Post-Riot Act Moneygrab

[Lament]

I also thnk it would be helpful if there was some place that compiled the judgements of professional evaluators of art and gave us a place to evaluate the critical reception of that art, which would be helpful for distinguishing between the moss in the aforementioned distinction verse between subjective response and objective merits (or at least the subjective critical response to those objective merits)

If only such a place existed...

FTFY.

[stip]

thank you. that is objectively better

[Lament]

You are stip. stip you are.

[Birds in Hell]

Well, having reanimated the hoary old "Is RM is too negative?" debate, I guess it makes some kind of sense to move onwards to discussing the validity of Metacritic:

I also thnk it would be helpful if there was some place that compiled the judgements of professional evaluators of art and gave us a place to evaluate the critical reception of that art, which would be helpful for distinguishing between the aforementioned distinction between subjective response and objective merits (or at least the subjective critical response to those objective merits)

If only such a place existed...

One of the difficulties I have with this is that I don't think there's any kind of special skill being displayed by those professionals that sets them apart from the informed and articulate posters here such as Jorge, Kevin, McP, Heathen or whomever else.

We're talking about rock music here, not fine art; it's a form of expression that is, at its essence, visceral and sensory - and, as such, wildly subjective. What pushes my buttons may very likely do absolutely nothing for someone else.

Does some music push more people's buttons than others, create some kind of critical consensus? Certainly, but I don't find that particularly meaningful or necessarily worthy of further consideration. Lots of people enjoy what I think is terrible, irredeemable music.

[William Bloke]

Lots of people enjoy what I think is terrible, irredeemable music.

Yep.

Allright, fine. Let’s get this done. Like a band-aid, right off.

“Intro” – the XX:
“L.I.A.B.” – Onra:
“Scenic World” – Beirut: almost physically repulsive
“Over the Love” – Florence and the Machine: even worse
“Crown on the Ground” – Sleigh Bells: deeply unpleasant
“Latch (Album Version)” – Disclosure: (26 sec skip)
“Wildfire” – SBTRKT: (37 sec skip)
“Happy Up Here” – Royskopp (5 sec skip)
“Sultan’s Request” – Flying Lotus: look, this isn’t really my thing, but it’s better than anything else on this mix by miles
“Soldier” – Erykah Badu: *shrug*

I could imagine someone uncritically tolerating this largely featureless, unremarkable collection of sounds as they might the reassuringly bland artwork in a doctor’s office but to express genuine preference this music, above all other potential options, is frankly mind-boggling.

[stip]

Well, having reanimated the hoary old "Is RM is too negative?" debate, I guess it makes some kind of sense to move onwards to discussing the validity of Metacritic:

I also thnk it would be helpful if there was some place that compiled the judgements of professional evaluators of art and gave us a place to evaluate the critical reception of that art, which would be helpful for distinguishing between the aforementioned distinction between subjective response and objective merits (or at least the subjective critical response to those objective merits)

If only such a place existed...

One of the difficulties I have with this is that I don't think there's any kind of special skill being displayed by those professionals that sets them apart from the informed and articulate posters here such as Jorge, Kevin, McP, Heathen or whomever else.

We're talking about rock music here, not fine art; it's a form of expression that is, at its essence, visceral and sensory - and, as such, wildly subjective. What pushes my buttons may very likely do absolutely nothing for someone else.

Does some music push more people's buttons than others, create some kind of critical consensus? Certainly, but I don't find that particularly meaningful or necessarily worthy of further consideration. Lots of people enjoy what I think is terrible, irredeemable music.

And I on, the other hand, find that when thoughtful, articulate, and well informed people who listen to a lot of music reach a consensus that consensus can tell us something (not everything) about some of the innate qualities of that music beyond the subjective experience of each of them as a listener.

I think the metacritic score that bleach has is ridiculous, as per that conversation from a ways back. But the fact that so many articulate and well informed people disagree with me should give me pause. I may not personally be any more impressed or moved by it, but I'd recognize that there may be something there that I don't see.

But, then again, I agree with thodoks' post.

[stip]

We're talking about rock music here, not fine art; it's a form of expression that is, at its essence, visceral and sensory - and, as such, wildly subjective.

Provided, of course, that it respect the basic rules of English grammar.

[Thejambi]

It's 2014, yet we still have to qualify statements with IMO?

[Alex]

We're talking about rock music here, not fine art; it's a form of expression that is, at its essence, visceral and sensory - and, as such, wildly subjective. What pushes my buttons may very likely do absolutely nothing for someone else.

Really, anytime you say something like "you can't judge music," you make yourself sound like a huge tool. It's that kind of egalitarianism that really defines who has anything worthwhile to say about art and who doesn't, because if you can't separate a Mozart sonata from a coffehouse open mic, you really shouldn't be talking about music at all. Same goes for poetry, same goes for visual art, same goes for cinematography. The objective elements are what allow the emotion to take body in the work of art. You can't appreciate a good scene in a movie if it isn't shot in an artistic manner, and you can't really feel the emotion in a piece of music if the musician writes about wanting to "put a little fixin'" on a mistake. And I take this personally as well. I'm trying to be a writer. I'm working very hard at trying to be a writer, and for you to come in here and imply that there's no objective level on which I can improve my writing and that nothing separates me from people who aren't studying literature and who aren't writing short stories and who aren't making a concerted effort to find their own voices and to write in an authentic and fresh manner? That basically discredits the entirety of what I'm trying to do. Fuck you.

[Thejambi]

[Heathen]

I also thnk it would be helpful if there was some place that compiled the judgements of professional evaluators of art and gave us a place to evaluate the critical reception of that art, which would be helpful for distinguishing between the aforementioned distinction between subjective response and objective merits (or at least the subjective critical response to those objective merits)

If only such a place existed...

Really, [...] Fuck you.

[aurynsdad]

Listening to music is definitively a subjective experience.

Really, anytime you say something like "you can't judge music," you make yourself sound like a huge tool. It's that kind of egalitarianism that really defines who has anything worthwhile to say about art and who doesn't, because if you can't separate a Mozart sonata from a coffehouse open mic, you really shouldn't be talking about music at all. Same goes for poetry, same goes for visual art, same goes for cinematography. The objective elements are what allow the emotion to take body in the work of art. You can't appreciate a good scene in a movie if it isn't shot in an artistic manner, and you can't really feel the emotion in a piece of music if the musician writes about wanting to "put a little fixin'" on a mistake. And I take this personally as well. I'm trying to be a writer. I'm working very hard at trying to be a writer, and for you to come in here and imply that there's no objective level on which I can improve my writing and that nothing separates me from people who aren't studying literature and who aren't writing short stories and who aren't making a concerted effort to find their own voices and to write in an authentic and fresh manner? That basically discredits the entirety of what I'm trying to do. Fuck you.

You, like others, are projecting onto what I said. Listening to music is a subjective experience. It doesn't mean you can't apply criteria to music to make your understanding of it a more objective pursuit. But here's a nice little fact: Someone is going to like Hanson more than Pearl Jam, and they are not wrong. A lot of people here would say they are, but they are misunderstanding the idea of opinion.

[aurynsdad]

Also, I never said "You can't judge music." I would never say that. When I said that it is a subjective experience, I meant that when I say a piece of music sucks, and when you say a piece of music sucks, we are doing so through different lenses and sets of criteria that reflect who we are, our experiences, our upbringing, even our unique DNA. I would never rely on Metacritic to tell me what to listen to. Even if I composed a group of 10 people whose musical taste I trusted above all others, they would still get conflicting opinions with me on some material.

I too am a writer. I have been for many years. I am always working to get better at my craft. And yet, at any given time, a 7 year-old could write something that resonates with a given audience more than my own work. I can't write for objective acclaim. Nothing is permanent, tastes change, etcetera etcetera blah blah blah. What I can do is get better and better at expressing what I need to express. This process helps me understand the world, and get past problems that obssess my mind.

[Alex]

Also, I never said "You can't judge music." I would never say that. When I said that it is a subjective experience, I meant that when I say a piece of music sucks, and when you say a piece of music sucks, we are doing so through different lenses and sets of criteria that reflect who we are, our experiences, our upbringing, even our unique DNA. I would never rely on Metacritic to tell me what to listen to. Even if I composed a group of 10 people whose musical taste I trusted above all others, they would still get conflicting opinions with me on some material.

I too am a writer. I have been for many years. I am always working to get better at my craft. And yet, at any given time, a 7 year-old could write something that resonates with a given audience more than my own work. I can't write for objective acclaim. Nothing is permanent, tastes change, etcetera etcetera blah blah blah. What I can do is get better and better at expressing what I need to express. This process helps me understand the world, and get past problems that obssess my mind.

Right. Well then, you've answered the second question--now please respond to the accusation that your original statement isn't even remotely true. The implication contained within the obviously and purposely hyperbolic example is that what you're suggesting is ludicrous, but thank you for acknowledging the hyperbole. It took me many moons to craft and was the bane of my creative writing workshop for the past two weeks so I am glad to be recognized and appreciated for my efforts.

[aurynsdad]

Really, anytime you say something like "you can't judge music," you make yourself sound like a huge tool.

Writerly advice: avoid misquoting, and avoid lazy criticism such as "you are a huge tool". It would have probably been more effective to attack me on the basis that if I am fighting for the notion of subjective listening experiences, I must produce art that I am not confident about. That wouldn't be true, because my goal in writing is not to receive objective acclaim, but it would at least be an intriguing point.

It's that kind of egalitarianism that really defines who has anything worthwhile to say about art and who doesn't, because if you can't separate a Mozart sonata from a coffehouse open mic, you really shouldn't be talking about music at all.

It's that kind of elitism that really defines who is trying to be the smartest person in the room, vs. who is just content to be doing their own thing.

You can't appreciate a good scene in a movie if it isn't shot in an artistic manner

Yesterday's artistic manner is today's annoying jump cut. What if I appreciate a long, slow camera shot, but someone else appreciates a choppy, handheld version. Both can be used quite effectively. Both have been overused. Both will continue to be used. Which is more artistic depends on who is watching, and what they want to get out of it.

And I take this personally as well. I'm trying to be a writer. I'm working very hard at trying to be a writer, and for you to come in here and imply that there's no objective level on which I can improve my writing and that nothing separates me from people who aren't studying literature and who aren't writing short stories and who aren't making a concerted effort to find their own voices and to write in an authentic and fresh manner? That basically discredits the entirety of what I'm trying to do. Fuck you.

I find it hilarious that you have directed this at me. I have been writing poetry since around 1995, and am in a poetry circle in my town that regularly circulates new material to comment on and critique. Of course there are objective levels for improving your writing! And of course you can't take that to the bank, because poetic license allows you to do whatever the fuck you want! If it resonates deeply with you, then there is a good chance it will resonate deeply with someone else too, but maybe that doesn't even matter. If you are really interested in that authentic and fresh voice, then you should probably worry less about what other people think. Art is about expression, no matter the spelling, the syntax, the tube amp sound, the multi-syllabic howling, etc.

In all seriousness, I recommend you research dadaism, because it really gets at the absurdity/profundity paradox that is art.

One final note: many of the poems I've written have encompassed my attempt to wrap my brain around a paradox. Paradoxes can't be expressed easily in ways people can understand, so I work on these little images and thingamabobs to see if I can change that, when I have some kind of insight that seems to hold two realities at the same time. I feel successful if I can read the work back to myself and it pulls off that little mental trick. It's a super awesome bonus if someone else gets the same rush out of reading it. It's even better when they get a bigger rush than I did when I wrote it. But it doesn't matter to me a whole lot that there are legions of people out there that couldn't give a hoot about it, because that's not the point.

Regardless of how much Pearl Jam may suck in one way or another, they have continuously produced material that resonates with me. For that reason, I judge their music to be among my favorite. For that, I am right, and I am wrong. Don't it make you ?

[Alex]

Really, anytime you say something like "you can't judge music," you make yourself sound like a huge tool.

Writerly advice: avoid misquoting, and avoid lazy criticism such as "you are a huge tool". It would have probably been more effective to attack me on the basis that if I am fighting for the notion of subjective listening experiences, I must produce art that I am not confident about. That wouldn't be true, because my goal in writing is not to receive objective acclaim, but it would at least be an intriguing point.

It's that kind of egalitarianism that really defines who has anything worthwhile to say about art and who doesn't, because if you can't separate a Mozart sonata from a coffehouse open mic, you really shouldn't be talking about music at all.

It's that kind of elitism that really defines who is trying to be the smartest person in the room, vs. who is just content to be doing their own thing.

You can't appreciate a good scene in a movie if it isn't shot in an artistic manner

Yesterday's artistic manner is today's annoying jump cut. What if I appreciate a long, slow camera shot, but someone else appreciates a choppy, handheld version. Both can be used quite effectively. Both have been overused. Both will continue to be used. Which is more artistic depends on who is watching, and what they want to get out of it.

And I take this personally as well. I'm trying to be a writer. I'm working very hard at trying to be a writer, and for you to come in here and imply that there's no objective level on which I can improve my writing and that nothing separates me from people who aren't studying literature and who aren't writing short stories and who aren't making a concerted effort to find their own voices and to write in an authentic and fresh manner? That basically discredits the entirety of what I'm trying to do. Fuck you.

I find it hilarious that you have directed this at me. I have been writing poetry since around 1995, and am in a poetry circle in my town that regularly circulates new material to comment on and critique. Of course there are objective levels for improving your writing! And of course you can't take that to the bank, because poetic license allows you to do whatever the fuck you want! If it resonates deeply with you, then there is a good chance it will resonate deeply with someone else too, but maybe that doesn't even matter. If you are really interested in that authentic and fresh voice, then you should probably worry less about what other people think. Art is about expression, no matter the spelling, the syntax, the tube amp sound, the multi-syllabic howling, etc.

In all seriousness, I recommend you research dadaism, because it really gets at the absurdity/profundity paradox that is art.

One final note: many of the poems I've written have encompassed my attempt to wrap my brain around a paradox. Paradoxes can't be expressed easily in ways people can understand, so I work on these little images and thingamabobs to see if I can change that, when I have some kind of insight that seems to hold two realities at the same time. I feel successful if I can read the work back to myself and it pulls off that little mental trick. It's a super awesome bonus if someone else gets the same rush out of reading it. It's even better when they get a bigger rush than I did when I wrote it. But it doesn't matter to me a whole lot that there are legions of people out there that couldn't give a hoot about it, because that's not the point.

Regardless of how much Pearl Jam may suck in one way or another, they have continuously produced material that resonates with me. For that reason, I judge their music to be among my favorite. For that, I am right, and I am wrong. Don't it make you ?

I really wish I could be like you. It sure would be nice not to have any opinions whatsoever about music or art. It sure frees up your frontal cortex to worry about policing a message board.

[McParadigm]

I want to read this poetry.

[aurynsdad]

I want to read this poetry.

Give me a reason to believe that this is not just as disingenuous a response as the one from Alex.

[BurtReynolds]

I want to talk about muppets. when do we get to talk about muppets?

[McParadigm]

I want to read this poetry.

Give me a reason to believe that this is not just as disingenuous a response as the one from Alex.

As requested.