theo parrish s/d

" in linguistics there is the "belief context" which basically states that belief has an unknown truth value; you can believe lies are true. if subjectivity is something you believe in then, it follows that it has the same problems as the objective viewpoint. now tell me why i'm wrong."

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at tricky, but surely we should distinguish between factual statements and qualitative judgments.

If someone says "this theo parrish track was inspired by Count Basie" and that's not in fact true, then they're wrong, no matter how much they believe it.

If someone says "this theo parrish track sounds to me like Count Basie", it's not a factual statement that can be proven or disproven. You can maybe change that person's mind about the relationship by coming up with a better fit ("don't you think it actually sounds more like...") or by complicating their understanding of the resemblance ("well theo does this thing here but count basie would never do that..."). But you can't disprove the initial statement.

The question perhaps for you tricky is "what counts as a lie?"

i suppose so. i think what i am getting at (although at this point i am not even sure) is that both sides here seem quasi-religious. your previous post nailed it..

i mean i guess we did a big circle right back to the intial spark of this discusssion.

I think the subjectivist side would be religious if it said "whatever you can't describe doesn't exist."

I would never claim that, but I would say "what you're describing as soul is not in fact soul and is something else."

Or "I don't think you can just make those connections in the way you're making them."

The obvious example is what you might call the metaphysical blindfold test: Pipecock effectively claims that he can tell the difference between a "real Detroit techno" and a false one by virtue of the soul that inheres in the former.

I disagree with this proposition but I don't doubt that he would probably pass any such blindfold test by and large. What I would argue is that the connections he's hearing b/w the circumstances of the product's creation and the sound of the music cannot be short-circuited via transcendentalism, and can be better explained via a more careful consideration of technique, technology, aesthetic choices etc. Pipecock is intuitively processing that stuff, but the conclusions he comes to about what causes this intuitive leap are all wrong.

And furthermore, the fact that he can make that intuitive leap, the fact of his "golden ear", doesn't make him right about music per se. It makes him reliable as a source of music recommendations among a circle or people who share his musical prejudices (e.g. Mike).

Another "golden ear" might be able to pick up on all the slight distinctions that make Axwell better or worse than D Ramirez, and find the collected works of Omar-S to be boring as hell.

I think that what Ronan is getting at - and what other people are decrying as "radical subjectivism" - is that there are so many notions of what counts as "good" in dance music (or any music!), and all of these notions are based on different criteria. Simply assuming that one golden ear has the monopoly on rightness is not offensive because it assumes objectivity, but because it's just so myopic. It assumes that everyone should choose to live the life that you lead.

"real Detroit techno" track, I mean.

was trying hard to figure out an analogy that matched the ideas in this thread to the ideas of intelligent design but it doesn't really work.

i believe there's objective standards in music. like, when daniel wang says that an early disco track is more melodically or harmonically complex than masters at work's "deep inside", i believe him. of course, i don't think that makes it any better or more enjoyable or more interesting, and there are thousands of threads on ILX that give better explanations why.

if i had to try to do it in a sentence, i'd say that musical experience can be (and should be) transformative for the individual without necessarily representing the pinnacle of the form. i'd bet if you took theo parrish records around to academic music authorities they'd react more or less the same way that winston marsalis reacted to public enemy: "oh, this is ... interesting. it's not really in any key ... and it doesn't have melody or harmony. it does have rhythm, and energy. it's definitely an interesting attempt at music".

i imagine that a PhD might look at my chemistry students (they're 15-16) and say the same thing. "wow, it certainly looks like they're doing chemistry. although they're not making any discoveries, per se. and they certainly make a lot of mistakes." but still, i think their experiences can be important, deeply meaningful even, despite the fact that probably only 1 in 20 will go on to any sort of technical career or physical science career, despite the fact that their efforts are amateur, half-baked, etc.

and let's face it: if we put theo parrish up for review by the past champions of the marginal music (harry smith? stanley crouch? lester bangs?), they'd hate it!

"what you're describing as soul is not in fact soul and is something else."

the danger here is that it reads like you are co-opting language. the word soul has a very strong socio-historical lineage. using the word soul places the music within a type of continuum that means something to people. this is what i mean by the problem of discourse and belief contexts. it makes the whole subjectivist argument seem simultaneously politically correct ("cleaning up" language) and totally arrogant (overgeneralizing about culture) even if that is not the intent. what do you say to a musician who describes her music as soulful? or to the black girl on the south side of chicago with her hand up in your face? she reads this and says, "talk to the hand motherfucker you don't know shit about soul and don't even try to tell me what i know about it."

that hypothetical is a bit of a set-up? most outrageous strawman ever, eh?

"suppose moodymann had a gun to your head, ronan ..."

"what do you say to a musician who describes her music as soulful?"

It depends on what she means. If she is saying that her music has some spiritual quality that other similar sounding music does not, I'd say she's the arrogant one. If she's saying her music has musical qualities that are associated with the use of the world "soul" then it's a totally different story - we're back to questions about technique, aesthetic choice etc.

At any rate, at what point does personal experience take precedence over good argument?

What about the person who's grown up in a religious community who responds the same way regarding questions of science vs religion? "talk to the hand motherfucker you don't know shit about the creation of the world and don't even try to tell me what i know about it."

What about two people who have deep-seated but conflicting notions of soul? What about two black girls from the south side of chicago, each telling the other they don't know shit about soul because one of them likes deep house and the other likes rap?

Who is "co-opting language" at this point? It may be true that "the word soul has a very strong socio-historical lineage", but a component of that lineage is that no-one can agree on what it means! It's entire history is a history of co-option.

I think if you were going to try to distinguish between good co-option and bad co-option (or legitimate and illegitimate co-option) the question then becomes my status as a speaker - to what extent can I as a white middle-class Australian presume to involve myself in discussions about a musical quality bound up in notions of black working-class urban American community.

But this comes back to the point you made about gatekeeper militancy originally - ultimately what's "at stake" is not the quality of the music but broader cultural or even socio-political concerns. But let's be honest about that.

xpost

the premise of your examples is like this: i'm saying something about soul in response to a musician who describes their music as soulful. or to a black girl who's already mad at me. so whether or not i'm right about soul being a rhetorical construction, i'm already committing a faux pas by applying the strong language of ILX to a face-to-face conversation with a musician about their music. that's a little bit like "oh, so you oppose the war on terror? TELL THAT TO THIS LITTLE BOY WHO LOST HIS DADDY ON 9/11".

the question then becomes my status as a speaker - to what extent can I as a white middle-class Australian presume to involve myself in discussions about a musical quality bound up in notions of black working-class urban American community.

-- Tim F

coming from a white person, i love it. love it love it love it.

-- pipecock

yes, it was deliberately over the top. xposts..

"But this comes back to the point you made about gatekeeper militancy originally - ultimately what's "at stake" is not the quality of the music but broader cultural or even socio-political concerns. But let's be honest about that."

yes, exactly!

my point is that it is difficult to separate the music from everything else.

Again, I don't want to claim that the experience-of-music of a black girl from south side Chicago is invalid, but that doesn't mean that the way she chooses to describe that experience is "right" in an objective sense. But I will say that if she wants to convince me she will have to phrase her experience in a way that accords with my standards of reasonable communicability.

But if she believes in "soul" in that strong sense, she won't want to have that conversation with me - the terms of engagement already set out that I do not, will not and cannot "get it." Soul at this point is by definition non-communicable to people outside the community.

Since one of the terms of the hypothetical conversation is that a conversation as such cannot happen, what is at stake is not the existence and nature of soul, but the identity of the participants in the conversation, and whether they both belong to a community that believe in "soul" in the strong sense.

x-post Of course it is, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain intellectual dishonesty involved in saying something like "white european techno has no soul, with some exceptions that I will not name". If the speaker really means "I am politically and culturally invested in promoting the interests of musicians from Detroit" then they have the option of just saying that. Pretending that it's "all about the music" is a strategic deception.

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."

I do this all the time. I know next to nothing about jazz, therefore if I walk into the house of someone with 10,000 jazz records, I won't pick out 'Kind of Blue' and insist we listen to it from beginning to end; I'd let them put the record on. If they've got 10,000 jazz records, and I've got 5, they've obviously got something to teach me. There are objective facets to jazz that I've simply never been exposed to.

This is the same attitude the scientist takes: being open to persuasion. Room for doubt. I think what I think, but if you dig up the right bones, you've got the chance to prove me wrong.

This is why we have experts. This is why we have DJs/proper critics. Because they (should) have the bones, so to speak.

The problem with the radically subjective argument is that it's inheriently non-humble. It's not open to persuasion. It can even come across as a cover for ignorance: "I think what I think, and no matter how many records you play, or how well you explain why you like them, it's not going to change my mind one iota." In that sense, it's like religion.

Yes, music is a language more than a science. And the subjectivists will counter my example with "Yes, but the guy's 10,000 records might be all turn out to all rubbish." Well, that strikes me as a bit arrogant - a bit like "my subjective taste is the only thing that matters". As if they're somehow immune to the memes. I reckon the language analogy is a good one I think: Even if you don't like any of his records, you'll have learned a bit more of the language. And when you listen to 'Kind of Blue' again, it might sound different. More in context. Better or worse. This happens all the time.

The problem with the radically subjective argument is that it's inheriently non-humble. It's not open to persuasion. It can even come across as a cover for ignorance: "I think what I think, and no matter how many records you play, or how well you explain why you like them, it's not going to change my mind one iota." In that sense, it's like religion.

except that this isnt really the 'radically subjective' argument

Example: I used to give credit to Bjork for having a unique voice, until I heard 'Typical Girl' by The Slits!

on this thread, it seems like the "subjectivists" are more open to persuasion than vice-versa. or at least, they're not the ones complaining about the narrow range of worthwhile techno.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ce/Straw_dogs_movie_poster.jpg/418px-Straw_dogs_movie_poster.jpg

see what i did there

good dog your argument is fundamentally messed up, because it's not (and tim was getting at this a bit upthread) a 2-way relationship.

what about the guy with 10,000 records? is his feeling 2,000 times more real than yours? what if you walk in with the EXACT PERFECT FIVE techno records, and he's still like "nope, shit sucks, made by machines, no harmony, no melody, no technique, no improvisation" and you're like "but but this drexciya track was recorded live in one take" and he's like "no way son, shit don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing".

the problem with your example is the same as tricky's: there's already a hierarchy implied in the set-up of your story.

and i don't mean to say experts aren't great! but generally what experts are good at is explaining the minutiae of their field, of explaining in very detailed terms what's great about their field of expertise. like sometime ILX poster phil d freeman (PDF), who is the guy to go to if you want an explanation of this electric miles track or that funkadelic track. he'll tell you what's great about them.

what experts are not so great at are doing the vague types of things that people on this thread are imputing to priveleged listeners: picking one genre over another, one subgenre over another, explaining the superiority of their particular turf over other turfs, explaining metaphysical ideas like "soul", "funk", "swing", "realness", etc.

at best, they can question these things, throw in additional complications, like "hey how DO you know that electric miles had less technique?" or "hey what makes you think disco's not real?" or "what makes you think tiffany isn't as raw as black sabbath?"

like most academics and most critics, experts are usually pretty good at making positive claims but very unpersuasive at making negative claims.

sorry deej i took it way too far.

what about the guy with 10,000 records? is his feeling 2,000 times more real than yours?

No, a feeling is a feeling, whether the music is good or not. I listen to cruddy music and enjoy it, but there should still be room in there for admitting that what I’m listening to kinda sucks in X, Y & Z ways. This is the difference: Subjectivists would say “I like it” means the same thing as “it’s good”. But those two things can (and should) be separated out. The value of it, the quality, the social environ, etc are independent factors completely separated from “your taste”.

To take a language example: little kids laugh at crap jokes. Does that mean these jokes are funny? Not really. What’s really going on is that the kids have never been exposed to the jokes before, therefore they laugh. “Knock knock” “Who’s there?” “Dr” “Dr Who?”. The first time, ha ha. Now you’ve heard it 1000 times, it’s like white noise. It’s not a matter of objective/subjective, it’s a matter of more information – being exposed to memes in the culture.

Which is why I would defend expertise: In your eg, the jazz dude’s feeling about techno is wrong not because of his feeling, but because he’s making a category mistake by judging techno with jazz criteria. The opposite is true too: you can’t listen to Pharoah Sanders for dancability. It’s like an Englishman trying to read a Chinese novel – first you have to learn the language.

I’d say it doesn’t work both ways: the dude with 10,000 records gets to instruct the dude with 5 records.

getting sort of annoyed w/ all the people in here arguing for objective 'criteria' without being explicit about what those criteria are

like, if there actually are objective standards by which we can judge music--setting aside good dog's assertion that each genre has its own criteria, which puts you on pretty shaky ground--why dont you guys just tell me so i can stop wasting my time?

those jokes are really funny, good dog

:-/

Subjectivists would say “I like it” means the same thing as “it’s good”. But those two things can (and should) be separated out.

craziness!

no its important that we establish a parameter of self-loathing in any good critical framework

"i love this record, and im FILLED WITH SHAME for doing so"

i think i used the word parameter wrong there

this thread :

http://www.azfreeride.com/files/news_images/road_crash/bike_crash.jpg

which doesn't mean i haven't been enjoying it ;)

Max, well since we're talking about dance music, a good example of something everyone could agree on is: does it have a danceable rhythm?

BTW I just want to say that I'm not down with gatekeeper canonisation, etc. What Tim said upthead rings very true I think:

Replacing intuition with self-understanding is (or should be) the model of good criticism: the compliment I most enjoy being paid as a writer is "thank you, I was sorta thinking/feeling the same thing but I couldn't put it into words."

ok, right, but, uh, what if you and i dance in very different ways?

sorry that line of argument wont go anywhere--im just pretty suspicious of people who are willing to argue that there is objective good and objective bad music without being specific about what those ideas would entail

and the thing is, once they get specific about those ideas, the conversation is no longer interesting, because why bother talking about whats good and whats bad if we can just make a list from best to worst--you notice that geir never makes posts longer than a couple lines, because he has nothing to say about most records besides where they rank

so you see when you argue that "radical subjectivism" (which im putting in scare quotes since i dont really have any idea what it means, to me this position is just sort of 'common sense') shuts down discourse im not really sure how to respond since it seems as though subjectivity is the only thing that allows for conversation in the first place

max, I don't really know how to respond. I'd just repeat that everything should be taken in its context - there is a "best" for peaktime at clubs, and a "best" for lazy Sunday mornings, and whether you like the track or not is often dependent on your exposure to those situations.

I'm again putting all varieties of music onto one one iPod and listening for the same things from them. That's what the phrase "radical subjectivity" conjures up to me: a dude with an iPod moving through the city listening to all these different kind of musics, totally oblivious to the purpose of the music, and the world around him.

-- pipecock

^ coming from a white person, i love it.

"I'm again putting all varieties of music onto one one iPod and listening for the same things from them. That's what the phrase "radical subjectivity" conjures up to me: a dude with an iPod moving through the city listening to all these different kind of musics, totally oblivious to the purpose of the music, and the world around him."

Good dog this is doing some pretty heavy leaning on the notion of subjectivity.

it's kinda like saying "what bugs me about the concept of democracy is that in the US only extremists on either side vote!"

To which everyone responds, "b-b-but what does that have to do with the concept of democracy?"

Surely the entire point of (what you are choosing to call) "radical subjectivity" as applied to music is that we are never "listening for the same things" from different pieces of music, that there are as many "best" musics for different situations as there are situations.

there is a "best" for peaktime at clubs

and is this the same whether you're at the sound factory or the music box?

and if so, could we decide which is better?

(obv. my hypothetical claim re voting patterns in the US also isn't true, I was just offering up a counter-strawman)

The thread is moving away from the issue now but one thing I wanted to add w/r/t tricky's strawsoulwoman is that she implies the assumption that anything that actually inspires good art has some kind of independent truth value - that if she tries to make "soulful" music and this results in actually good music, then her concept of "soul" has legitimacy, at least at some level.

In effect this equates sincerity with truth.

I suppose an analogy would be saying that the great works of religious art, having been inspired by the creator's relationship with God, offer some level of legitimacy to the notion of God's incontrovertible existence.

And certainly many people would say that you can't really "get" religious art without sharing in its beliefs and intentions (this is a different and more limited claim however).

For me there is no contradiction in saying I disbelieve in God but think that much religious art is brilliant. To which Michaelangelo responds ""talk to the hand motherfucker you don't know shit about God."

And certainly art criticism today does not by and large parrot the notion that the masters of the renaissance were inspired by God to greater or lesser degrees (I'm leaving aside entirely the possibility that some only painted religious scenes due to social expectation anyway) - what was once seen as divine inspiration is now considered to be a matter of technique etc.

well, i think you can find some nuance in there.

great works of religious art basically *are* the creator's relationship with god and are not just evidence of god's existence but they make up basically make up all we know about god.

that's what i think anyway.

i think roughly the same thing about soul and soul music. soul's not some thing that has any reality outside the performance of soul.

"To take a language example: little kids laugh at crap jokes. Does that mean these jokes are funny? Not really. What’s really going on is that the kids have never been exposed to the jokes before, therefore they laugh. “Knock knock” “Who’s there?” “Dr” “Dr Who?”. The first time, ha ha. Now you’ve heard it 1000 times, it’s like white noise. It’s not a matter of objective/subjective, it’s a matter of more information – being exposed to memes in the culture."

Good dog this implies that there's finally a point where you "get" humour objectively. But isn't it true that the humour value of all jokes is contextual? The "best" joke in the world starts to drag on the fifth laboured retelling, at which point the little kid's toilet humour might become quite refreshing. And there are many celebrated comedians who many people claim "aren't funny" - they're not necessarily ignorant critics either, comedians call eachother out for being not funny all the time. This is why we talk about someone's "unusual sense of humour" - humour is very deeply bound up in a person's individuality, their life experience, their cultural affiliations, their politics etc. etc.

Your notion of some sort of teleology of humour (from knock knocks to woody allen, say) doesn't reflect the existence of some sort of platonic ideal joke, just the fact that our process of education and enculturation is often very similar. Ironically, it is at the knock knock stage that humour appears most objective: that is the stage when the same joke is likeliest to be funny to the entire community of participants (little kids). As we grow older we find less and less consensus w/r/t to what constitutes a good joke.

I'm astonished that you've tried to use humour as your example here because I can't think of any aspect of cultural life that is more obviously subjective!

BOURDIEU TO THREAD OBV!

"i think roughly the same thing about soul and soul music. soul's not some thing that has any reality outside the performance of soul."

yes I absolutely agree with this actually. Perhaps the most amazing thing about aesthetic production is that it can give life to something that may not exist independently.

I was thinking about your raising of slash fiction earlier actually. There's an underlying assumption at work when we sit down to write slash fiction based on actual fiction (rather than, say, real life celebrities) that the characters have some life outside of the artwork in which they appear. It would be absurd to say that the amount of slash fiction devoted to Spock and Kirk is testament to the fact of their existence. But I think it's true to say that Spock and Kirk have a kind of "spectral" existence in that they can enter into new pieces of art entirely independently from the circumstances of their original creation.