Red Mosquito

Kevin Davis wrote:

harmless wrote:

theplatypus wrote:I know this is very cynical of me, but I can't help but think that some people are kind of forcing themselves to like this song. I think if you presented this same song with a different singer (say a Bob Mould or a Greg? Graffin) to a bunch of Pearl Jam fans, most of them would go "meh."

Jorge, you of all people should acknowledge that this non-argument is ridiculous. Because if you replaced the guitars on STBC with jazz piano and presented it to PJ fans, most of them would go "Meh". I don't get that removing the vocals ON A PJ SONG proves anything. If I took Ed off most of PJ's catalogue I would like it less.

The fallacy inherent to Jorge's position is that, putting the song in the hands of, say, Bob Mould, does not put it on some kind of neutral plane where a listener would therefore be able to assess the song as a piece of work on its objective merits; all putting it in Mould's hands would do would create an entirely new set of subjective circumstances that could be just as offputting to a Pearl Jam fan as Eddie Vedder's voice could be attractive to them. The fact that a Pearl Jam fan might not like the Bob Mould version of "Mind Your Manners" doesn't necessarily signify that "MYM" is any better or worse of a song than any given fan's perception of it might dictate; all it signifies is that it works for them less in that context, in which case you have to pose the question all over again, rendering a kind of circular tail-chase with no logical answer.

The problem is that songs don't exist as objective free-standing entities, sans interpreter. I suppose you could say that the sheet music for a song reflects its base elements in a non-contextual way, but I would also suspect that even the most profound sight readers wouldn't be so foolish as to assign a value judgment to a piece of music based on what it is on a piece of paper, without having heard it. Once you turn written notes into tangible sounds that fill the air, you're putting it into some kind of interpretive context, even if all it is is a midi file--in some way, these notes are being interpreted in a manner that somehow could be different, thereby provoking a different response. So the argument ultimately boils down to, "Well, if something about this were different, you would probably feel differently about it," which to me is self-evident and not really reflective of anything, though it can be an interesting thought to ponder if kept in perspective.

In a lot of ways our initial reactions to music are our most honest ones, regardless of what biases may cloud them. Since there is no objective way to appreciate music, it seems reasonable that our subjective reactions to it could (and should) be influenced by other entirely subjective factors (how much we like the band, for instance). This does not signal a dulling of our critical faculties by any stretch of the imagination, and the notion that "criticism" should somehow be immune from bias and personal investment is almost assuredly the number one reason why most people who write about music are extremely bad at it. Good criticism is determined by how well a writer is able to convey his subjective experience in a meaningful way, no matter how prominent his biases or how scientifically sound his methods; it is not determined by how well he is able to adhere to a systematic process for determining whether something is really as objectively good as he thinks it is.

Kevin Davis wrote:In a lot of ways our initial reactions to music are our most honest ones, regardless of what biases may cloud them. Since there is no objective way to appreciate music, it seems reasonable that our subjective reactions to it could (and should) be influenced by other entirely subjective factors (how much we like the band, for instance). This does not signal a dulling of our critical faculties by any stretch of the imagination, and the notion that "criticism" should somehow be immune from bias and personal investment is almost assuredly the number one reason why most people who write about music are extremely bad at it. Good criticism is determined by how well a writer is able to convey his subjective experience in a meaningful way, no matter how prominent his biases or how scientifically sound his methods; it is not determined by how well he is able to adhere to a systematic process for determining whether something is really as objectively good as he thinks it is.

theplatypus wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:In a lot of ways our initial reactions to music are our most honest ones, regardless of what biases may cloud them. Since there is no objective way to appreciate music, it seems reasonable that our subjective reactions to it could (and should) be influenced by other entirely subjective factors (how much we like the band, for instance). This does not signal a dulling of our critical faculties by any stretch of the imagination, and the notion that "criticism" should somehow be immune from bias and personal investment is almost assuredly the number one reason why most people who write about music are extremely bad at it. Good criticism is determined by how well a writer is able to convey his subjective experience in a meaningful way, no matter how prominent his biases or how scientifically sound his methods; it is not determined by how well he is able to adhere to a systematic process for determining whether something is really as objectively good as he thinks it is.

Right on. I think this is pretty much was stip was trying to communicate to me last night, and I think it's right. My comment was clumsy and born out of exasperation for what I perceived to be the hypocrisy of a few specific Pearl Jam fans who are spamming MYM all over their social media outlets and celebrating it as The Rockingest Rock Song That Ever Rocked, but were whining about having to endure Bad Religion's opening sets in 2009. I shouldn't have extrapolated that to the entirety of Pearl Jam fandom or created such a bizarre hypothetical.

Kevin Davis wrote:In a lot of ways our initial reactions to music are our most honest ones, regardless of what biases may cloud them. Since there is no objective way to appreciate music, it seems reasonable that our subjective reactions to it could (and should) be influenced by other entirely subjective factors (how much we like the band, for instance). This does not signal a dulling of our critical faculties by any stretch of the imagination, and the notion that "criticism" should somehow be immune from bias and personal investment is almost assuredly the number one reason why most people who write about music are extremely bad at it. Good criticism is determined by how well a writer is able to convey his subjective experience in a meaningful way, no matter how prominent his biases or how scientifically sound his methods; it is not determined by how well he is able to adhere to a systematic process for determining whether something is really as objectively good as he thinks it is.

"I think getting away from them and taking the time to do it, and discussing with Brendan O'Brien who is producing it, having many meetings between ourselves about these things, yet keeping it fresh while recording it

theplatypus wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:In a lot of ways our initial reactions to music are our most honest ones, regardless of what biases may cloud them. Since there is no objective way to appreciate music, it seems reasonable that our subjective reactions to it could (and should) be influenced by other entirely subjective factors (how much we like the band, for instance). This does not signal a dulling of our critical faculties by any stretch of the imagination, and the notion that "criticism" should somehow be immune from bias and personal investment is almost assuredly the number one reason why most people who write about music are extremely bad at it. Good criticism is determined by how well a writer is able to convey his subjective experience in a meaningful way, no matter how prominent his biases or how scientifically sound his methods; it is not determined by how well he is able to adhere to a systematic process for determining whether something is really as objectively good as he thinks it is.

Right on. I think this is pretty much was stip was trying to communicate to me last night, and I think it's right. My comment was clumsy and born out of exasperation for what I perceived to be the hypocrisy of a few specific Pearl Jam fans who are spamming MYM all over their social media outlets and celebrating it as The Rockingest Rock Song That Ever Rocked, but were whining about having to endure Bad Religion's opening sets in 2009. I shouldn't have extrapolated that to the entirety of Pearl Jam fandom or created such a bizarre hypothetical.

stupidmop wrote:

"I think getting away from them and taking the time to do it, and discussing with Brendan O'Brien who is producing it, having many meetings between ourselves about these things, yet keeping it fresh while recording it

This sounds like a sentence thats been google translated 50 times.

stupidmop wrote:http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/ ... olt-580058

"If you're a Pearl Jam fan you're going to love it," says a proud Mike of the album, "and even if you're not, maybe it'll turn you into one!"Mike explained that the writing process for the album before recording began with longtime friend and producer Brendan O'Brien was a drawn-out affair even by the Seattle legends' standards."We started it two years ago," says Mike, "then we had to pull back. We finished seven songs two years ago and we had to take some time to figure out what we wanted to do. And write some more songs. So about four months ago we started up again with a brand new batch of songs to go along with those."I think getting away from them and taking the time to do it, and discussing with Brendan O'Brien who is producing it, having many meetings between ourselves about these things, yet keeping it fresh while we were recording it."And the guitarist believes that taking their time has definitely paid off."I think it's helped. I think it's going to be really cool record and I'm very excited about it. Every artist says that about their new thing but I feel like we've been through a long journey to get there and it was totally worth it."For more on Mike McCready read the full feature on his role in supergroup Mad Season in issue 243 of Total Guitar.

McParadigm wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:In a lot of ways our initial reactions to music are our most honest ones, regardless of what biases may cloud them. Since there is no objective way to appreciate music, it seems reasonable that our subjective reactions to it could (and should) be influenced by other entirely subjective factors (how much we like the band, for instance). This does not signal a dulling of our critical faculties by any stretch of the imagination, and the notion that "criticism" should somehow be immune from bias and personal investment is almost assuredly the number one reason why most people who write about music are extremely bad at it. Good criticism is determined by how well a writer is able to convey his subjective experience in a meaningful way, no matter how prominent his biases or how scientifically sound his methods; it is not determined by how well he is able to adhere to a systematic process for determining whether something is really as objectively good as he thinks it is.

I know plat's cleared this up, and it's over, but I do think you built your argument on a wrong assumption.

The line of thinking that births posts like his isn't that subjective factors should never influence your opinion of the product. It's that the influence of those subjective factors should not be unlimited.

If my appreciation of the band becomes such that it ultimately supersedes all other determiners of my enjoyment of the music, then in fact I'm not appreciating music at all. I'm appreciating an idea, or a familiarity, or perhaps a cult of personality.

When people talk about scenarios like this one, where they believe a band's fanbase has become too defensive, or forgiving, or overly determined to like anything that band releases, they're certainly not saying "that singer's voice or that band's approach shouldn't influence your enjoyment of the music." They're asking a question: "is that really all that matters to you?"

It can be, under circumstances, a reasonable question.

stip wrote:buzz clocks

@SkitchP wrote:Man, lot a heartache on the internet lately.

Coach wrote:I really do like all the RMers on this board, whether I agree with them or not.

As online communities go, I think we have a really good one here with decent honest folks who disagree, but at least disagree like adults.

Coach wrote:I really do like all the RMers on this board, whether I agree with them or not.

As online communities go, I think we have a really good one here with decent honest folks who disagree, but at least disagree like adults.

Coach wrote:I really do like all the RMers on this board, whether I agree with them or not.

As online communities go, I think we have a really good one here with decent honest folks who disagree, but at least disagree like adults.

McParadigm wrote:I know plat's cleared this up, and it's over, but I do think you built your argument on a wrong assumption.

The line of thinking that births posts like his isn't that subjective factors should never influence your opinion of the product. It's that the influence of those subjective factors should not be unlimited.