The best since John Lennon?

Duke Leonal Felmet

Android 666 wrote: »

This isn't about looking for vindication for my tastes and outside of Oasis fans I tend not to think of people as having bad taste in terms of what they listen to. I accept what I like even if others don't. But I understand that art can be looked at objectively to form an opinion of it's merit and can be evaluated on cultural and historical importance. Objectively I can understand the importance of bands and artists such as the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Aphex Twin and Sex Pistols whether I am a fan of their music or not. This is not about me being frustrated because I believe my taste in music is superior to others, you are trying to cheaply deflect the argument to make me out to be a music snob which is beside the point and has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

Look, I don't want to be condescending to you, but I have no other way of saying what I want to say. You don't know what objectivity means (the same goes for many people, actually). 2+2=4 is objective. Appreciating blue for it's cultural and historical importance, no matter how much you appreciate it, is not objective. It cannot be objective. Ever.

Sorry.

Sinfonia

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Oh for our Lord and saviour, Jesus Christ's sake, whether it's lyrics or music, the point still stands. Anyone who thinks that a song writer just refers to the person writing the lyrics, and not the person writing the music, is very much naive. Especially in the case of Noel Gallagher.

Take it easy, I was just clarifying, to make the point that lyrics are not music, but are applied to music. In discussions on these boards, it's a frequent mistake (not necessarily by you).

Oasis_Dublin wrote:

Your second point is similarly disingenuous. I don't know any adults who believe that Rebecca Black and Noel Gallagher are on a similar level when it comes to writing lyrics or making music.

The point you made was that you consider Gallagher's lyrics more profound than Yorke's because they rang true to you. Another person might consider things the other way around, but neither of you is right or wrong, because all of these matters come down to subjective preference.
(If that wasn't your point, feel free to correct me)
Therefore, if a third person believes that the lyrics to that Rebecca Black song are more profound than lyrics by either Yorke or Gallagher, that third person is neither right nor wrong in your view because the matter comes down to subjective preference.

My point is that there is more to art than subjective preferences and that works of art can be valued on objective merits too.
As such, one artist may be, in many ways, better than another (in terms of those facets that lend themselves to objective judgment, NOT in terms of aspects of aesthetics that lend themselves only to judgment through personal tastes)

It makes sense that in order for a person to engage in objective literary/art/musical criticism, they need to understand the craft with which they are dealing, which is why I conclude that if a person cannot provide meaningful objective judgment of a given art form, they do not understand it well enough.

Oasis_Dublin wrote:

You don't know enough about me, or my knowledge of music, to call me ignorant. I'm afraid that makes you a rather large hypocrite.

I didn't directly call you ignorant, but as above, I have deduced that if you cannot offer meaningful objective judgment on a given topic, you don't know enough about that subject.
In short:
-Objective judgment on a given topic is possible.
-It is possible when one is knowledgeable enough on that topic.
-If it is not possible for you, or you believe it to be impossible, then you are not knowledgeable enough on that topic.

This is not a criticism of your character or taste or anything else about you.

It's just a comment that artistry of any kind requires skill, and meaningful objective judgment of artistry also requires skill.
(1) If you can't create a sculpture, then you lack skill in that field. That doesn't mean nobody can hold knowledge of those skills and engage in sculpture.
(2) If you can't assess objective merits in art, then you lack skill in that field. That doesn't mean nobody can hold knowledge of those skills and engage in critical thinking.

For some reason, you and many other people find nothing offensive about point (1), yet take great exception to point (2).

Oasis_Dublin

Android 666 wrote: »

outside of Oasis fans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8d8F6kez1c#t=01m16s

Mr. Incognito

Music is Subjective.

Imagine the following.

I like Red.

I like Blue.

Well Red is OBVIOUSLY better than Blue.

What? Fool- Blue has to be better than Red, I mean it's BLUE!!!

You will never win a debate. The Thread title is - Is Gallagher the Best since Lennon.

Best What>?

Better Muscian Technically- No.
Master of Melody?- Well Yes- Imagine was two chords.
Longevity- No
Ability to Develop into different areas of Music- No.
Pushing Boundaries of Music Taste and Genres- No.

Objectively I think not, that's just my opinion.

Heck- I think York is Better than Lennon. More accomplished, technically superior and as an artist.

Better songwriters imo

Elliot Smith
Bob Dylan- even though his melodies are much more inferior to both
Leonard Coen
Jeff Buckley

Better Musicians- Thousands

Bands I would rather listen to:

Dire Straits,
Zepplen
Pink Floyd
Rolling Stones
Nirvana

But hey- that's just me.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Allow me to clarify:

Noel Gallagher is a guitarist - Objective
Noel Gallagher is a great guitarist - Subjective
Noel Gallagher is a songwriter - Objective
Noel Gallagher writes awesome songs - Subjective

It's really simple.

Sinfonia

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

You don't know what objectivity means (the same goes for many people, actually). 2+2=4 is objective. Appreciating blue for it's cultural and historical importance, no matter how much you appreciate it, is not objective. It cannot be objective. Ever.

That's an oversimplification. The colour blue is not a product of artistic enterprise.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Music is Subjective.

Imagine the following.

I like Red.

I like Blue.

Well Red is OBVIOUSLY better than Blue.

What? Fool- Blue has to be better than Red, I mean it's BLUE!!!

You will never win a debate. The Thread title is - Is Gallagher the Best since Lennon.

Best What>?

Better Muscian Technically- No.
Master of Melody?- Well Yes- Imagine was two chords.
Longevity- No
Ability to Develop into different areas of Music- No.
Pushing Boundaries of Music Taste and Genres- No.

Objectively I think not, that's just my opinion.

Heck- I think York is Better than Lennon. More accomplished, technically superior and as an artist.

Better songwriters imo

Elliot Smith
Bob Dylan- even though his melodies are much more inferior to both
Leonard Coen
Jeff Buckley

Better Musicians- Thousands

Bands I would rather listen to:

Dire Straits,
Zepplen
Pink Floyd
Rolling Stones
Nirvana

But hey- that's just me.

Technically superior? How do you qualify that? How can that be objective? I think really fast shredder guitarists are sh1t. That's a subjective opinion, it is based on what I consider to be 'technical'.

Oasis_Dublin

Sinfonia wrote: »

Take it easy, I was just clarifying, to make the point that lyrics are not music, but are applied to music. In discussions on these boards, it's a frequent mistake (not necessarily by you).


The point you made was that you consider Gallagher's lyrics more profound than Yorke's because they rang true to you. Another person might consider things the other way around, but neither of you is right or wrong, because all of these matters come down to subjective preference.
(If that wasn't your point, feel free to correct me)
Therefore, if a third person believes that the lyrics to that Rebecca Black song are more profound than lyrics by either Yorke or Gallagher, that third person is neither right nor wrong in your view because the matter comes down to subjective preference.

My point is that there is more to art than subjective preferences and that works of art can be valued on objective merits too.
As such, one artist may be, in many ways, better than another (in terms of those facets that lend themselves to objective judgment, NOT in terms of aspects of aesthetics that lend themselves only to judgment through personal tastes)

It makes sense that in order for a person to engage in objective literary/art/musical criticism, they need to understand the craft with which they are dealing, which is why I conclude that if a person cannot provide meaningful objective judgment of a given art form, they do not understand it well enough.


I didn't directly call you ignorant, but as above, I have deduced that if you cannot offer meaningful objective judgment on a given topic, you don't know enough about that subject.
In short:
-Objective judgment on a given topic is possible.
-It is possible when one is knowledgeable enough on that topic.
-If it is not possible for you, or you believe it to be impossible, then you are not knowledgeable enough on that topic.

This is not a criticism of your character or taste or anything else about you.

It's just a comment that artistry of any kind requires skill, and meaningful objective judgment of artistry also requires skill.
(1) If you can't create a sculpture, then you lack skill in that field. That doesn't mean nobody can hold knowledge of those skills and engage in sculpture.
(2) If you can't assess objective merits in art, then you lack skill in that field. That doesn't mean nobody can hold knowledge of those skills and engage in critical thinking.

For some reason, you and many other people find nothing offensive about point (1), yet take great exception to point (2).

Is it a discussion on how two albums, say (What's the Story) Morning Glory? and The Bends, were made that you want?

Again, you don't know what my knowledge of music is, so whether you explicitly called me ignorant or merely implied that I may be ignorant if I don't know x about y, it's a moot point.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Sinfonia wrote: »

That's an oversimplification. The colour blue is not a product of artistic enterprise.

Ugh. What the hell are you on about? It doesn't matter what the source of the product is. All that matters is whether you can rank it or not. If you cannot rank it based on something other than opinion, it cannot be objective.

Think.

Mr. Incognito

It makes sense that in order for a person to engage in objective literary/art/musical criticism, they need to understand the craft with which they are dealing, which is why I conclude that if a person cannot provide meaningful objective judgment of a given art form, they do not understand it well enough.


I didn't directly call you ignorant, but as above, I have deduced that if you cannot offer meaningful objective judgment on a given topic, you don't know enough about that subject.

This is the highest load of tripe I have ever read.

Art is subjective. Unless you are a robot you cannot judge art objectively.
You talk about being knowledgable on a subject- this is not an objective view- this is merely categorising something by where it comes in history, what genre it goes it. It is not an objecive criticism

ALL Critiscm is Opinion and therfore subjective. You don't need to Understand art to have an opinion. You either like it or you don't.

Jebus- what superior ****e.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Jebus- what superior ****e.

That sums it up, really. People feel their music taste is somehow superior to others, so when then find out that this philosophy is not logical, they feel their 'special' status threatened and cannot accept it.

Pure arrogance.

Mr. Incognito

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Technically superior? How do you qualify that? How can that be objective? I think really fast shredder guitarists are sh1t. That's a subjective opinion, it is based on what I consider to be 'technical'.

When one is talking about technical musical ability we are talking about the complexity of the songs musically.

Anyone with rudimentary chord knowledge can play any Oasis song.

You need to be an accomplished guitarist to play Elliot Smith for example.

It doesn't mean something sounds better- they are just more accomplished technical musicians is all.

It's like reading- The Cat in the Hat Verses Steinbeck or Hemmingway. Both have artistic merit, both are enjoyable, but one is more accomplished technically in terms of use of language.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

When one is talking about technical musical ability we are talking about the complexity of the songs musically.

Anyone with rudimentary chord knowledge can play any Oasis song.

You need to be an accomplished guitarist to play Elliot Smith for example.

It doesn't mean something sounds better- they are just more accomplished technical musicians is all.

It's like reading- The Cat in the Hat Verses Steinbeck or Hemmingway. Both have artistic merit, both are enjoyable, but one is more accomplished technically in terms of use of language.

I guess. My point would be that if what's 'technical' is itself a subjective topic, then surely it rules that out as an objective tool. But I take the point about accomplished guitar playing. I guess it is possible to say one is more difficult than the other.

Sinfonia

Mr. Incognito, just LOOK at what you've written in two consecutive posts.

Here you vehemently disagree with me:

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Art is subjective. Unless you are a robot you cannot judge art objectively.
You talk about being knowledgable on a subject- this is not an objective view- this is merely categorising something by where it comes in history, what genre it goes it. It is not an objecive criticism

ALL Critiscm is Opinion and therfore subjective. You don't need to Understand art to have an opinion. You either like it or you don't.

Here you explain - by way of your knowledge of composition for guitar - how Elliot Smith's music has an objective merit greater than that of Oasis, which perfectly aligns with what I have been explaining.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

When one is talking about technical musical ability we are talking about the complexity of the songs musically.

Anyone with rudimentary chord knowledge can play any Oasis song.

You need to be an accomplished guitarist to play Elliot Smith for example.

It doesn't mean something sounds better- they are just more accomplished technical musicians is all.

It's like reading- The Cat in the Hat Verses Steinbeck or Hemmingway. Both have artistic merit, both are enjoyable, but one is more accomplished technically in terms of use of language.

Sinfonia

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

That sums it up, really. People feel their music taste is somehow superior to others, so when then find out that this philosophy is not logical, they feel their 'special' status threatened and cannot accept it.

Pure arrogance.

Ridiculous. I haven't even mentioned my taste in music, precisely because it's subjective and therefore irrelevant to the argument.

murraykil

Let's take a break and listen to some music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xchoR5upVwo

Sinfonia

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

You don't need to Understand art to have an opinion.

Also, on this point:

That's exactly what I've been saying.
You don't need to understand art to have an opinion (on aesthetic preferences)
You DO need to understand art to assess it objectively and critically (not on aesthetic preferences)

Android 666

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Technically superior? How do you qualify that? How can that be objective? I think really fast shredder guitarists are sh1t. That's a subjective opinion, it is based on what I consider to be 'technical'.

An ability to play fast is not an indicator of technical superiority. An understanding of musical theory, composition and harmony would be. Music can be broken down objectively into it's constituent parts and evaluated.

WinstonOno

to be honest, i think technical ability can definitely be graded. you can see and hear how good a guitarist is. someone mentioned metal guitar shredders. while not my type of music, theres no doubting that alot of metal guitar players are technically amazing. i'm talking purely technical ability here, not what it is they're actually playing. Metal guitar players could play anything noel Gallagher has written easily, Gallagher, I doubt, could play fast metal music. He is technically not good enough.

can songwriting ability be graded??? to be honest i think it can. i'm not talking how good or bad a song is compared to another, i'm talking purely technical song writing ability. Ability to communicate a message, a story, an emotion, a feeling. Some songwriters are just better than others at doing this. Take ‘wonderwall’ by Gallagher, and ‘suzanne’ by Leonard cohen. Both are love songs. But, for me, cohen’s ability to convey his love for the subject of the song far outways gallaghers. The beauty of the words, the power of his sentiments, his desire, his intensity, are all so expertly expressed and captured in his lyrics.

And she lets the river answer
That you've always been her lover
And you want to travel with her
And you want to travel blind
And you know that she will trust you
For you've touched her perfect body with your mind.

Gallagher does not have the same command of his words, the same beauty in his language, the ability to capture those feeling of love and desire.

And all the roads we have to walk along are winding
And all the lights that lead us there are blinding
There are many things that I would
Like to say to you
I don't know how

Profound however, to me, can not be measured. Profound deals with levels of thinking. Only the person who wrote the song can judge how profound it is. Only they know what or how deep they were thinking when they wrote the song. Who knows, maybe gallaghers thought was as deep as the ocean when he was writing ‘wonderwall’, but, for me, his ability to convey this deepness of thought was lost in his technical weaknesses as a songwriter.

Android 666

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Look, I don't want to be condescending to you, but I have no other way of saying what I want to say. You don't know what objectivity means (the same goes for many people, actually). 2+2=4 is objective. Appreciating blue for it's cultural and historical importance, no matter how much you appreciate it, is not objective. It cannot be objective. Ever.

Sorry.

As Sinfonia has said, you are oversimplifying the matter and being unnecessarily reductive. While it's harder to find objective critiquing in popular music, classical concert programme notes are usually a good mixture of objective and subjective writing to help give the audience a good overview of the piece they are about to listen to.

The composition of his First Symphony occupied Mahler from 1885 to 1888; he conducted the premiere in Budapest on November 20, 1889, and revised the score four times between then and 1907. Dimitri Mitropoulos conducted the National Symphony Orchestra's first performances of this work, on March 7 and 8, 1950; Leonard Slatkin conducted the most recent one, on June 25, 2005, at Wolf Trap.

The score calls for 4 flutes and 2 piccolos; 4 oboes and English horn; 3 clarinets, piccolo clarinet and bass clarinet; 3 bassoons and contrabassoon; 7 horns, 5 trumpets, 4 trombones, tuba, timpani, bass drum, crash cymbals, suspended cymbal, triangle, tam-tam, harp, and strings. Duration, 52 minutes.
_______________________________________________

When Mahler introduced his First Symphony, in the second month of his second season as director of the Budapest Opera, the work was not billed as a symphony, but under the title "Symphonic Poem in Two Parts," and there were five movements, one more than we hear in the present concerts. Part I comprised the first two movements as we know them now, but separated by an Andante which Mahler eventually dropped from the score. Part II was made up of the last two movements, headed À la pompes funèbre and Molto appassionato, respectively, and played without pause. The premiere was not anyone might call a success. There was booing as well as polite applause, and the critic Viktor von Herzfeld, one of Mahler's close friends, did not let that friendship get in the way of a tirade he summed up with the observation, "All of our great conductors . . . have themselves eventually recognized, or have proved, that they were not composers. . . . This is true of Mahler also."

The rest is a similar mix throughout and can be read here:
http://www.kennedy-center.org/calendar/?fuseaction=composition&composition_id=2839

(Note: this was the first one I googled and found and the only reason I picked Mahler was because it's his anniversary year - most concert notes of this ilk follow a similar format.)

WinstonOno

Android 666 wrote: »

As Sinfonia has said, you are oversimplifying the matter and being unnecessarily reductive. While it's harder to find objective critiquing in popular music, classical concert programme notes are usually a good mixture of objective and subjective writing to help give the audience a good overview of the piece they are about to listen to.



The rest is a similar mix throughout and can be read here:
http://www.kennedy-center.org/calendar/?fuseaction=composition&composition_id=2839

(Note: this was the first one I googled and found and the only reason I picked Mahler was because it's his anniversary year - most concert notes of this ilk follow a similar format.)

i dont see anything subjective in this???? theres no opinion, merely facts and quotes.

Android 666

WinstonOno wrote: »

i dont see anything subjective in this???? theres no opinion, merely facts and quotes.

I thought phrases such as 'proceeds through a chain of exotic motifs, rhythms and colors such as never heard or imagined in a symphony before' might be considered too subjective in this instance.

Sinfonia

WinstonOno wrote: »

i dont see anything subjective in this???? theres no opinion, merely facts and quotes.

Follow the link for the full text!

WinstonOno

he said the link led to the rest of the articule which had a similar mix of objective and subjective as the part he quoted, however the part he has quoted in his post has nothing subjective in it, so i didnt bothering following the link. he could have quoted a part that actually backed up his arguement.

Android 666

WinstonOno wrote: »

he said the link led to the rest of the articule which had a similar mix of objective and subjective as the part he quoted, however the part he has quoted in his post has nothing subjective in it, so i didnt bothering following the link. he could have quoted a part that actually backed up his arguement.

Apologies, I hadn't originally quoted as much as I thought but yeah if you read the whole text you see more of what I was getting at.