen to the album.....it's all over
the
> place stylistically, which bothers some people....but I dig it.
bollocks. just cos an album sounds a bit more modern and what fits in more
with todays popuar music, doesnt mean it's more creative that any of oasis
songs
Damon's
> soundtrack work has been fab as well....in addition of course to his
brilliant
> work with blur, probably the best band of the 90's.
best band of the 90's? are they bollocks. they've done a couple of good
songs, granted and they certainly aint one of the worst band of the 90's,
but the best? fuck no.
So who cares if he wants
> to be everything to everyone.....a lot of artists desire that very same
thing.
> He has a mind that spans a wider creative range than "durrr rock rock rock
and
> more rawk". Which seems to be the brain content of Liam....and for the
most
> part, Noel as well.
oh here we go with the intellect card again. who says you have to be brainy
to produce good music. oh and have you heard teotihuacan. say goodbye to
that durr rock rock and more rawk argument/
Maybe he'll make his album of guanian felch music, or
> african tribal rhythms. Maybe the next blur album will have that sort of
> sound....who knows. Is he not allowed to change is mind?? What happened
to
> oasis's 4th LP going to be "the start of a new phase for oasis, something
> totally different"...as noel said on US radio during the Be Here Now
tour??
are you telling me that SOTSOG sounds like be here now, or definitely maybe?
> What happened to an oasis single being released on october of this
year??..Ya
> see, Noel Gallagher is a liar as well, probably the biggest liar and
> bullshitter in the music business.
oh fuck off. who says he is a liar. IMO they were plans which were
probably tried and didnt work.
Blur were much closer to being the 90's
> beatles than oasis ever were. Oasis are the fucking SLADE of the 90's.
correct. noel has always said that oasis were more like slade than the
beatles.
Dumb
> feel good rock that holds no importance whatsoever....it's not art, it's
just
> entertainment.
whats art got to do with it. this is fucking MUSIC.
Blur are different, they've expanded with every album.....they
> went avant garde BEFORE radiohead....they experiment, they try to
challenge
> themselves and push boundaries....they make ART.
again, avart garde, art. fuck that. go to a fucking modern art gallery for
that bollocks. i suppose you think damien hirst is a genius. do you like
cows chopped in half?
Blur don't use the most
> common and overused chord progressions in the world like oasis
do......their
> melodies don't sound like rehashed classic rock songs......their songs
aren't
> predictable like oasis songs are. And above all, despite what noel
> says.....Damon can out tune Noel anyday......his melodies are catchier,
more
> clever, bouncier....and any other silly adjective you can describe a
melody
> with. Damon has a much better sense of how to write a solid pop melody
than
> noel ever has or ever will. He's simply a better, more talented, musician
and
> songwriter..... Of course you simple minded northern working class
thickos
> can't understand that, because all your brains can process is meat and
potatoes
> rawk n' roll
why are you here. do you even LIKE oasis? all you do in here is slag them
off. also nasty use of inaccurate racism in that last sentence there. if
all you can do is slag the band off and slag of the good people in here who
like them, then you can fuck off, cos no-one wants you in here
Barnaby207
ethnic RACE. You could call it descrimination or whatever you like. It was
meant in a somewhat tongue in cheek manner......I wasn't saying all of northern
england are thickos, (hell you produced lennon and mccartney...two geniuses).
I just meant that there's a few northern thickos on this board, and probably
several more like you out there. It was just a little jibe.....I was "taking
the piss" as you say. Just a jibe though, kinda like yours about the IQ
thing.......just being a bit of a cunt, that's all.
theseeker
aren't an
> ethnic RACE. You could call it descrimination or whatever you like.
i don't think discrimination is really apt though as it's an umbrella for
any type of cruelty in a fair few ways. i see it as racism as by replacing
owt with north england with, say, asian people, would make it racism. if
they were in a different country, it would be racism.
Mr.Psychosis
Barnaby207 wrote...
>gorrilaz music aint bad at all.....it's definitely more CREATIVE than
>anything done by oasis, hands down.
Oh, behave! It's just pseudo-hip-hop made by pseudo-intellectuals to be
bought by pseudo-intellectuals whose understanding of hip-hop culture
stretches all the way from MC Hammer to Wyclef Jean. People like you, in
other words. Ever heard "Buffalo Gals" by Malcolm McLaren? Another
pseudo-intellectual who "discovered" hip-hop culture; except he did it
twenty years ago, when it was vaguely original. And if it weren't for the
true genius of Ed Case, "Clint Eastwood" would have died on its arse. Once
again, Albarn jumped onto the nearest passing bandwagon, this time UK
Garage.
The best thing about Gorillaz is the animation, and that's got crap-all to
do with Albarn. Even the beats were made by Dan The Automator. What did
Albarn contribute in the creativity department? A few crap lyrics that
convey jack shit. Still, I'm sure it all sounds very "dope", as you lay back
on your IKEA sofa eating After Eight mints.
>If you listen to the album.....it's all over the
>place stylistically, which bothers some people....but I dig it.
You dig it, do you? Shouldn't you be down wit da homies in your crib or
something?
>Damon's soundtrack work has been fab as well....
Not as good as Noel's, I'll bet.
>in addition of course to his
>brilliant work with blur, probably the best band of the 90's.
Piffle! So shamelessly copying the styles of My Bloody Valentine, The Stone
Roses, XTC, The Buzzcocks, The Kinks, The Fall, Pavement and Spiritualized,
among many others, qualifies Blur for the accolade "best band of the 90s"
does it? Balderdash! Aren't you forgetting slightly more original bands like
Primal Scream, My Bloody Valentine, Prodigy, Massive Attack, Chemical
Brothers, etc... All those bands have a far greater claim to the title of
"band of the 90s" than a bunch of art-school poseurs from Colchester with
mockney accents who hopped onto every passing bandwagon for the entire
decade. Blur: band of the 90s? Blur: bandwagoneers of the 90s, more like.
>So who cares if he wants
>to be everything to everyone.....a lot of artists desire that very same
>thing.
Yeah, but they're usually shit. Albarn is no exception. In fact, he's worse
than most. At least Bowie wrote good songs and looked like an alien.
>He has a mind that spans a wider creative range than "durrr rock rock rock
>and more rawk". Which seems to be the brain content of Liam....and for
>the most part, Noel as well.
Noel and Liam like rock'n'roll. They play rock'n'roll music. Albarn likes
whatever was in fashion a couple of years ago. He's permanently two years
too late.
"Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day."
Oasis may well be a stopped clock, but Albarn's permanently two minutes too
slow. He *never* gives the right time. By not trying desperately to catch-up
with the zeitgeist, Oasis will always be more relevant than Blur.
>Maybe he'll make his album of guanian felch music, or
>african tribal rhythms.
Oh, joy! The world needs another Paul Simon like Osama Bin Laden needs
after-shave balm.
>Maybe the next blur album will have that sort of
>sound....who knows. Is he not allowed to change is mind??
Change his mind? Yes. Change his ethnicity? No. There's a difference.
>Blur were much closer to being the 90's
>beatles than oasis ever were.
Massive Attack were closer to being the 90s' Beatles than either of them.
Oasis don't claim to be anything but a great rock'n'roll band. Which they
are. What can Blur claim to be, other than hopeless fakes?
>Oasis are the fucking SLADE of the 90's. Dumb
>feel good rock that holds no importance whatsoever....it's not art, it's
>just entertainment.
"It's just rock'n'roll." That's all Oasis ever claimed to be.
Do you really think some twat shouting "Woo-hoo! I feel heavy metal" is art?
If that's the case, I must create art every time I take a Tommy Tit.
>Blur are different, they've expanded with every album.....they
>went avant garde BEFORE radiohead....
Is "avant garde" french for "Pavement b-side" then?
>they experiment, they try to challenge
>themselves and push boundaries....
What have Blur done that a million other bands haven't done before? Name one
innovation Blur have brought to popular music.
>they make ART.
Purleeeeeease!!!
>Blur don't use the most
>common and overused chord progressions in the world like oasis do......
Did punk pass you by?
>their
>melodies don't sound like rehashed classic rock songs......
What specific song does "Wonderwall" sound like? What about "Live Forever"?
Or "Slide Away"? Name the songs they all sound exactly the same as.
>their songs aren't
>predictable like oasis songs are.
How come I can guarantee the next Blur single will be utter shite then?
>And above all, despite what noel
>says.....Damon can out tune Noel anyday......
Prove it.
>his melodies are catchier, more
>clever, bouncier....and any other silly adjective you can describe a melody
>with.
Prove it.
>Damon has a much better sense of how to write a solid pop melody than
>noel ever has or ever will.
Prove it.
>He's simply a better, more talented, musician and
>songwriter.....
How come he's never written a song as good as "Live Forever" then?
>Of course you simple minded northern working class thickos
>can't understand that, because all your brains can process is meat and
>potatoes rawk n' roll
How incredibly droll/smug*
*delete as applicable, i.e. delete droll.
Barnaby207
than live forever. Try "the universal"....."beetlebum"...."caramel"..."for
tomorrow"....."end of a century"...."clover dover". Those are just the tip of
the iceberg.
Want examples of catchier, superior melodies?? alright then....I can't compare
every oasis song with every blur song....but how about this: Roll With It
versus Country House....fair?
Country House shat all over Roll with it musically, and it's not even one of
Blur's better songs. The tune is catchier......hands down, it just does more
musically. It's not as drab sounding.....it's not status quo cock rock. I
imagine that's why it sold more copies.....even though blur were a less popular
band. Even then, when I prefered oasis....I thought "yeah blur have beat em
this time".
About Gorillaz.......how about you LISTEN to the whole album before you
speak, you fucking moron. The majority of the record isn't even hip hop. I'm
not even much of a hip hop fan, I only really like the beats, backing
tracks....and the occasional chorus. And by the way me saying "i dig it" isn't
ghetto, homie talk or whatever you thought it was.....it's a sixties phrase,
the hippies used to say shit like that. It's got nothing to do with hip hop,
or that culture.
So you'd like to know what albarn did creatively on that record? Well first
of all, him and a mate of his came up with a whole gorillaz idea...the virtual
band and all that. He also recorded 75% of the music by himself before
bringing in any collaborators....he collaborated with Dan the automater some of
the grooves, but from what I've read he has a lot of those tracks already layed
down before he even brought dan into the project. Musically the record is
pretty interesting......it dabbles in punk, dub/reggae, hip hop, pop, rock,
latin....amongst others. Also, Albarn never claimed to have discovered hip
hop......it's one of the many types of music he likes, big fucking deal....it's
just an influence. The gorillaz record is a lot more than hip hop, so I
suggest you actually listen to it.....instead of talking out of your ass.
Anyway.....none of those bands you listed are more original than blur, give
me fucking break. They've all got influences they borrow from...just like
blur. They're all quite good, mind you.....except for My Bloody Valentine,
which are just droning, tuneless wank. And Massive Attack are the Beatles of
the 90's???? hahahahaha. They're a trip hop group....they make chill out
music, they're good.....but that's all they do. If you want mellow chill out
music, Air's moon safari kicks the shit out anything massive attack have done.
Now I don't have all day to address every single one of your points,
but......you think Blur hops on passing bandwagons?? that's such bullshit.
Their music has always been quite different from the "mainstream"......they're
not hoping on any trendy bandwagons. they're doing something oasis never has
understood.....trying something DIFFERENT. They're not afraid to fuck with the
formula like Noel is. Noel just wants to sell records......so he stick with
what sells. Blur put out a brilliant art rock record like 13 which sounds like
nothing else in the music scene (nothing like fucking pavement, who I'm a fan
of as well).....and that record sold pretty badly, but they didn't
care.....because it was about making something they thought was great. whereas
noel just wants his fans to keep buying his records so he can get more rolls
royces, and more country manors.....
kaz
you had a few decent points-it's a real shame about that unnecessary nasty
bit at the end. your rant style is starting to sound a bit like robbie and
digsy rolled in one. :[
--
kaz
fountainhead
"Mr.Psychosis" <notonyo...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9ogck0$d3a6s$1...@ID-71939.news.dfncis.de...
> >their songs aren't
> >predictable like oasis songs are.
>
> How come I can guarantee the next Blur single will be utter shite then?
hehe. touche.
here endeth my contribution to this discussion.
f.
--
"i hope you end up quadrospazzed on a life-glug"
founta...@earthling.net ::: www.moreproductive.net
www.blurry.co.uk - the alt.music.blur homepage and f.a.q.
Digsy
dIGSY
"Barnaby207" <barna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010921140504...@mb-ml.aol.com...
: gorrilaz music aint bad at all.....it's definitely more CREATIVE than
Barnaby207
superior band than oasis.....that's about it.
Snapper
: superior band than oasis.....that's about it.
well, you're wrong. neither band are superior, no bands are better than any
other band if you want to look at it in a diplomatic way. you just *think*
they are. heck, i don't think Starsailor are any good, but hey, they aren't
inferior to any other band.
--
"Breakfast is no longer being served! Prepare
to get Brunch...... in the face!" - Action Hank
"Barnaby207" <barna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010922201710...@mb-cf.aol.com...
: what am I trying to say?? I'm pretty much trying to say that Blur are a
Barnaby207
superior musically. You really don't think some bands are superior to others
talent wise??? Like the Beatles and the Who are not more talented than and
superior to someone like atomic kitten?????
Snapper
--
"Breakfast is no longer being served! Prepare
to get Brunch...... in the face!" - Action Hank
"Barnaby207" <barna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010923115308...@mb-fh.aol.com...
: some musicians do have more TALENT than other musicians, and are therefore
fountainhead
how do you measure talent?
and, for a band, is it measured in total or by individual?
i'm curious. is there an internationally recognised unit of
talent? if so then, presumably, we can work out who the
most talented band in the world is and, i suppose, that would
make them the best band in the world. this would end a lot
of arguements.
Barnaby207
TALENTED than atomic kitten. Some of their fans might like kitten's music
better.....but they'd never think they were more talented than the beatles. I
can't believe I'm even having to defend myself on the beatles being superior to
atomic kitten....good lord!
Snapper
--
"Breakfast is no longer being served! Prepare
to get Brunch...... in the face!" - Action Hank
"Barnaby207" <barna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010923121209...@mb-fh.aol.com...
: talent isn't subjective.......anyone will tell you that the beatles are
Barnaby207
great. People never thought they were talented......they were just
"important". The ramones on the other hand, were talented as
songwriters......they could at least write melodic, catchy hooks. The sex
pistols were probably the least talented group to come out of the punk
movement......they just happened to be exciting
Snapper
than the Sex Pistols, does that make them superior?
--
"Breakfast is no longer being served! Prepare
to get Brunch...... in the face!" - Action Hank
"Barnaby207" <barna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010923124706...@mb-fb.aol.com...
: slightly talented, not really.......that's why I never thought they were
fountainhead
everything is subjective. maybe most people would agree that the
beatles were more talented than attomic kitten. but that's just
co-incidence - it doesn't make it fact. you've picked an easy
example. what if i were to say radiohead were more talented
than the beatles? lots of people would agree, lots would not.
who is being subjective and who is being objective? don't
answer that, because you can't. if there's anyone out there who
thinks that attomic kitten are better than the beatles then their
belief is as valid as my belief that radiohead are better. and if
they also think that attomic kitten are more talented than radiohead
then so be it. i can live with that. so should you.
Barnaby207
Mr.Psychosis
Barnaby207 wrote...
>prove it?? alright....Albarn has written several songs as good as or
>better than live forever. Try "the universal"....."beetlebum"...."caramel"
>..."for tomorrow"....."end of a century"...."clover dover". Those are
>just the tip of the iceberg.
But none of them send a shiver down my spine. None of them make me feel ten
feet tall. None of them convey a feeling of emotional transcendence. "Live
Forever" does all of those things.
>Want examples of catchier, superior melodies?? alright then....I can't
>compare every oasis song with every blur song....but how about this:
>Roll With It versus Country House....fair?
No. "Country House" is a blatant cheesy pop song, whereas "Roll With It" is
loud, unrefined rock'n'roll. Compare "Country House" to something like "Stay
Young" and you'll see that Noel can write equally catchy pop songs. In fact,
"Stay Young" goes one better by combining a great melody with a strong,
euphoric message. "Country House" is an empty vessel in comparison.
The point is, Noel *can* write bouncy pop tunes, but his innate rock'n'roll
attitude precludes him from indulging in that sort of writing most of the
time. When he *does* write a catchy pop song he bungs it out as a b-side.
Another perfect example of this would be "Round Are Way". With that track
Noel out-blurred Blur.
> Country House shat all over Roll with it musically, and it's not even one
>of Blur's better songs. The tune is catchier......hands down, it just does
>more musically. It's not as drab sounding.....it's not status quo cock
>rock.
You want drab? Go listen to the dirge that is "No Distance Left To Run" or
the third-rate Pulp that is "Essex Dogs". "Roll With It" is far more catchy
than either of those two.
>I
>imagine that's why it sold more copies.....even though blur were a less
>popular band. Even then, when I prefered oasis....I thought "yeah blur
>have beat em this time".
"Country House" sold more because it was a cheesy pop song that appealed to
kids. Any cheesy pop song can get to #1 these days. Plus, it was also
craftily a quid cheaper. We all know that album sales are what's important,
and in that respect Oasis shat on Blur from a great height.
> About Gorillaz.......how about you LISTEN to the whole album before you
>speak, you fucking moron. The majority of the record isn't even hip hop.
That doesn't surprise me. Albarn can never settle on one style and give it
the respect it deserves. Hip-hop is a culture, and to make novelty hip-hop
is disrespectful, imo.
>I'm not even much of a hip hop fan, I only really like the beats, backing
>tracks....and the occasional chorus.
That doesn't surprise me either. Like I said, Gorillaz is for people who
know very little about proper hip-hop culture.
> And by the way me saying "i dig it" isn't
>ghetto, homie talk or whatever you thought it was.....it's a sixties
>phrase, the hippies used to say shit like that. It's got nothing to do
>with hip hop, or that culture.
Precisely. You're so passé, darling. They all talk like South Central
gangstas in Camden these days.
> So you'd like to know what albarn did creatively on that record? Well
>first of all, him and a mate of his came up with a whole gorillaz
>idea...the virtual band and all that.
Jamie Hewlett is the man behind the animation. Albarn probably had
bugger-all to do with it.
>Musically the record is
>pretty interesting......it dabbles in punk, dub/reggae, hip hop, pop, rock,
>latin....amongst others.
Again, that doesn't surprise me. Albarn dips his finger into as many pies as
possible because he thinks it makes him "eclectic". In reality, it just
makes him a shallow fraud, nicking ideas left, right and centre, without
truly understanding any of the musical cultures he plunders.
If I want to hear proper punk-rock I'll listen to Primal Scream; if I want
to hear proper reggae I'll listen to Sizzla; if I want to hear proper
hip-hop I'll listen to Outkast. I don't need some middle-class
pseudo-intellectual twat peddling a cheesy, shallow version of it. It's that
shallowness of Albarn I just can't stand. Sure, he can replicate the sounds,
but it's all superficial; it's devoid of any true feeling for the music.
>Also, Albarn never claimed to have discovered hip
>hop......it's one of the many types of music he likes, big fucking
>deal....it's just an influence.
Noel likes different types of music too. However, he's inherently a
rock'n'roller at heart. He's living the rock'n'roll lifestyle he dreamt of
as a kid growing up in Manchester listening to The Beatles and The Stone
Roses. He knows where he's from, and what he believes in. Albarn doesn't.
He's a fraud. He looks at other musical styles and cultures and rapes them.
He's not got an identity of his own. He has to borrow other people's. It's
quite sad, in a way. Oh, the woe of being white, middle-class and slightly
balding.
>The gorillaz record is a lot more than hip hop, so I
>suggest you actually listen to it.....instead of talking out of your ass.
I don't need to listen to it. Even if it's not all pseudo-hip-hop, it's
still pseudo-something-or-other; be it pseudo-reggae, pseudo-punk or
pseudo-sumo. The bottom line is: it's fake. It's not real. It's a white,
middle-class poseur from Colchester trying to be something he'll never be.
There's too much authentic music out there for me to waste time on fakes
like Albarn.
> Anyway.....none of those bands you listed are more original than blur,
>give me fucking break. They've all got influences they borrow from...just
>like blur. They're all quite good, mind you.....except for My Bloody
>Valentine, which are just droning, tuneless wank.
I pity you.
>And Massive Attack are the Beatles of the 90's???? hahahahaha. They're a
>trip hop group....they make chill out music, they're good.....but that's
>all they do.
You just have to ask yourself: if John Lennon had been a twenty-something
in the 90s, would he have been making the type of music Blur were making?
Baring in mind that in 1966 he recorded "Tomorrow Never Knows", I think it's
highly unlikely, don't you? Massive Attack at least made music that could
only have been made in the 90s. The Beatles defined the 60s, but Blur in no
way defined the 90s. That's why Blur could never be called the 90s' Beatles.
>If you want mellow chill out
>music, Air's moon safari kicks the shit out anything massive attack have
>done.
Air couldn't kick the shit out of a dandelion. Massive Attack represent
everything great about multi-cultural Britain in the 90s. Here was a band
who took hip-hop, funk, soul, dub, reggae and turned it into something
unique; something real; something substantial. Albarn tries to do the same
but ends up sounding fake and superficial.
>Now I don't have all day to address every single one of your points,
>but......you think Blur hops on passing bandwagons?? that's such bullshit.
>Their music has always been quite different from the
>"mainstream"......they're not hoping on any trendy bandwagons.
So "There's No Other Way" didn't blatantly rip-off The Stone Roses? So
"Beetlebum" didn't blatantly rip-off Pavement? So "Tender" didn't blatantly
rip-off Spiritualized? Do me a favour.
>they're doing something oasis never has
>understood.....trying something DIFFERENT. They're not afraid to fuck with
>the formula like Noel is. Noel just wants to sell records......so he stick
>with what sells.
Or alternatively, Noel and Liam are still in love with rock'n'roll so they
keep making rock'n'roll records, whereas Graham made three albums of cheesy
Brit-pop that he detested, before finally giving Albarn an ultimatum: "lo-fi
indie or I'm going solo". At least Oasis have always tried to make music
they genuinely like, unlike Blur.
>Blur put out a brilliant art rock record like 13 which sounds like
>nothing else in the music scene (nothing like fucking pavement, who I'm a
>fan of as well).....and that record sold pretty badly, but they didn't
>care.....because it was about making something they thought was great.
>whereas noel just wants his fans to keep buying his records so he can
>get more rolls royces, and more country manors.....
Prove it.
Noel writes rock'n'roll songs on an acoustic guitar. That's what he does. At
least he's fucking honest and sincere about it. Ultimately, Noel and Liam
are genuine people. Something Albarn, with all his genre-hopping, could
never be.
Mr.Psychosis
Barnaby207 wrote...
>what am I trying to say?? I'm pretty much trying to say that Blur are a
>superior band than oasis.....that's about it.
Then you're a fool.
Mr.Psychosis
fountainhead wrote...
>what if i were to say radiohead were more talented
>than the beatles?
I'd make you listen to "Tomorrow Never Knows", "Strawberry Fields Forever"
and "Happiness I A Warm Gun" on a loop until your ear-drums beg for mercy.
Barnaby207
<<But none of them send a shiver down my spine. None of them make me feel ten
feet tall. None of them convey a feeling of emotional transcendence. "Live
Forever" does all of those things.>>
well all the blur songs I mentioned send shivers up and down my spine.....and
make me feel ten feet tall. They do the same thing "live forever" does. Just
becuse they don't make YOU feel that way....doesn't mean they don't have that
effect on other people. Believe it or not, music affects different people in
different ways.
<< "Roll With It" is
loud, unrefined rock'n'roll>>
you're fucking joking aren't you??? The recording of roll with it is probably
one of the weakest rock n' roll records I've ever heard. The live version is
semi-rock....but the recording is just fluff. You'd better get an idea of what
ROCK n' ROLL first. Roll with it, is fucking pure pop/rock.......it's not
loud, and it's refined as well. Hell, "nyc cops" by the strokes sounds like
rock n' roll genius in comparison. You really must have no idea what rock n'
roll is if you think roll with it is a great r n' r song. I suggest you listen
to "exile on main street" or "sticky fingers" to get an idea. Roll with it, is
soft.....light alternative, pop/rock. It's such a polished record.....rock n'
roll is supposed to be RAW. The most rock n' roll oasis songs are "cigarettes
and alcohol" and "rock n' roll star". Most of their stuff actually isn't even
"rock n' roll" technically. If you played most of oasis's music to 100 random
people on the street....and asked "what type of music is this?"....they'd most
likely say "alternative" or "pop/rock" or even "punk/pop". Oasis may live the
rock lifestyle.....but their music for the most part really isn't even rock n'
roll......most people think of them as a pop band. They're too white
sounding......too polished, too refined. Rock n' roll is raw, gritty, dirty,
sweaty, rhythmic, crazy...music. It makes you want to shake your ass. Oasis
is polished, toe tapping pop/rock.....ala REM or the La's. So if you're going
to rant on and on about the spirit of rock n' roll and this shit.....why don't
you talk about an actual rock n' roll band. Not a britpop/alternative/indie
pop/rock group like oasis.
Blur never claimed tobe rock n' roll.........they simply make good, eclectic
art pop.
"So "There's No Other Way" didn't blatantly rip-off The Stone Roses? So
"Beetlebum" didn't blatantly rip-off Pavement? So "Tender" didn't blatantly
rip-off Spiritualized? Do me a favour."
No, no and no. Have you actually HEARD these songs??? "there's no other way"
has a baggy beat...that's the ONLY way in which is resembles the roses.
"beetlebum" sounds nothing like pavement...I suggest you listen to pavement
before you talk. "tender" used a gospel choir......spiritualized have used
gospel choirs, that's the only similarity. I didn't know jason pierce had a
patent on gospel choirs......i apologize, I didn't realize that any group that
uses a choir automatically sounds like spiritualized, because they were the
only other group to ever use choirs in the history of music....right???? you
fucking idiot.
So you want to play the rip off game do ya??? well here you go.....
"who feels love"--beatles rip off, "all around the world "---beatles rip off,
"she's electric"---beatles rip off, "fade away"---buzzcocks rip off,
"shakermaker"---new seekers rip off AND beatles rip off, "don't look back in
anger"--lennon rip off, "headshrinker"---sex pistols rip off, "half the world
away"---burt bacharach rip off, "going nowhere"--burt bacharch rip off, "girl
in the dirty shirt"--beatles rip off, "fuckin in the bushes"--spencer davis
group rip off, "slide way"--melody ripped off from style council song, "don't
go away"---rip off of "slide away"...it's the same fucking chorus melody!!,
"magic pie"...the fade out bit contains the exact same backing vocal melody as
"cast no shadow"......"teotihuacan"--the piano melody is the same fuckig riff
as "purple haze" by jimi hendrix
get the picture??? and this is the tip of the iceberg. your beloved noel
gallagher can't even write his own songs, he has to rip off others.......what a
talented guy.
Oh and all this shit about Damon Albarn not being genuine......do you know
him??? how do you know he's not genuine? How do you know he doesn't mean every
fucking word he writes and sings??? You DON'T know, you're guessing. You don't
know Liam and Noel either.....so you have no clue whether they are geniune are
not, they could be completely full of shit. In fact, it seems like they often
are. You have no idea who is genuine and who is not......you're simply
guessing. You think that because Liam and Noel are working class, that they
are somehow more REAL and geniune.....oh fuck off, they're entertainers just
like everyone else in the business. you have no idea who's genuine and who
isn't. All we know is that oasis and blur both write their own songs (well
oasis HALFWAY writes their own songs).......so we can assume that they come
from the heart., if we want to.......it's all speculation really, unless you
know them personally, which you DON'T.
Mr.Psychosis
Barnaby207 wrote...
>so it took you 3 days to finally devise up a reply to me???
No, it took me about ten minutes. The other seventy-odd hours I wasn't even
thinking about your stupid bloody post. Believe it or not, my life doesn't
revolve around you.
>well all the blur songs I mentioned send shivers up and down my spine.....
That's what you get for not wearing a cardigan in late-September.
>and
>make me feel ten feet tall. They do the same thing "live forever" does.
>Just becuse they don't make YOU feel that way....doesn't mean they
>don't have that effect on other people. Believe it or not, music affects
>different people in different ways.
Then how can you say Blur's song's are better than Oasis' songs? You're
contradicting your original point.
>you're fucking joking aren't you??? The recording of roll with it is
>probably one of the weakest rock n' roll records I've ever heard.
>The live version is semi-rock....but the recording is just fluff.
>You'd better get an idea of what ROCK n' ROLL first.
<snip error-strewn lecture about rock'n'roll>
Look, you patronising little shit, Oasis are a rock'n'roll band. I don't
need some jumped-up Blur fan telling me what constitutes rock'n'roll. The
very first track on Oasis' debut album stated their intent perfectly:
"...it's just rock'n'roll". RWI *is* a rock'n'roll song. It may have pop
hooks, but then all the best rock'n'roll songs do. The point I was making,
and the point you deliberately side-stepped, was that RWI is not a blatantly
cheesy pop song like CH.
>No, no and no. Have you actually HEARD these songs??? "there's no other
>way" has a baggy beat...that's the ONLY way in which is resembles the
>roses.
And that's *not* jumping on the baggy-bandwagon? Er... *okay*.
>"beetlebum" sounds nothing like pavement...I suggest you listen to pavement
>before you talk.
"Beetlebum" sounds like an embarrassed ex-Brit-pop band trying desperately
to sound lo-fi and American. A bit like Pavement, in other words. Hence,
jumping on the lo-fi bandwagon.
>"tender" used a gospel choir......spiritualized have used
>gospel choirs, that's the only similarity.
So it's just a coincidence? Er... *right*. It's just a pity Spiritualized
did it a couple of years before, I guess. Still, you can kind of see a
pattern emerging, can't you?
>I didn't know jason pierce had a
>patent on gospel choirs......i apologize, I didn't realize that any group
>that uses a choir automatically sounds like spiritualized, because they
>were the only other group to ever use choirs in the history of
>music....right???? you fucking idiot.
I suppose The Monkees didn't blatantly copy The Beatles either? And there
was me thinking they did all these years. Oops! My mistake.
>So you want to play the rip off game do ya??? well here you go.....
<snip hackneyed oasis-rip-off-everything crap>
The point being, you ignorant twat: Oasis are a living, breathing, swearing
celebration of five decades of rock'n'roll music. They are a homage to all
the bands they allegedly rip-off. And at least they're fucking honest about
it. Oasis don't claim to be original or arty. Blur shamelessly rip-off other
bands, but for some reason believe themselves to be original. That's always
baffled me. Whether you rip-off a style or a riff, it's still a rip-off. The
only difference is, Oasis do it with genuine affection, Blur do it with
snide cynisism.
>get the picture??? and this is the tip of the iceberg. your beloved noel
>gallagher can't even write his own songs, he has to rip off
>others.......what a talented guy.
Once again, name the songs "Wonderwall" or "Live Forever" sound *exactly*
like. And if all Noel's songs are exactly the same as something else, why
hasn't Noel been sued for every last one of 'em? Invariably Noel writes his
own melodies, but borrows bits and pieces from other songs. He's admitted as
much. Albarn nicks whole musical styles, but he gets away with it because
he's supposedly "eclectic". The day Albarn has an idea of his own is the day
I'll start taking you seriously.
>Oh and all this shit about Damon Albarn not being genuine......do you know
>him??? how do you know he's not genuine?
Because he's a cunt, and I've never met a genuine cunt that also has a
penis.
>How do you know he doesn't mean every
>fucking word he writes and sings???
Because he's a white, middle-class pseudo-intellectual: the very definition
of insincerity. Every musical style he touches has a pseudo prefix, be it
pseudo-pop, psuedo-hip-hop, pseudo-punk, pseudo-lo-fi, pseudo-baggy or
pseudo-gospel. You name it, Albarn's done a cheap, pseudo immitation of it.
Oasis aren't pseuds, so they're incapable of making pseudo-anything.
>You DON'T know, you're guessing. You don't
>know Liam and Noel either.....so you have no clue whether they are geniune
>are not, they could be completely full of shit. In fact, it seems like
>they often are.
Bang!!! You've just shot your own argument in the foot.
MeMeMe
> need some jumped-up Blur fan telling me what constitutes rock'n'roll. The
> very first track on Oasis' debut album stated their intent perfectly:
> "...it's just rock'n'roll". RWI *is* a rock'n'roll song. It may have pop
> hooks, but then all the best rock'n'roll songs do. The point I was making,
> and the point you deliberately side-stepped, was that RWI is not a
blatantly
> cheesy pop song like CH.
Actually, I think RWI is a perfect example of a R'n'R song. Not the greatest
Oasis song by far, but everyone, young and old, know the words, everyone
sings along, and it really gets the crowd jumping. On record it ain't the
best, but live it's one of the greatest R'nR songs ever written, simply
because it does the job it was meant to perfectly...... it gets everyone
jumping around and singing along in a general "Ain't life grand, it's good
to be alive" kind of way. Does anyone need anything more from a R'n'R
song???
> The point being, you ignorant twat: Oasis are a living, breathing,
swearing
> celebration of five decades of rock'n'roll music. They are a homage to all
> the bands they allegedly rip-off. And at least they're fucking honest
about
> it. Oasis don't claim to be original or arty. Blur shamelessly rip-off
other
> bands, but for some reason believe themselves to be original. That's
always
> baffled me.
Right on. And I'm pretty sure if Oasis themselves didn't claim to be ripping
people off, no-one (Or at least, not many!) would make mention of it. They
kind of made a rod for their own backs by admitting it, but that's the price
of honesty in the fickle world of showbiz I guess!
Barnaby207
Really?? so are you, I'll bet. Your posts have just confirmed that even though
you hate pseudo intellectuals, you in fact....ARE one. You've been
intellectualizing music with me for the last several posts we've had.....so to
quote you "BANG You've just shot your own argument in the foot". Also, you're
an oasis fan so....there's a 9/10 chance that you're white. And last of
all.......you own a computer and can afford internet service....therefore you
are at LEAST middle class!! Well I guess since you are white, middle class,
and a pseudo intellectual.....you are the very definition of insincerity. Ya
see, you're one of those middle class guys who pretends not to be middle
class.....and tried to be "down" with the poor working class. By the way, why
have you tried to turn this into a class war? Is Damon automatically less
sincere because his parents made a better living than Liam and Noel's parents??
Because he wasn't dirt poor growing up...he's automatically insincere?? Well
I guess john lennon was insincere as well, because unlike the other
beatles......he was brought up by his aunt mimi in a middle class household.
He was also white, and also an intellectual. By the way you've said the word
"psuedo" or "psued" about 50 million times. Do you actually know what it
means? It means false or counterfeit....fake. So it's likely that damon is an
intellectual...based on the fact that if you've read any interview with
him.....you can see that he's a deep thinking, intelligent guy. Now what
evidence do you have that he's a FAKE intellectual. he doesn't try to be
anything he's not.......he's a thirty something year old british singer
songwriter. He has his own opinions and feelings....and he expresses these.
He says what he thinks.....and he writes songs about how he feels, or what he
sees in the world around him. What's fake about that?? Yes he does seem to
THINK about things, and perhaps intellectualizes music a bit more than noel and
liam. But so what......he has a mind, is there something wrong with that?
You've obviously got an EXTREMELY unrational hatred towards someone you don't
even know. He's just a fucking songwriter who likes lots of different types of
music and sometimes tries to apply these different styles into his songs. Have
you ever thought that maybe it gets pretty fucking boring playing the same type
of music ALL the time? I know it would bore me. Not everyone likes to do the
SAME thing ALL the time.......usually people with more active minds, and a
sense of adventure, like to try their hands at different things occassionally.
"Because he's a cunt, and I've never met a genuine cunt that also has a
penis."
that's such an intelligent argument. I guess you couldn't think of
anything.....so you had throw a cheap joke in there....lovely. That just goes
to prove my point that oasis has the most unintelligent fans in all of music.
They're just complete and utter morons...
"The day Albarn has an idea of his own is the day
I'll start taking you seriously."
name one other artist who's used an instrument like an optigan on a pop
recording........name one other artist who's played a melodica riff through an
echo chamber, over an loose organic hip hop beat , with reggae inspired vocals,
and rock guitar. in fact name one other pop artist who's even USED a great
instrument like the melodica in a pop song.....name another artist who's
created a musical piece that sounds ANYTHING like tracks like "sing" or
"caramel".....I listen to shitloads of music....from the baroque times to
modern times and those tracks sound like NOTHING ever made by
anyone...........name one other artist who's mixed traditional americana folk
music, mixed with electronica, mixed with classical styles??? which damon did
with michael nyman on the ravenous film score. Exactly what I thought.....you
can't name anyone, because these are all damon's ideas. He may take elements
from other genres......but he mixes them all together and basically forms his
own genre of music. Every new musical genre has been formed by combining
elements of others....and creating something entirely new. albarn has done
this on several occassions. Whereas Noel Gallagher doesn't have one idea that
hasn't been done 50 times before by someone else......and done better.
jamiecè¡¥
<snipped the above...>
> And last of
> all.......you own a computer and can afford internet service....therefore
you
> are at LEAST middle class!!
<...and the rest>
so you're saying anyone who's ever been on the internet is middle class, eh?
you've just won the award for most ridiculous sentence of the year. you had
to do well to beat "blur are the best band of the 90's", but i think you've
pulled it off. well done.
Barnaby207
most likely at least middle class. Liam and Noel lived in a house with their
mum which had no fucking carpet even, and was a council estate.....THAT is
working class. at least by the standards over here in the states......unless
middle class means something different in the UK than in the US. if that's the
case then I'll take back that statement....
jamiecè¡¥
well for a start you 'assumed' he had a computer. theoretically i could
give a tramp a quid tomorrow and he could easily go into a cybercafe and
post a message. anyway, it's not that important.
Barnaby207
jamiecè¡¥
> he ALWAYS posts on here....he has a computer
he could be doing it from work, could be using a friends, could pop in a
cybercafe on his lunchbreak....don't always assume. i myself was using a
friends computer to post here for 4 months before i could afford a computer
of my own. also you can easily get on the net for less than £100. some
people use 486's for web access
Mr.Psychosis
Barnaby207 wrote...
>"Because he's a white, middle-class pseudo-intellectual"
>
>Really?? so are you, I'll bet.
White? Yes. Middle-class? Debatable. Pseudo-intellectual? Mange tout.
As for the rest, I can't be arsed anymore. You've shown your true colours by
running of to amb for help.
I'd just like to point one thing out though: Noel Gallagher almost certainly
owns a computer, yet he's still working class. If you're born working class,
you stay working class till the day you die. The fact that you've managed to
earn a few bob while you're alive means nothing.
Barnaby207
dirt poor when I was born.......but as I got older my dad really got lucky in
business, so we ended up doing very well. So I was borng working class
technically.....but I don't really consider myself working class at all. But I
guess I'm working class till I die right??? this class stuff if such bullshit.
What's with you class warrior's anyway? Why do you judge people by their
financial situations. I asked people in AMB if they wanted to join in on this
discussion because I was arguing with you, yates, seeker, and jamie c....all
about the blur oasis thing, and I thought I'd try to even out the score a bit.
And make it a bit more fair..... And lastly, I NEVER started the
argument.....I never right off the bat dissed oasis. I was simply defended a
band that I feel strongly about......is that a crime?
Snapper
you're only one person? surely, talent is subjective, no? if not, then why
do i like bands you don't?
--
"Breakfast is no longer being served! Prepare
to get Brunch...... in the face!" - Action Hank
"Barnaby207" <barna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010923130444...@mb-ft.aol.com...
: it makes them superior songwriters, that's all.....better tunes
Barnaby207
whether someone is gifted or talented isn't subjective. Someone is either good
at guitar, or they're not very good. They're either a good songwriter, an
average songwriter, or a not so good songwriter......so talent, and abilities
in their purest form are not subjective
Snapper
--
"Breakfast is no longer being served! Prepare
to get Brunch...... in the face!" - Action Hank
"Barnaby207" <barna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010924192904...@mb-fv.aol.com...
: that's because people have different opinions on what music they like.
Barnaby207
opinion, that's one's own personal taste. For the 50th time.....Talent is
something different, it's one's abilities. Whether someone is good at
something or not is not subjective at all. That's like saying Pele wasn't
definitely great at football. When it's obvious that whether you were a fan or
not, Pele was a great footballer. Just like Whitney Houston is an incredibly
talent vocalist....I hate her music. But it's a fact that she's talented.......
that's my whole point. It makes absolute sense.
fountainhead
it only makes sense when you pick easy examples.
ok, so you think that whitney is a great singer. fine.
i think liam gallagher is a great singer - some people think he's
just a sneery shouty man with no talent at all. i think that thom
yorke is a great singer - some people think he's a whiny
moron with all the talent of a housebrick. some people think
that mariah carey is a fantastic singer - i think she's an
overrated warbling whore who can hit any note, but hold
none at all.
who was the better singer? lennon or maccartney? who
was the better songwriter? you should be able to answer
these because their talents can be measured 'subjectively'
- ie. it wouldn't be just an opinion, it would be a fact.
most agree that pele was a great footballer - but some think
that maradona was better. i know someone who thinks that
nigel clough was better. where does objectivity end and
subjectivity begin? i imagine that anyone else in the world
who knew football would tell the clough fan that he's a raving
lunatic, but far fewer would be so harsh on the maradona
fan. nobody is right or wrong here - it's all subjective.
Molly M
> most agree that pele was a great footballer - but some think
> that maradona was better. i know someone who thinks that
> nigel clough was better. where does objectivity end and
> subjectivity begin?
That's possibly a more difficult question than "how can the most wanted
man in the world send faxes to a tv station and still not be tracked
down". Maybe the CIA could have the answer to both, try them.
> i imagine that anyone else in the world
> who knew football would tell the clough fan that he's a raving
> lunatic, but far fewer would be so harsh on the maradona
> fan. nobody is right or wrong here - it's all subjective.
No no no, otherwise there'd be no consensus on anything at all! Saying
"it's all subjective and relative" is just as bullshit as saying that
you should be 100% "objective". There are no absolute truths in
*recognizing* talent but no total chaos either, there *is* a right and
wrong, just as in basic human morals, you instinctively know right from
wrong don't you? Same goes for recognizing talent, though it can be
more complicated by factors like fame, success, media brainwashing etc.
As for the football examples you mention: Maradona had talent but of a
different kind, more on the spur of the moment, more crazy and wild,
more uncontrollable and untamed, while someone like Pele though having
the same kind of inborn talent (more, definitely) had more style and
"technical" precision and perfection as well - Maradona was not perfect
by far but was very instinctive and a lot more than a footballer that's
why many prefer him, for what he stood for. So, it depends what kind of
talent you prefer, it's just different and subjective, but objectively,
Pele was the greatest of the two for technical reasons.
I have no clue who Clough was so he can't be up to that world champion
level, *objectively*, his fans may not be raving lunatics but just
prefer a local unknown footballer, and that is wholly subjective. Know
what I mean? There is a line to be drawn there! There's many subjective
factors at play but still you can try and be as objective as you can
about anything, even though recognizing talent is *an instinctive
thing* just as *having it* is instinctive. I hope this makes sense.
Another instance: I can't be very objective about Oasis, if I try to be
then I can find them many faults as well as talents, but it don't
matter cos of what they represent and are, not the music or "technical"
talent alone. Technically Mariah Carey has more vocal extension than
Liam; but she doesn't have that real quality that comes from the soul.
And which Oasis have in such abundance and intensity to make up for any
lack of "technical perfection" which can be as cold as ice if not
backed up by some real passion. Very few bands or musicians have both.
I can think of people like the Who, Jimi Hendrix... Oasis may not be up
to that level in the strictly technical department, but they're
madferit, so it don't matter, AND they got some real talent from the
guts and heart. Surely a lot of people and even the press has
recognized this "objectively" even if they're not fans.
Molly M
> how do you measure talent?
how do you measure love? happiness? anger? you just know when you feel
it.
>
> and, for a band, is it measured in total or by individual?
this is not about chemical composition, read the label, units and RDA.
it's fucking there or not and you just know when it is or isn't!
>
> i'm curious. is there an internationally recognised unit of
> talent?
yes it's called the liametre
> if so then, presumably, we can work out who the
> most talented band in the world is
AS IF! you just take a guess! come on it's not that hard! you're in the
right ng to make an accurate assessment of the situation....
> and, i suppose, that would
> make them the best band in the world.
exactly. man, you could just work for the cia, your so smart, but
you're missing out the important bits, or purposefully ignoring them,
see, that makes you very suited for the job :)
> this would end a lot
> of arguements.
oh no everyone knows you need a few nuclear bombs for that
fountainhead
"Molly M" <idlik...@underthesea.org> wrote in message
news:01HW.B7D8D3490...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > i imagine that anyone else in the world
> > who knew football would tell the clough fan that he's a raving
> > lunatic, but far fewer would be so harsh on the maradona
> > fan. nobody is right or wrong here - it's all subjective.
>
> No no no, otherwise there'd be no consensus on anything at all!
of course there is. there's a consensus on this group that oasis
are good. a consensus is just lots of people having the same
opinion.
> Saying
> "it's all subjective and relative" is just as bullshit as saying that
> you should be 100% "objective".
i disagree. i have a fundamental objection to 'objectivity' as a
concept. i don't think it exists. it is a myth. it's an impossible
state. to be objective one has to be 'reasonable' or 'unbias'.
but who can be those things? objectivity is all about some
'reasonable' standard - but who sets that standard? who has
the right to call someone else unreasonable?
i should point out that i've had this arguement in many places -
from usenet to university tutorials - and the only people that
i've been prepared to 'bow' to have been people who believe
in a god - and that what god says is 'reasonable', and what
god gives us is 'objective'. unless you believe in such a higher
being, then i don't see how you can believe in objectivity.
> There are no absolute truths in
> *recognizing* talent but no total chaos either, there *is* a right and
> wrong, just as in basic human morals, you instinctively know right from
> wrong don't you?
this, again, harks back to god. what is right for one person can
be wrong to another. some people think it is as wrong to kill an
animal as it is to kill a human. who is right here? who is being
'objective'?
> As for the football examples you mention: Maradona had talent but of a
> different kind, more on the spur of the moment, more crazy and wild,
> more uncontrollable and untamed, while someone like Pele though having
> the same kind of inborn talent (more, definitely) had more style and
> "technical" precision and perfection as well - Maradona was not perfect
> by far but was very instinctive and a lot more than a footballer that's
> why many prefer him, for what he stood for. So, it depends what kind of
> talent you prefer, it's just different and subjective, but objectively,
> Pele was the greatest of the two for technical reasons.
why is that objective? i'd say it's just your opinion. i'd say that
maradona was just as technically able as pele but, perhaps not
as consistent.
> I have no clue who Clough was so he can't be up to that world champion
> level, *objectively*, his fans may not be raving lunatics but just
> prefer a local unknown footballer, and that is wholly subjective. Know
> what I mean?
for the record, nigel clough was the most underrated english footballer
of his generation. his vision and intelligence on the field was second
only to gazza. if he'd been a bit quicker then he'd have been a
mainstay of the england side for many years.
> There is a line to be drawn there!
i have problems with drawing lines. who draws them? mr reasonable?
who is he? i say that we all draw our own lines.
> There's many subjective
> factors at play but still you can try and be as objective as you can
> about anything, even though recognizing talent is *an instinctive
> thing* just as *having it* is instinctive. I hope this makes sense.
it does make sense - but i don't think you can possibly be
'objective', it's impossible to rid yourself of your bias - no matter
how hard you try.
> Another instance: I can't be very objective about Oasis, if I try to be
> then I can find them many faults as well as talents, but it don't
> matter cos of what they represent and are, not the music or "technical"
> talent alone. Technically Mariah Carey has more vocal extension than
> Liam; but she doesn't have that real quality that comes from the soul.
> And which Oasis have in such abundance and intensity to make up for any
> lack of "technical perfection" which can be as cold as ice if not
> backed up by some real passion.
i don't see the relevance of technical ability here. once again, how
do you measure it? and even if you do, what does it matter?
graham coxon can probably play more complicated guitar parts
than jonny greenwood - but jonny can make some incredible
noises that, maybe, graham cannot. that's all part of his
'technical' ability. or is it? i don't know. it's not even possible
to be 'objective' in *defining* technical ability - let alone in
measuring it.
> Very few bands or musicians have both.
> I can think of people like the Who, Jimi Hendrix... Oasis may not be up
> to that level in the strictly technical department, but they're
> madferit, so it don't matter, AND they got some real talent from the
> guts and heart. Surely a lot of people and even the press has
> recognized this "objectively" even if they're not fans.
a lot of people do not recognise it. are you saying that they are
being unreasonable? it seems so. who are you to call them
unreasonable? if they don't see the good things in oasis then
that's down to them. you seem to be saying that they are being
subjective, but you are being objective.
saying to someone 'be objective' is the equivalent of banging your
fists on the table. you may as well scream 'look... i'm right and you're
wrong. i'm reasonable and you are not'. none of us has the right
to say that. we have the right to our (subjective) opinions, and
we have the right to express them. we do not, however, have
the right to start spouting 'objectivity' as a tool to justify those
opinions. just be happy with your own opinion, and rejoice when
you find others that agree with you. don't accuse, implicitly or
explicitly, people who disagree of being unreasonable.
Molly M
> i disagree. i have a fundamental objection to 'objectivity' as a
> concept. i don't think it exists. it is a myth. it's an impossible
> state. to be objective one has to be 'reasonable' or 'unbias'.
> but who can be those things? objectivity is all about some
> 'reasonable' standard - but who sets that standard? who has
> the right to call someone else unreasonable? (....)
<snipppp>
> don't accuse, implicitly or
> explicitly, people who disagree of being unreasonable.
I DID NOT! phew. You're a fundamentalist :))
Agh, fountainhead, you are taking my words and finding things I didn't
even imply! Listen to me now, let me recap:
first, I said it myself: you can't have total objectivity, ok? it's all
open to discussion, no one has absolute truths, yet everyone has an
instinct and capability for recognizing great talents, *aside* from
personal tastes.
I don't even like the word "objective", I'm just saying: one thing is
listen to music for your own pleasure; to enjoy it, throw away any
"objectivity" and plunge in it, it's about emotion, pleasure, you don't
need your brains for that.
but if you're talking about *recognizing talent* and talking about it
judging it assessing it etc., which was the topic here, then you need
to be a bit more detached, critical (that's what I meant by "more
objective, much as you can").
I never said "objective" is the same as "reasonable" - I don't get the
link you're making there. I actually think it's more to do with gut
instinct, but to talk about it you need some critical detachment from
your own tastes. (it's not confused as it may sound)
one thing is personal taste; another is critical judgement of talent.
everyone recognizes the sistine chapel is a masterpiece of art; it is
not cos they teach you in school! it is an instinctive thing, you just
need to look at the awe on the faces of tourists to see that; if anyone
said it's a piece of shit then they're being ignorant, not
"unreasonable".
but they could say they don't like it personally and prefer say, paul
mac cartney's paintings. that's personal taste, fine, it's another
thing. but no one would say macca is a better painter technically than
michelangelo. do you get my point now?
also: god and "objectivity"? what are you on about? religion is the
most unobjective thing in the world, the most "unreasonable" thing. you
don't need reason, you need belief, faith, that is beyond reason. if
you're talking of a god giving absolute irrefutable laws and morals
then you're talking of a god for the fundamentalists, and it's not God
or Allah but just a distortion.
human morals are an instinct - everyone knows that killing 5000 people
is worse than killing 5000 cows. even the murderers know this,
otherwise they'd have bombed a cattle farm instead of the towers. come
on, don't be so daft.
going back to the topic, more specifically about music: there are many
levels and kinds of talents.
technical ability is just: the skill in performing and playing an
instrument. Any musician must be able to recognize it otherwise they
wouldn't know if they're being shit or not. it's not the only talent
you need, in fact, alone it just doesn't cut it. mariah has more vocal
extension than Liam so is technically the better singer, but she
doesn't have an inch of the other talents Liam has - and now don't ask
me "which other talents?" cos I may slap you ;)
last: "if only nigel clough had been quicker" is the same as saying 'he
lacked that specific talent that pele and maradona had, hence overall
he was not as great a talent as them"
if only I could do the flamenco move like Jennifer Lopez... ;)
fountainhead
> first, I said it myself: you can't have total objectivity, ok? it's all
> open to discussion, no one has absolute truths, yet everyone has an
> instinct and capability for recognizing great talents, *aside* from
> personal tastes.
'no one has absolute truths'. you said it yourself. so the 'fact' that
the roof of the sistine chapel is a great thing isn't 'truth' - it's just
a widely held opinion. a subjective conincidence.
> but if you're talking about *recognizing talent* and talking about it
> judging it assessing it etc., which was the topic here, then you need
> to be a bit more detached, critical (that's what I meant by "more
> objective, much as you can").
>
> I never said "objective" is the same as "reasonable" - I don't get the
> link you're making there. I actually think it's more to do with gut
> instinct, but to talk about it you need some critical detachment from
> your own tastes. (it's not confused as it may sound)
but being objective *is* the same as being reasonable, as being
without bias. that's why i don't like it.
>
> one thing is personal taste; another is critical judgement of talent.
> everyone recognizes the sistine chapel is a masterpiece of art; it is
> not cos they teach you in school! it is an instinctive thing, you just
> need to look at the awe on the faces of tourists to see that; if anyone
> said it's a piece of shit then they're being ignorant, not
> "unreasonable".
no. they're expressing an opinion which they are totally entitled
to. if someone truly thinks that a great piece of art is shit, and
they don't understand why anyone could think otherwise, then
fair play to them.
i think that okcomputer is one of the most magnificent pieces of
art of this, or any other, age. and this isn't me making up a silly
example - it's the way i honestly feel. if someone thinks that it's
bollocks then that's their opinion. i respect that. i don't think
that person is being ignorant, or unreasonable.
> but they could say they don't like it personally and prefer say, paul
> mac cartney's paintings. that's personal taste, fine, it's another
> thing. but no one would say macca is a better painter technically than
> michelangelo. do you get my point now?
you're doing what barnaby was doing and picking easy examples
which, probably, everyone would agree with. examples where
everybody shares the same opinion. the problem comes when
you look at more difficult examples - i think that steven, who
writes the songs for my band, is a better songwriter than noel
gallagher. even if i try to be detached, i still think he's a
a better songwriter. 'objectivity' would tell me i'm wrong - but
i don't think anything, or anyone, has a right to tell me that.
> also: god and "objectivity"? what are you on about? religion is the
> most unobjective thing in the world, the most "unreasonable" thing. you
> don't need reason, you need belief, faith, that is beyond reason. if
> you're talking of a god giving absolute irrefutable laws and morals
> then you're talking of a god for the fundamentalists, and it's not God
> or Allah but just a distortion.
what i mean is that if you believe in a god, then you believe in a
higher being. someone who *does* have a right to say what is
good and what is bad. somebody who *is* reasonable.
> human morals are an instinct - everyone knows that killing 5000 people
> is worse than killing 5000 cows. even the murderers know this,
> otherwise they'd have bombed a cattle farm instead of the towers. come
> on, don't be so daft.
not true. there are plenty of people who hold the life of an animal
to be as sacred as the life of a person. and, to be fair to them, they've
probably got a point. just because we're the most powerful species
on the planet why does that give us the right to kill all the others?
america is the most powerful nation on the planet - but nobody would
argue that this gives them the right to kill people from other countries
because they feel like it.
> technical ability is just: the skill in performing and playing an
> instrument. Any musician must be able to recognize it otherwise they
> wouldn't know if they're being shit or not.
i'm not denying that technical ability exists - but i don't see what
real relevance it has. you can talk about it - but once you try and
compare it then you're back into the realms of opinion.
you talk about mariah having a greater vocal range than liam - and
therefore being a better 'technical' singer. well i don't think that
having a wide vocal range is all that important. i think that having
the ability to express oneself is a more important 'technical' aspect
of singing. i think that liam is a better singer than mariah in every
respect. you see.. opinion comes into it even when you try and
determine what techinical ability *is*, let alone who has it and
who has more or less of it.
Molly M
>
> "Molly M" <idlik...@underthesea.org> wrote in message
> news:01HW.B7DCF4810...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
>> first, I said it myself: you can't have total objectivity, ok? it's all
>> open to discussion, no one has absolute truths, yet everyone has an
>> instinct and capability for recognizing great talents, *aside* from
>> personal tastes.
>
> 'no one has absolute truths'. you said it yourself. so the 'fact' that
> the roof of the sistine chapel is a great thing isn't 'truth' - it's just
> a widely held opinion. a subjective conincidence.
Look you must be kidding right? a "subjective coincidence"? that
reminds me of a phrase that is even more brilliantly contradictory:
"parallel convergences". It was invented by an Italian politician, what
a machiavellian genius, for justifying the christian democrat
*alliance* with the communists back in the days of terrorism (local
terrorism).
Since they couldn't come out right and say they were allying themselves
with the commies, they invented that phrase.
You'd make a great machiavellian politician too. :)
> but being objective *is* the same as being reasonable, as being
> without bias. that's why i don't like it.
Aagh, I said you can't be *totally* without bias. We're not machines.
Yet you can be detached, you can be critical when you need to judge
art, and not simply enjoy it.
Do I need to write this again in other words? :)
>> one thing is personal taste; another is critical judgement of talent.
>> everyone recognizes the sistine chapel is a masterpiece of art; it is
>> not cos they teach you in school! it is an instinctive thing, you just
>> need to look at the awe on the faces of tourists to see that; if anyone
>> said it's a piece of shit then they're being ignorant, not
>> "unreasonable".
>
> no. they're expressing an opinion which they are totally entitled
> to.
Yes, if you mean they're entitled to not like it; but they're not
entitled to *judge* the talent critically, cos evidently they're
ignorant about art if they say that the sistine chapel is a piece of
shit that shows no talent.
Is this a shocking statement to you? cos you believe in absolute 100%
relativism? I don't, much as I don't believe in 100% objectivity.
> if someone truly thinks that a great piece of art is shit, and
> they don't understand why anyone could think otherwise, then
> fair play to them.
Bollocks. Now let's leave abstract reasoning for a moment: show me one
person in the world who has been there, has seen it, and honestly says
"it is shit, it shows no talent" (and not simply "I don't care I'm not
interested in that art I don't like it"). IF there are, they know
nothing about art and painting, simple as that.
>
> i think that okcomputer is one of the most magnificent pieces of
> art of this, or any other, age. and this isn't me making up a silly
> example - it's the way i honestly feel. if someone thinks that it's
> bollocks then that's their opinion. i respect that. i don't think
> that person is being ignorant, or unreasonable.
I believe it is a good record. I personally am not too capable of such
detachment in music, but apart from my tastes, I never read anyone
(press, critics, people, anything) within a *critical* discussion (not
just about their own tastes! and not just a quick preference list or
something like that) saying it shows no talent and is a shit album.
Taste/ critical judgement - remember, two different things, *even if*
critical judgement can never be totally "detached", ok?
(don't think in such absolutist terms, it's not a black and white
thing, it's more complex, personal taste always comes into critical
judgement too to some degree, *obviously*).
>
>> but they could say they don't like it personally and prefer say, paul
>> mac cartney's paintings. that's personal taste, fine, it's another
>> thing. but no one would say macca is a better painter technically than
>> michelangelo. do you get my point now?
>
> you're doing what barnaby was doing and picking easy examples
> which, probably, everyone would agree with. examples where
> everybody shares the same opinion.
Exactly, I said "recognizing GREAT talents", did I not? I picked such
examples cos they show that at least on some great instances of talent,
we all have that instinct to recognize it. It's more difficult for
*contemporary* stuff cos we don't have the necessary detachment to
judge it. It's easier to value the artistic talent in a work done
centuries ago. Or a record of the sixties rather than last month.
> the problem comes when
> you look at more difficult examples - i think that steven, who
> writes the songs for my band, is a better songwriter than noel
> gallagher. even if i try to be detached
He he!! come on, you can NEVER be detached about your own band. I
listened to the stuff too, remember? I do like it but on a very
different scale from Oasis, and sorry, I do not agree in the least, the
talents you have there are not at all on the same level with Noel's
songwriting! no offence, really but though perhaps I'm not detached
about Oasis.... I'm not in your band at least ;)
There are many different levels and kinds of talent (why do you make me
rewrite stuff, lol!) - I think that's such an obvious statament we can
all agree on?
>, i still think he's a
> a better songwriter.
Ahem!
> 'objectivity' would tell me i'm wrong - but
> i don't think anything, or anyone, has a right to tell me that.
Look, you're mixing up the two planes - you have EVERY right to prefer
your own band's songwriter to Noel. That is your god given right. I'm
not saying you don't have the right to say this or that.
But if someone has to judge and compare critically the two, then you
know it'd be quite different - of course you can still hold any opinion
but you can't claim to be detached about it...
Man, pick another example, you're just muddying the waters here! How
can you bring your own band into it? that's obviously a case where you
could never ever be detached, maybe in ten years, after you have fame
and success, but not now!
>
>> also: god and "objectivity"? what are you on about? religion is the
>> most unobjective thing in the world, the most "unreasonable" thing. you
>> don't need reason, you need belief, faith, that is beyond reason. if
>> you're talking of a god giving absolute irrefutable laws and morals
>> then you're talking of a god for the fundamentalists, and it's not God
>> or Allah but just a distortion.
>
> what i mean is that if you believe in a god, then you believe in a
> higher being. someone who *does* have a right to say what is
> good and what is bad. somebody who *is* reasonable.
Eh?? what religion is that? in the middle ages? God does not come with
an instruction manual these days.
You're confusing "objectivity" (which I'd rather call detachment, in
some degree) with religious truth or dogma or revelation. It's a
different thing and you know it. Don't be so dishonest. Tsk tsk!
>> human morals are an instinct - everyone knows that killing 5000 people
>> is worse than killing 5000 cows. even the murderers know this,
>> otherwise they'd have bombed a cattle farm instead of the towers. come
>> on, don't be so daft.
>
> not true. there are plenty of people who hold the life of an animal
> to be as sacred as the life of a person.
Look, I don't know if you're taking they piss - would they hold it as
precious even in a example like that? would they be as enraged if it
was 5000 cows? I don't think so. If there are such people, they need a
brain check.
Gimme some real examples, not abstract reasoning like this. For all I
know there might be crazy people believing killing 5000 ants would be
just as bad as the NY attacks. But so far I never heard anyone claiming
that and I don't think I would even if I talked to every single
inhabitant of the world who is not suffering from a mental disorder or
following a fundamnetalist religion or supporting crime.
> and, to be fair to them, they've
> probably got a point. just because we're the most powerful species
> on the planet why does that give us the right to kill all the others?
That is another matter. It's different from saying it's the same kind
of crime as killing *people*. I don't like cruelty on animals myself.
But butchering cows is not the same thing as murdering men and women
and kids in a terrorist attack, and everybody knows that, even the
strictest vegetarians and animal rights supporters.
> america is the most powerful nation on the planet - but nobody would
> argue that this gives them the right to kill people from other countries
> because they feel like it.
What has this got to do with anything?? what are you aiming at here? I
don't get it.
You're not dragging me into a political discussion, no way. I only
brought in the ny attacks as example of the way people witnessing such
events know what is wrong and right, ie. wrong to kill people, DUH.
Those *few* "celebrating" in the middle east were a) being brainwashed
and b) perfectly aware it's bad to kill people but they are led to
believe there is a holy war and those were their enemies. Criminal
psychology: even murderers know right from wrong, they just can't help
it, or do it deliberately, or who the fuck knows, maybe there is a gene
for cruelty, but sure as hell there is an instinctive morality everyone
shares.
Just as we have an instinct in recognizing beauty, in being moved by
sunsets, by music, etc. - and an instinct or capability to recognize
quality, talent, beyond our own personal tastes.
>
>> technical ability is just: the skill in performing and playing an
>> instrument. Any musician must be able to recognize it otherwise they
>> wouldn't know if they're being shit or not.
>
> i'm not denying that technical ability exists - but i don't see what
> real relevance it has.
Er..; it does when you, er, have to judge the presence or lack of
talent in music, say. Look, you learn to play the flute ok? how in hell
did you progress from the first whistle if you didn't instinctively
know about technical ability? how did you recognize when you went from
tentative to confident? you just knew.
> you can talk about it - but once you try and
> compare it then you're back into the realms of opinion.
Of course! but you can have *critical* opinion, which can attempt at
least to be more detached than just saying " I love it/ I hate it" and
go beyond the mere level of enjoying things.
Personally, when I get to listen to something I fall in love with, I
can't be detached about it. Hell, there's stuff I've been listening
since I was a kid and I can't be detached about it. That's why I'd
never want to be a professional critic.
But if we want to discuss which Oasis album is best and which is
worse.... you must have noticed the variety of opinions, but also a
largely shared similar "subjective coincidence" ;) in saying DM is the
best they ever did.
> you talk about mariah having a greater vocal range than liam - and
> therefore being a better 'technical' singer. well i don't think that
> having a wide vocal range is all that important.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID TOO!
"technical ability alone doesn't cut it" cos you need the passion and a
lot of other things that go beyond the technical
because, again: there's so many levels and kinds of talent, technical
is one, and one way of assessing talent is to look at the technical
skill, but then you need to assess other stuff too! (note: when you are
assessing *critically*, and not just *enjoying* the music - keep this
in mind, cos you're still mixing up the two here!).
If I were assessing only skill, then I'd say the hijackers had some
fucking talent in pulling that feat off. Objectively, fucking hell,
they were very well coordinated. They fooled the airports secuirity!
the CIA! the FBI! they pulled it off under the eyes of the Pentagon. If
that isn't technical skill... In fact a famous German composer made
some comments about the perfection of such an organized synchronized
operation that would put to shame any orchestra in the world, and he
got shot by the media who ignored his last comment making it clear he
was talking about a diabolical talent.
Again, no political discussion here please, just an example of how you
can "isolate" technical skill, and still it won't mean anything
"positive" by itself. I don't like mass murders either, DUH, but when
you see a crime movie, you often get to cheer for the villains cos they
pull it off so nicely. If it is real life, you don't cheer for them,
still you can recognize their skills. Capisc?
> i think that having
> the ability to express oneself is a more important 'technical' aspect
> of singing.
THAT IS WHAT I SAID TOO.
Are you a taleban? cos you listen sooo well to other people's words!
;))
> i think that liam is a better singer than mariah in every
> respect.
Look, me too but I just said he does not have the same vocal extension,
that is a fact, objective, a fact I can't care less about, but it's a
technical thing. He could never reach those notes. Objectively. He
could never hijack a plane either!! geddit now?! :)
> you see.. opinion comes into it even when you try and
> determine what techinical ability *is*, let alone who has it and
> who has more or less of it.
Look, we're getting nowhere, it's worse than international diplomacy
right now. You're just talking to yourself here, making me repeat the
same things cos you are taking my words and replying to things I don't
even say. Did I not say: you can NOT have 100% objectivity? come on,
I'm not saying anything shockingly new, only very obvious things.
Everyone knows in which shows Liam's voice cracked and was shit. It
does NOT matter as far as loving the music goes (I love when his voice
cracks! I fucking adore his "imperfections"! I wouldn't swap it for the
nine octaves range in a million years). It would matter though to
recognize that flaw if you were writing critically about the show. Can
we agree on this or am I saying something outrageously new to you? :)
fountainhead
> > 'no one has absolute truths'. you said it yourself. so the 'fact' that
> > the roof of the sistine chapel is a great thing isn't 'truth' - it's
just
> > a widely held opinion. a subjective conincidence.
>
> Look you must be kidding right? a "subjective coincidence"? that
> reminds me of a phrase that is even more brilliantly contradictory:
> "parallel convergences".
i don't see what is contradictory about it. if two people share the same
opinion then it is a coincidence. nothing more.
> Aagh, I said you can't be *totally* without bias. We're not machines.
> Yet you can be detached, you can be critical when you need to judge
> art, and not simply enjoy it.
you can *try* and be detached. but our thoughts and opinions are shaped
by our lives and experiences - and are bias because of them. you cannot
shake that off - no matter how hard you try.
> Yes, if you mean they're entitled to not like it; but they're not
> entitled to *judge* the talent critically, cos evidently they're
> ignorant about art if they say that the sistine chapel is a piece of
> shit that shows no talent.
as i said - this is an easy example. of course it sounds ludicrous
for me to support the right of someone to say such a thing. but
the problem is that, somewhere, someone has to draw a line.
this whole thing started because someone was saying that blur
were 'objectively' better than oasis. he said that anyone looking
critically at the bands would say the same. he said that it was
fine to have your opinions, and it was fine to prefer one to the
other - but that *really* everyone should recognise that blur
are the better band.
now this, surely, is not so easy.
i'm sure we agree that there are shit bands in the world - just like
there are shit paintings. and there are great bands, just like there
are great painters. and, of course, there is everything that falls
between the two. now... at what point are we no longer allowed
to say that a band is worthless? at what point, between my pen
sketch of a bum and the sistine chapel, do i have to put aside my
opinion and recognise the talent involved?
> (don't think in such absolutist terms, it's not a black and white
> thing, it's more complex, personal taste always comes into critical
> judgement too to some degree, *obviously*).
which is what i'm saying.
> Exactly, I said "recognizing GREAT talents", did I not? I picked such
> examples cos they show that at least on some great instances of talent,
> we all have that instinct to recognize it. It's more difficult for
> *contemporary* stuff cos we don't have the necessary detachment to
> judge it. It's easier to value the artistic talent in a work done
> centuries ago. Or a record of the sixties rather than last month.
i disagree. would the sistine chapel be less of a masterpiece if it had
been done last week? surely not.
like i said - the problem with your arguement is deciding when something
becomes 'great'. whether you realise it or not, you're drawing a line.
> Man, pick another example, you're just muddying the waters here! How
> can you bring your own band into it? that's obviously a case where you
> could never ever be detached, maybe in ten years, after you have fame
> and success, but not now!
i used my band because it was the first thing i thought of. perhaps it
would have been better if i'd not used noel as a comparison. what
if i said that i believe steven is a better songwriter than, say, kelly
jones and, furthermore, i think that, in every way, we are a much
better band than the stereophonics?
is that really unreasonable?
ok... so now i'll take may band out of it. right now i'm listening to
a band called 'lincoln'. they're brilliant - much much better than
the stereophonics. and i can be perfectly detached from *them*,
but i still think that they're better. and i don't like this idea that i
should think otherwise.
> You're confusing "objectivity" (which I'd rather call detachment, in
> some degree) with religious truth or dogma or revelation. It's a
> different thing and you know it. Don't be so dishonest. Tsk tsk!
the religious angle came from my days studying the philosophy of
law. there is a theory that there are certain 'goods' which are
god given - that they can be said to be 'objective', and that anyone
who disagrees with them is wrong.
> > not true. there are plenty of people who hold the life of an animal
> > to be as sacred as the life of a person.
>
> Look, I don't know if you're taking they piss - would they hold it as
> precious even in a example like that? would they be as enraged if it
> was 5000 cows? I don't think so. If there are such people, they need a
> brain check.
why?
> > america is the most powerful nation on the planet - but nobody would
> > argue that this gives them the right to kill people from other countries
> > because they feel like it.
>
> What has this got to do with anything?? what are you aiming at here? I
> don't get it.
why do you believe that it's less of a crime to kill an animal than a
person?
why do you think an animal life is worth less than a human life?
the reason a lot of people think it's ok to kill animals (and i'm not saying
this is why *you* think it's ok) is that humans are the masters of the
planet, and so we can use it's resources as we see fit. we have 'triumphed'
over the rest of the animal kingdom - so we are allowed to exploit it to
our benefit.
so how does that differ from a nation which can triumph over other
nations? is it not just natural selection taking a step further?
> Just as we have an instinct in recognizing beauty, in being moved by
> sunsets, by music, etc. - and an instinct or capability to recognize
> quality, talent, beyond our own personal tastes.
but not *all* talent. that's the problem. i find it as bizarre to think
that
someone would fail too see the genius in radiohead as the genius in
michealangelo, beethoven or pele. but i can live with it.
>
> >
> >> technical ability is just: the skill in performing and playing an
> >> instrument. Any musician must be able to recognize it otherwise they
> >> wouldn't know if they're being shit or not.
> >
> > i'm not denying that technical ability exists - but i don't see what
> > real relevance it has.
>
> Er..; it does when you, er, have to judge the presence or lack of
> talent in music, say. Look, you learn to play the flute ok? how in hell
> did you progress from the first whistle if you didn't instinctively
> know about technical ability? how did you recognize when you went from
> tentative to confident? you just knew.
>
> > you can talk about it - but once you try and
> > compare it then you're back into the realms of opinion.
>
> Of course! but you can have *critical* opinion, which can attempt at
> least to be more detached than just saying " I love it/ I hate it" and
> go beyond the mere level of enjoying things.
but that critical opinion, ultimately, is just as bias. personally, i'm no
great fan of the great painters - but i do recognise the talent that these
people had. on the other hand, i'm no fan of the stereophonics - but
i don't recognise any great talent there. i think they're peddling
pub-rock shite with no value whatsoever.
> But if we want to discuss which Oasis album is best and which is
> worse.... you must have noticed the variety of opinions, but also a
> largely shared similar "subjective coincidence" ;) in saying DM is the
> best they ever did.
and that is all that it is. coincidence. there are people here who think
that dm is their worst album. are we saying that they are wrong simply
because they are in a minority?
> because, again: there's so many levels and kinds of talent, technical
> is one, and one way of assessing talent is to look at the technical
> skill, but then you need to assess other stuff too! (note: when you are
> assessing *critically*, and not just *enjoying* the music - keep this
> in mind, cos you're still mixing up the two here!).
i'm not mixing them up - i'm applying the same thinking to both
of them.
> Again, no political discussion here please, just an example of how you
> can "isolate" technical skill, and still it won't mean anything
> "positive" by itself. I don't like mass murders either, DUH, but when
> you see a crime movie, you often get to cheer for the villains cos they
> pull it off so nicely. If it is real life, you don't cheer for them,
> still you can recognize their skills. Capisc?
yeah... but, yet again, an easy example. what about joe bloggs who
puts a sock on his head and robs the local post office? how talented
is he? what about the gang who plans and executes a big jewell
heist? when does it become something we should all stand back
and admire?
> > you see.. opinion comes into it even when you try and
> > determine what techinical ability *is*, let alone who has it and
> > who has more or less of it.
>
> Look, we're getting nowhere, it's worse than international diplomacy
> right now. You're just talking to yourself here, making me repeat the
> same things cos you are taking my words and replying to things I don't
> even say. Did I not say: you can NOT have 100% objectivity? come on,
> I'm not saying anything shockingly new, only very obvious things.
so what are you saying? we're obviously disagreeing about something
here. is my belief that liam is better than mariah objective or subjective?
am i critically detached or not?
i see what you are saying about the vocal range - but i don't think that
this matters in the slightest. so why should i give mariah any credit for
having it?
> It would matter though to
> recognize that flaw if you were writing critically about the show. Can
> we agree on this or am I saying something outrageously new to you? :)
is it a flaw?
i'm a huge belle and sebastian fan. this is a band who are notoriously
shambolic at live shows. they have to restart songs because they get
them wrong, they forget the words, they just bollocks it up completely
on a semi-regular basis. i think that this is great. i find it endearing.
if
i were writing critically about it then i'd say how fab it was.
what you seem to be saying is that i should set my liking for
shambolics aside and recognise this 'flaw'. now.. in this case that
is something i could do. but there will be many other opinions and
preferences that i could not set aside - because i'm simply not
concious of them. it's impossible for me to be 'objective' about
anything.
we agree that you cannot have 100% objectivity. so what is the
disagreement here? this is what i'm saying.
the problem seems to be this business about recognising talent.
that's all well and good - but what *is* talent? what i'm trying to
say is that what a person sees as talent is as subjective as anything
else. and, given that, nobody has the right to tell them that they are
wrong, or ignorant, if they don't see the talent in something.
i see talent in the sistine chapel. i see no talent in the emulsion paint
on my bedroom ceiling. in between the two there are infinite stages.
i would never be so arrogant as to proclaim that i can see the point
where talent begins - because it begins in a different place for
everyone. it's very much a subjective thing. by the time we get to
the sistene chapel then, i'm sure, everyone in the world will have
agreed that it's moved into the realms of talent. but i don't think
that this equates to 'fact'. it is, as i said, subjective coincidence.
the majority is not necessarily right, and you can't call me ignorant
for disagreeing with it.
f.
Molly M
First, I do not mean to be arrogant in any way, I'm not talking of
absolute truths.
Second, I never even said you should put aside your own preferences and
judge the technical flaws of a band and their music when you simply
*enjoy it* which is *all* that matters in the first place. You just
love it or don't, simple as that.
I just said, *when* you want/have to be critical and objective you have
to stand back and try and be detached about judging talent in art. We
agree on this, it seems, cos it's such an obvious thing, isn't it.
I also agree with you on this: you can't have total 100% objectivity.
But, this is what I disagree with you on: your idea that it's all
totally subjective.
Taste is, obviously; but not a critical assessment, that has to be more
detached than just personal preference. It can't be *only* subjective.
That's why I disagreed with your "it's all relative" reply to that guy
who pretended to give "objective" critical judgement everyone must
agree on. I just think, you can't really respond to someone claiming
total objectivism (which doesn't exist) with total relativism - which
is flawed cos it fails to recognize there are standards of reference.
No one sets this standards like absolute truths. They can change, all I
mean is there are basic universal and spontaneously developing
standards (inborn, acquired, nature, culture, tradition, great
instances, masterpieces, lots of things make up standards of
reference). They're not absolute truth, but commonly shared values we
use to measure and assess value. In art as in morals: otherwise we'd
have total chaos. Ants would take over the world! ;)
It's less obvious to see it in art or music, but it's there. Where
there is *critical* consensus on recognizing talent, it's not just a
random coincidence of opinions. It's about sharing the same values and
standards of what is great and what is shit. As for the
anything-in-between: it can be closer to the former or the latter,
simple as that. Come on, it's evident from any review of anything, that
there are standards to compare stuff to in any field from art to
movies. You must know this also from studying art.
Blur and Oasis - haha, that's possibly a worse example than comparing
your own songwriter and noel! agh! let's pick a fairer one:
If anyone said they love Jennifer Lopez more than the Beatles, god
bless them, fine, it's their own preference, but if they said Jennifer
Lopez is objectively better talented than The Beatles in *songwriting*,
what would you tell them? "uh oh well it's all relative" or "get lost!"
eh? on the other hand she is definitely better talented in *dancing*.
Can we say that "objectively"? :)
PS - Of course I'm just pointing out the basic idea. There's lots of
"in betweens". It's a huge theoretical debate, you could go on forever.
There's a book I read ages ago that was very popular, Zen and The Art
of Motorcyle Maintenance, it's a bit heavy on the philosophy bits but
it's about this same topic of subjective, objective, quality, how we
recognize it etc. if I don't recall wrong! the bits in praise of
traveling by motorbike are the best thing though :)
gigglygirl
gigglygirl
Molly M
> I love those italian scooters, I REALLY want one :)
Me too! had one as a teen, but it was already third hand, it's been
sent to the graveyard long ago, amen.
But I was talking of real motorbikes, I can't drive them, but I love
riding them, that book I mentioned has so many great bits on what is so
brilliant about travelling like that, through open countries, open
skies and how "the free wind takes you higher" *sighs* (that's a Jimi
Hendrix song)
I so hope one day I can get on one of those beasts like the ones peter
fonda and dennis hopper ride in easy rider *sighs again*
A Lambretta is cool but not quite the same thing :)
fountainhead
> Argh, fountainhead, it's getting more more and more confused now.
darn diddly-righty. how did we get here anyway?
> First, I do not mean to be arrogant in any way, I'm not talking of
> absolute truths.
>
> Second, I never even said you should put aside your own preferences and
> judge the technical flaws of a band and their music when you simply
> *enjoy it* which is *all* that matters in the first place. You just
> love it or don't, simple as that.
>
> I just said, *when* you want/have to be critical and objective you have
> to stand back and try and be detached about judging talent in art. We
> agree on this, it seems, cos it's such an obvious thing, isn't it.
>
> I also agree with you on this: you can't have total 100% objectivity.
>
> But, this is what I disagree with you on: your idea that it's all
> totally subjective.
>
> Taste is, obviously; but not a critical assessment, that has to be more
> detached than just personal preference. It can't be *only* subjective.
i see what you're saying. of course, we can try, and maybe even succeed,
to 'detatch' ourselves from our tastes when we try and be critical and
objective - but, the way i see it, what we are saying is still shaped by
our own outlook.
> That's why I disagreed with your "it's all relative" reply to that guy
> who pretended to give "objective" critical judgement everyone must
> agree on. I just think, you can't really respond to someone claiming
> total objectivism (which doesn't exist) with total relativism - which
> is flawed cos it fails to recognize there are standards of reference.
but where do those standards come from? that's my issue. that's
where 'subjective coincidence' comes into it. you say that if most
people agree that the roof of the sistine chapel is a masterpiece then
it's because of some inherent appreciation of great art which we all
have - i say that it's a coincidence. i'm not saying that this coincidence
is worthless - there is much value to be placed on things which appeal
to many people.
> No one sets this standards like absolute truths. They can change, all I
> mean is there are basic universal and spontaneously developing
> standards (inborn, acquired, nature, culture, tradition, great
> instances, masterpieces, lots of things make up standards of
> reference). They're not absolute truth, but commonly shared values we
> use to measure and assess value. In art as in morals: otherwise we'd
> have total chaos. Ants would take over the world! ;)
bring 'em on. we've got buffy to defend us.
> It's less obvious to see it in art or music, but it's there. Where
> there is *critical* consensus on recognizing talent, it's not just a
> random coincidence of opinions. It's about sharing the same values and
> standards of what is great and what is shit.
hmm... why is the 'critical' consensus on what is good music usually
so far removed from the popular choice? why was 'ok computer'
proclaimed the album of the 90's and not 'spiceworld'?
different people share different values. should a spice girls fan be
objective and appreciate the greatness of radiohead? or should a
radiohead fan admit that, objectively speaking, the spice girls are
the true greats of 90's music.
f.
Molly M
>
> "Molly M" <idlik...@underthesea.org> wrote...
>
>> Argh, fountainhead, it's getting more more and more confused now.
>
> darn diddly-righty. how did we get here anyway?
He he... I don't know but we'd better sign an agreement here, cos we're
not saying totally opposite things. You're just too extreme about "it's
all relative". But damn I so hate to get lost in theoretical debates!
This thread is making me sound like a professor of philosophy on lsd.
>
> i see what you're saying. of course, we can try, and maybe even succeed,
> to 'detatch' ourselves from our tastes when we try and be critical and
> objective - but, the way i see it, what we are saying is still shaped by
> our own outlook.
Yes, I said that too. I don't give a damn about being detached; but a
critic should try to be. That's my basic point.
>> That's why I disagreed with your "it's all relative" reply to that guy
>> who pretended to give "objective" critical judgement everyone must
>> agree on. I just think, you can't really respond to someone claiming
>> total objectivism (which doesn't exist) with total relativism - which
>> is flawed cos it fails to recognize there are standards of reference.
>
> but where do those standards come from?
Erm! you chose the WRONG moment in history to ask me!!!!
> that's my issue. that's
> where 'subjective coincidence' comes into it. you say that if most
> people agree that the roof of the sistine chapel is a masterpiece then
> it's because of some inherent appreciation of great art which we all
> have - i say that it's a coincidence. i'm not saying that this coincidence
> is worthless - there is much value to be placed on things which appeal
> to many people.
Ok, now seriously - I understand your point; I see you're coming from a
different view of life as a whole maybe? I just believe in shared
values in all those things I said, morals and basic taste - maybe I
should explain I also draw on some studies I did in psychology to say
this. Like, babies recognize instantly some of these things. So I
believe a lot of those basic (very basic) standards are innate. Fuck if
we were having one of those cultured debates on BBC late at night I
could quote some author who wrote books about this but I hate doing
that stuff. I read lots of things that kind of support this idea
though.
A lot of standards are also acquired with tradition and culture.
But whether we're looking at notre dame or an arab mosque or a hindu
temple, anyone from any country can recognize the beauty.
It's not just coincidence, for those things that are so beautiful in an
obvious way to everyone.
For the rest, the in between it's all varied, but people seem to agree
a lot on some common grounds of appreciation of real talent and beauty.
Please don't bring in an example like Atomic Kittens record sales right
now or I'll lose patience with you! ;) cos that's success due to other
reasons than mere appreciation so even in music it's hard to separate
talent from pure promotion as a reason for success. But looking back to
the recent past, it seems easier to agree on who were the bands with
real talent; so maybe one day it'll be easier to see Atomic Kittens
success has no bearing with people's appreciation of talent, it's need
for entertainment which is different.
PHEW. You make me go on too much! Pass the lsd now, please.
>> They're not absolute truth, but commonly shared values we
>> use to measure and assess value. In art as in morals: otherwise we'd
>> have total chaos. Ants would take over the world! ;)
>
> bring 'em on. we've got buffy to defend us.
No actually I now think ants would rule the world much better than
humans, cos human leaders are doing a very poor job right now. Maybe
ants could sort out things better; they're so well organized in their
little societies under the soil, they know no wars or violence, they
could teach us a thing or two.
>
>> It's less obvious to see it in art or music, but it's there. Where
>> there is *critical* consensus on recognizing talent, it's not just a
>> random coincidence of opinions. It's about sharing the same values and
>> standards of what is great and what is shit.
>
> hmm... why is the 'critical' consensus on what is good music usually
> so far removed from the popular choice? why was 'ok computer'
> proclaimed the album of the 90's and not 'spiceworld'?
Hey! OK Computer was very popular too! might have sold less, but was a
huge success anyway. So for the Beatles, Who, Stones, Pink Floyd,
Nirvana, you name it; it takes time to judge the bands that stand the
test ultimately but they're all very popular bands, in rock and pop
music.
(and I just knew you were going to make such another unfair parallel!)
>
> different people share different values.
Of course! I'm talking of very basic values we share, the rest is up to
personal taste.
Come on, we agree on this, I'm just trying to point out that, I think,
you shouldn't be so absolutist in attributing everything to the
personal and subjective, or saying everything is coincidence,
everything is relative. I don't think it is, but you know, I can
understand your point.
I also place a lot of value on subjectivity. Individuality. Personal
taste. But some common ground is good to find, or we wouldn't be here
in an oasis dedicated group at all :)
> should a spice girls fan be
> objective and appreciate the greatness of radiohead?
NO! cos she's a FAN! fair play to her! she only wants fun music so let
her have it even if that music can be total shite. But say an NME
reviewer should know the difference there. Get my point now?
(there, you brought in something worse than Atomic Kittens!)
> or should a
> radiohead fan admit that, objectively speaking, the spice girls are
> the true greats of 90's music.
No no, all fans should be fans and that's it. Madferit that's how it's
gotta be.
But anyone making "objective" statements or pretending to do so, most
of all those PAID to be as objective as possible, should try and be as
objective as possible. beyond taste, and beyond bribing. ;)
Can we sign an agreement now? I surrender my absolutism about the
existence of those standards in ALL mankind, if you surrender your
absolutist relativism. And please, send me a bottle of opium too. Not
the perfume!