Skribble dwefflenurbs. QUO? Zalnage.
What I object to is people hypocritically adopting a dogmatically subjectivist position when it suits them (usually to reject the notion that some other point of view - the Canon, music magazines - may be more authoritative than theirs); but feeling perfectly free most of the parade their "good taste" and disrespect the taste of others.
In terms of my own statements, I'll agree I'll have made some flip statements here on ILX, but generally speaking they are that, flip. Thus on the Prince thread just now, when I was zinging Sean C. a bit over His Purpleness, and intentionally being very over-the-top about it -- the fact that he doesn't think much of the man actually doesn't bother me at all. At most, if serious answers were all that is asked for on that thread in particular, I would think, "Gosh, these songs really do move me a hell of a lot, so it's initially hard to imagine otherwise -- but such is the case, and that is life, so hey."
I think there's a general question of tone here that is important.
Some kind of evaluation must precede argument or there would be no basis for it. Admittedly argument can alter valuation, but only if you believe the argument has meaning (and the concept of aesthetic value has meaning). The logical conclusion of a subjectivist position is that you believe neither of these things.
Not so, I would say. At least, it seems to me that you're fixing 'aesthetic value' in particular as, if not an objective standpoint, then a generally universally agreed upon construction. But is that the case? Seems said value is as slippery and up for negotiation as many other things. So I might believe in certain aesthetic values for myself, but others might not think much of said values at all. Am I right and they wrong? The concept can be considered generally valid but its interpretation and application radically differing from person to person.
In keeping with Mark S, I'm also confused as to what your meaning of 'evaluation' is...
― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 28 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Jack Cole, Sunday, 28 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
Doubtless, but does this happen much anyway? Instead we rely on recommendations and discussions, and this need not -- especially the time of mp3s -- mean extra expenditures or 'blind shopping.'
Well, his music makes you happy, yes? And the rest of the world could say otherwise and you wouldn't care? Sounds pretty subjective to me -- I'm *very* much not trying to be flip here, I'm just trying to guess at how this wouldn't be seen as subjective.
You know ML right? His huge parcels of stuff would be full of complete gems. So actually the 'would I send 'em shopping for me' is my main criteria for valuing someone's opinions. (I'd probably want a wee bit more information than their opinion on one artist, but it would have ruined the point of my previous message if I said that).
And yeah, saying "I don't think Hendrix sucks" is almost certainly 'pretty subjective', and I may or may not be self aware of that, but the point is, its not important. If we all image that every message ends in "IMHO" we can get on sharing information and attempting to assimilate each others views. The converse of this, is that overstating that each message here is just one person's opinion gets kinda weak.
I got the new Rothko album today, its great. Thats just my opinion though.
― Alexander Blair, Sunday, 28 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
― david h(0wie), Sunday, 28 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
― mark s, Sunday, 28 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
I don't see this as the case, though. Opinions on music are indeed, as I see them, inherently valid for each person as they possess them. But that doesn't then mean that said opinions can't rub up against each other, that interchange and exchange can't happen. I admit I find the insistence otherwise a bit strange, so that's perhaps why I'm so puzzled here. Why does the lack of an objective center prevent discussion of ideas?
A fine criteria in this case, since indeed I know ML and think him a grand feller. :-) But this is something you and he grew into, a relationship and friendship where you realized over time that there was a fine balance and exchange. It wasn't immediate, it was tested through time, if you like -- maybe an initial risk that you yourself trusted his judgment, a matching of, if you like, subjective but similar standards.
For myself, I admit I'd trust ML down the line with my money. I would be very surprised he wanted to trust me with his (I'd be flattered, though!).
The converse of this, is that overstating that each message here is just one person's opinion gets kinda weak.
Now this is more than fair -- but, as Tim, Tracer, Sean and others were saying, there is a sense, unavoidable in many cases and sensed maybe more in tone or in context, that the IMHO is often absent. If pressed, you and I and all of us here on this thread, I'd hope, would say, "Well, it's my opinion at base," or ultimately don't need to say it. But how many people, critical voices, installations (yer Rock and Roll Hall of Fames, yer Billboard rankings, yer Rolling Stone encyclopedias, whatever) take a far more dogmatic vision? I've encountered plenty of them, surely we all have. So again, I think there's a question of tone and context here, a strong one. "IMHO" may seem like a cop-out, but personally I see it as a powerful validation given how music is interpreted, discussed, enjoyed, received. It may be overemphasized but it IS important.
some of them have no meaning and some of them have too many meanings and all of them divert arguments down into bad gulleys
― Sean Carruthers, Sunday, 28 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
― chaki, Sunday, 28 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Julio Desouza, Sunday, 28 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
― DeReyMi, Sunday, 28 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
― lyra in seattle, Monday, 29 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
Hmm, no, definately not. If that was the case my only 'interesting' political discussions would be with Daily Telegraph readers, my only interesting discussion on gender issues with be with bigots. I don't find it all that interesting to talk to rabid homophobes for instance. I don't need to really understand them to appreciate my own opinions (whats to understand? I'll still just think of them as wankers). When I read vile hate websites like godhatesfags.com I feel nothing but revulsion - its certainly non- pleasing, its just not interesting. These people may be worth watching, but not because they have insights I need to constantly try to appreciate.
Obviously Im not suggesting there is a direct relationship between extreme bigots and people who aren't keen on Hendrix...(an extemem bigot may have their good points too - thats a joke ffs), but its a similar situation of probability of saying something interesting.
I think the interesting stuff comes from pleasing discussions with people who can offer contrasting opinions on specific things - but share enough of your values to allow you access to the things they value.
― Alexander Blair, Monday, 29 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Pulpo, Monday, 29 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
Having listened carefully to all the interesting debate following an earlier post I made, I would like to now state for the record that I think Hendrix is for shit and isn't really up to it after all.
Does this mean another 700 posts will follow?
― Roger Fascist, Monday, 29 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
Hmm, no, definately not. If that was the case my only 'interesting' political discussions would be with Daily Telegraph readers.
I think the interesting stuff comes from pleasing discussions with people who can offer contrasting opinions on specific things - but share enough of your values to allow you an access point to the things they value.
― the pinefox, Monday, 29 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
― bob snoom, Monday, 29 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Tracer Hand, Monday, 29 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Ben Williams, Wednesday, 31 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
― gareth, Wednesday, 31 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
Gareth, this has nothing to do with the arguments that were made. Using the names Mr. Iconoclast and Mr. Canonical was meant as an alternative to using some more generic designation such as "Mr. X" and "Mr. Y." (It was meant to be slightly funny, but it probably failed to be funny at all.) The names are completely irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Incidentally, I don't own any Hendrix albums.
― DeRayMi, Wednesday, 31 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
i thought he was cool on the lulu show, i thought he had coolhair, i like his voice and the fact that he made it in london town but this is nearly all icon stuff - as for his music well heard a load of it - own none of it
― born clippy, Wednesday, 31 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link
Honestly, I do not think that the only reason someone would not like Hendrix is because they were trying to prove something, or were intetionally going out of their way to flaunt convention.
Holy shit "Crosstown Traffic" is great
― Dom Passantino, Thursday, 20 December 2007 11:44 (sixteen years ago) link
Does Gareth still hate Hendrix I wonder?
― Tom D., Thursday, 20 December 2007 11:50 (sixteen years ago) link
Just because someone can play the guitar well, or even with their teeth, does not mean they have a talent for making good music, does it?
Not neccessarily, but unless they stay away from extreme metal they usually do. And, yes, this goes for Joe Satriani as well.
― Geir Hongro, Thursday, 20 December 2007 12:07 (sixteen years ago) link
how can anyone say hendrix couldnt write songs? maybe this holds true for all the stuff that came out after he died, but only partially so. the cry of love material might not be his strongest or as brilliant as the first 3 albums, but its still solid. the unfinished stuff that came after, obviously a lot of that is a bit unfocused, but its unfair to include that.
― mr x, Thursday, 20 December 2007 12:18 (sixteen years ago) link
it is the Hendrix gateway drug
― stevie, Thursday, 20 December 2007 14:27 (sixteen years ago) link
classic. so glad First Rays Of The Rising Sun is finally completed, it makes an amazing posthumous album.
― sleeve, Thursday, 20 December 2007 15:35 (sixteen years ago) link
-- Dom Passantino, Thursday, December 20, 2007 5:44 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Link
yeah this is so true
― deej, Thursday, 20 December 2007 15:38 (sixteen years ago) link
If I recall my Hendrix lore correctly, Jimi didn't want Crosstown Traffic on the album, as he felt it sounded too much like "early" Experience. Chas Chandler (for whom this was the only production credit on the record) won the argument to our eternal benefit.
― Sparkle Motion, Thursday, 20 December 2007 15:51 (sixteen years ago) link
Classic.
― B.L.A.M., Thursday, 20 December 2007 16:01 (sixteen years ago) link
Agreed, even if just for Band of Gypsys alone. I love that.
― Bill Magill, Thursday, 20 December 2007 16:07 (sixteen years ago) link
Hell, yeah. That shit blew me AWAY when I first heard it. I thought I liked Hendrix before I heard it. No concept.
― B.L.A.M., Thursday, 20 December 2007 19:03 (sixteen years ago) link
this morning i was playing Band of Gypsys and wifee asked me if i was playing Pearl Jam.
we're getting divorced tomorrow
― jaxon, Saturday, 26 January 2008 23:35 (sixteen years ago) link
I can't even imagine which track might have sounded similar.
― Sundar, Saturday, 26 January 2008 23:53 (sixteen years ago) link