theo parrish s/d

i dont understand your point. ronan is wrong to like certain artists because there are common perceptions between people regarding characteristics of some recordings

xp

i quit. but for real guys:

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g91/sophraves/874658934_l.gif

why do you think trees is saying ronan is wrong about anything? as i understand it he's saying there are objective ways of judging a piece of music which, in theory, enable you to make a value judgement on it. nothing is entirely objective, least of all the interpretation of scientific results!

i'd be happy if for the purposes of all ilm threads from now on we just assumed i didn't like any music whatsoever....maybe I'll just change my login.

resolved otm in fairness. not much to do with music taste anymore.

I dont think ktbwould be hard to tell ronan under a different login.

All facts are facts. However when facts are brought to a table, someone somewhere decided which facts to bring to the table.

And which to leave behind.

I hope their judgement in deciding which facts to bring was a good judgement!

why do you think trees is saying ronan is wrong about anything? as i understand it he's saying there are objective ways of judging a piece of music which, in theory, enable you to make a value judgement on it. nothing is entirely objective, least of all the interpretation of scientific results!

-- resolved, Wednesday, July 23, 2008 5:28 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

... arent you making his argument now?

I've actually completely lost faith in Ronan as a critic because of this thread. It makes me sad.

-- the table is the table, Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:54 PM (40 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

why???

Or "it would be", posting from an iPhone in a moving car is the bomb.

resolved, of course nothing is entirely objective, but the radical subjectivism that ronan has been pouring forth is just patently absurd to me.

everyone has an asshole and an opinion.

people base their opinions on many different factors, some of which might have to do with objective facts and some which might not.

the earth keeps spinning.

are you implying that ronan is ignoring some objective facts when drawing conclusions?

give specific examples

no deej, i'm not 'making his argument', i just have reading comprehension, something which you apparently lack. and if ronan wants to be your friend, he'll be your friend. calm down.

and Ronan, I actually do respect you and your taste in music. I just disagree quite vehemently with your subjectivism.

i dont care about ronan, im just trying to figure out how anyone can make an argument that ultimately amounts to "we should all agree about these subjective matters"

resolved, of course nothing is entirely objective, but the radical subjectivism that ronan has been pouring forth is just patently absurd to me.

we're on the same page, here.

but table there are no objective facts in music, or none you've proven anyway.

or if there are....yet to hear a good case for them.

why does nobody without a musical agenda to prove ever argue in favour of a strong objective truth in music?

or if some academics have done so, why is their work never cited by these musical heretics? because the "facts" always seem to centre around one or two godlike auteurs, not actual theory/discussion?

x-post this has zero to do with me or my musical taste....I could like japanese polka and be making this argument.

people base their opinions on many different factors, some of which might have to do with objective facts and some which might not.

tiesto is the best dj in the world, based on the objective fact that tiesto draws far more people to see him spin than any other dj in the world

im sure ronan is frequently 'wrong' in the sense that i would disagree with him, but surely no more than pipecock, whose opinions about rap music are about as laughable as geirs on dance music. for a dude who is all about racial authenticity etc he sure has a pretty narrow caricature of blackness hes following. i bet pipecock has a much better hit rate w/ dance music but one of the reasons im on ronans 'side' here is that u guys really need to realize that this YOURE TOO SUBJECTIVE argument sounds really ridiculous

, im just trying to figure out how anyone can make an argument that ultimately amounts to "we should all agree about these subjective matters"

trees has never made this argument...? my statements up thread, yes, make this argument. but i don't agree with them, particularly. i'm happy liking what i like, and that some other people like what i like. i'm also happy never really spending any time thinking about any of this. hmm, perhaps i should get a sub to the daily mail...

yes it's not even a side.......the reason I'm being persistent on this thread is because I believe in subjectivity more than anything else in the entire world....in fact it's one of the only beliefs I feel supremely confident about.

Well then proving anything shouldn't even fucking matter to you.

Sudjectivity can fucking have ten million gerbils shoved up its ass.

o_O

table can you give an example of criticism/opinions you approve of? not trying to snark here, genuinely wondering what youre looking for here.

xpost if anyone would enjoy such a thing, it's gonna be subjectivity.

I think the point Ronan trying to make is that if Person A is discussing with Person B and Person B is saying this is objective, fact, it is what it is, then it makes that topic dead, it makes person A's view an irrelevance, either the fact is accepted. or it is not.

If person B says ok its not an objective fact, then there is room for dialogue. Perhaps even a beer

if Person A is discussing with Person B and Person B is saying this is subjective, nothing is better than anything else, it is what it is, then it makes that topic dead, it makes person A's view an irrelevance.

Does it? Can't A win B over to A's point of view. or vice versa. They could hold the same subjective view

Or why not send a text?

if everyone's opinion is equally valid about everything then why bother listening to anyone's opinion

i guess lots of people don't!

And isn't person A saying actually this Mingus record is a lot better than that Kenny Larkin record!

anyway, i agree with what you're saying, obviously. i don't know if anyone on this thread, pipecock aside, really thinks like Person B though.

Everyone opinion is equally valid! But i trust your opinion more than many other peoples! perhaps as much as 40% more!

that is the issue, max.

My argument from above about Hieroglyphic Being, for example-- one could criticize his music for being TOO rhytmically complex for dancing music, or one could jam out to it all night. It is still rhytmically complex.

One could argue that Tiesto's swells are superbly placed within a track, or one could argue that Tiesto's swells are much too obvious and uninteresting. They are still swells.

Get my drift?

comparatively

Opinions about the objective elements within music can and in fact SHOULD differ from person to person, but that doesn't change that those objective elements exist.

On the train on the way home i stood with a tall person.

As we went past the basketball court later, I thought perhaps he wasn't tall really. It may well have been a trick of the light

person A: "I really like this mingus record"
person B: "I never got into it, i thought it had toooo many horns, which we know objectively are often loud!"
person A: "did u know??? horns have a long history in jazz music, and i enjoy their use texturally because [long tim finney-style explanation omitted]."
person B: "I see why you appreciate this now! I'm not sure I agree, but..." OR "Wow, I think I am starting to enjoy this."

thats how people can often exchange ideas about music when they arent treating music like its a fucking prop for their ego

Is a 65 minute piece long? objectively?

cats around here sure like to jam lately

God this argument has degenerated a bit I think - surely the point of what Ronan is saying should really be beyond discussion. How many threads have we had on rockism and subjectivity etc. at this stage?

Tricky when you say a golden ear is like an olympic swimmer (paraphrase), the problem is that you're implying some sort of measurable objective standard to get your argument across the line. It's really the measurability (i.e. the empirically proven) part rather than the objectivity part which is the issue here, because it's that which does the rhetorical heavy lifting. If we couldn't measure (in a universally agreed manner) which swimmer was better than the other, we'd spend all our time arguing which was objectively better and never be able to prove anything finally, which would make Olympic selection a nightmare.

It'd be like, "Oh, X swimmer has great form", "well, Y swimmer has been training very hard", "but Z swimmer has really perfected a combination of muscularity and leanness" etc. etc.

Instead we just use our stopwatches and say "okay, A's going to the Olympics".

It's not invalid to say "if you disagree with the existence of something that can't be proved empirically than i just feel sorry for you."

But where does this get us? About as far as debates regarding the existence of God. Christians feel that "objectively" God exists, and atheists feel just as strongly that this is a "subjective" fantasy. Now it may be one or the other but we can never say finally which one it is, at least not without openly buying into a leap of faith w/r/t God's existence. Hence the intelligent design movement and it's quest to pile up enough empirical, erm, suggestions to lend weight to the notion of God's existence independent of faith. This is the kernel of the argument made by proponents of intelligent design that it ought to be taught in science classes rather than religion classes - they say that all they're doing is looking at what kind of conclusions the empirical data is necessitating, rather than importing their prejudices (other scientists disagree of course).

I think intelligent design provides us with an interesting model w/r/t how many of us try to grapple with notions of soul, genius, "the golden ear" - stuff that we have difficulty actually describing.

In theories of intelligent design, it's like the writers are tracing around the edges of the subject matter (e.g. the need for some kind of rational planning of biogenetics given it's complexity and interdependence) by pointing out stuff that can't be explained fully otherwise. ID scientists will say, "oh look at the human eye, it's too sophisticated and elegant, it can't be explained as an accidental development of natural selection, there's a void in the explanation (which God can fill)".

The common structure w/r/t debates on creationism vs evolutionism and debates about music is how the creationists/"objectivists" use God or supposedly objective notions of good or bad to fill the voids in their argument, the sections that they cannot explain. Intelligent design is the most sophisticated example of this plastering approach, and it derives whatever legitimacy it currently has from the acknowledgment that religion begins where science ends - rather than having religion instead of science (e.g. Creationism). Whether ID is right or wrong, historically it looks like it's fighting a losing battle: a rearguard action to defend the last vestiges of faith-based speculation after science has progressively eaten away at so many of Christianity's fundamental tenets. But the important thing to note here is that to some extent science and religion are actually on the same side: both are effectively "quasi-science" (or, to view it oppositely, myth) used to understand and control the outside world: science does it by measurement, religion fills in the gaps to cover anything that cannot be measured. But the implied standard in either case is measurement - both are attempting to account for the empirical world. Whether we say that rain is caused by moisture in the air or by the Gods, both statements can be "empirical".

Where the analogy with music breaks down is that musical judgment is aesthetic, and by definition cannot be measured. Oh, certainly we can measure chord changes and time signatures, and an understanding of form can tell us a lot about how/why certain music works in certain circumstances, but it only forms part of the question of the music's success - the other part of that question is how that form then intersects with taste, which changes over time, develops unevenly, and is governed by a host of inconsistent, largely unmeasurable factors. My taxonomy of the factors that shape gatekeeper militancy is a good example of this: there is no scientific procedure by which those factors can be applied; meaning develops erratically and interdependently, and it differs from person to person. Better to say that it functions, not like science, but like language: sure, we can communicate, but that doesn't mean that there is some independent "objective" truth of the statements we utter. Meaning exists only in the minds of the participants, and it differs for each person.

In music appreciation, there is not one empirical world to be accounted for; rather there are as many musical worlds as there are listeners. Because when we try to account for music appreciation, we're really trying to account for our own reactions. "There's no accounting for taste": all discussions of taste are ultimately propositional and rhetorical, a statement "I think...". We can try to explain why we like or dislike something as precisely and persuasively as possible, but that doesn't make that explanation "empirical" in some universally applicable, measurable way - else Mike Taylor wouldn't be left scratching his head when he reads my enthusiastic writing on music he doesn't like. Analysis of form in this context is much like linguistics: it can tell us a lot about what we're discussing and how we're discussing it, but it can't finally guarantee the truth or untruth of propositional statements.

Whereas in science/religion we can talk about that which can be measured empirically and that which (currently) can't, there is no such dividing line when it comes to writing about taste, since it functions more like a language than a science. It's an illegitimate rhetorical maneuver to draw a line around a couple of ideas like "the golden ear" and say "these phenomena just are, they can't be described or examined," intelligent-design-style. These are propositions to be debated just like any other.

Only rampant generalisation and deliberate blindspots create the notion of real consensus or "objectivity" - this is the whole point of Ronan's complaint about Theo Parrish making reference to a handful of great white european artists in dance music. As Ronan points out, by not specifying the artists, Theo allows everyone to think he is speaking for them, and then they mentally insert their white european exceptions. But of course everyone inserts different names. What Theo is doing is using a discursive device to generate consensus, he's not making a factual statement.

Well put.

Ps ID is a load of BS

^^^^ radical subjectivism

More simply, and ronan's already kinda made this point: what remains forever and always annoying about these critiques of "radical subjectivism" (which is not really applicable btw, it's not like we're talking about ethics or metaphysics ffs!) is that pretty much no-one is ever prepared to place themselves on the losing side of the debate. How convenient that objectivity is always on the side of the speaker.

Or prove me wrong: someone say "Subjectively I think Theo Parrish (or Ricardo Villalobos) is a genius, but if someone were to make a convincing argument that objectively he is not, I will accept that." (and mean it, rather than just say it is a zing).

But that would be the equivalent of a Catholic priest saying "subjectively I believe in the Christian God, but I'm prepared to accept that objectively Hinduism is correct."

We don't say these things because in these discussions a pretense at objectivity is always used as a rhetorical device to shore up the validity of opinions you cannot establish to the satisfaction of all participants.

"Ps ID is a load of BS"

Completely! I forgot to put that disclaimer in.

i don't really care, deej. get back to freestyling over wearemonster

-- resolved, Wednesday, July 23, 2008 6:19 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Link

did this happen? i don't know if it sounds like a good thing, but i really want to hear it!!

ID confused absence of evidence with evidence of absence

That's a really nice and succinct explanation actually vahid. I'm totally gonna say that to people and pass it off as my own pithy insight.

i don't really care, deej. get back to freestyling over wearemonster

-- resolved, Wednesday, July 23, 2008 6:19 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Link

did this happen? i don't know if it sounds like a good thing, but i really want to hear it!!

-- elan, Wednesday, July 23, 2008 6:40 PM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

i think thats just a joke about me liking rap and being a techno new jack or something. i never liked wearemonster and much preferred rest