|
Post by Victor on Dec 8, 2016 14:37:34 GMT
That's your opinion. I don't think anyone has the right to judge someone for their taste. It may not be my taste or other's taste. But I can garantuee you this: if anyone judges my taste as wrong I just think one thing only and that is that they can feck off with their conclusion lol. Yes, I don't like what Quo is doing one bit, I personally don't even think this band has anything to do with Status Quo. But I leave everyone else free to form their own opinion and don't judge them on it, simple as that ! But I think it's true some people have poor taste. Yes I'm happy for people to dislike much of the music I like. It's extreme music it's not meant for everyone. Some things are beyond taste. Such as Rhinos singing live compared to Ricks. Andys singing compared to Ricks. Endless discussion. Poor taste in your eyes, mine, others eyes... still doesn't make our opinion sacred or the only right ones.
|
|
|
Post by paradiseflats on Dec 8, 2016 14:48:00 GMT
But I think it's true some people have poor taste. Yes I'm happy for people to dislike much of the music I like. It's extreme music it's not meant for everyone. Some things are beyond taste. Such as Rhinos singing live compared to Ricks. Andys singing compared to Ricks. Endless discussion. Poor taste in your eyes, mine, others eyes... still doesn't make our opinion sacred or the only right ones. In 1975, rock legend Lou Reed released an album entitled Metal Machine Music. The album consists of no songs, no lyrics and is entirely devoid of melody and rhythm. Instead, it is composed of guitar feedback played at different speeds for over an hour. The result is a stampede of auditory gibberish that Rolling Stone described as “the tubular groaning of a galactic refrigerator.”[1] In the original liner notes Reed admitted that the album was fatuous - he never listened to it all the way through. By all accounts, Metal Machine Music, consisting of unpredictable screeches and distorted reverberations, is bad music. Yet people are reluctant to say that a song is “good” or “bad” because “good” and “bad” are, they believe, social constructs. Music judgments are merely subjective reflections of a culture; we are free to express how music affects us but we have no grounds to judge music in any objective sense. They have a point, of course. Taste in any domain of art is related to its cultural milieu, where what’s considered “good” or “beautiful” is in flux. The most dramatic example of this might be the transition from romanticism, realism, and other European art movements of the 18th and 19th centuries (where beauty was central to art) to modernism in the 20th century, where painters, writers, poets and musicians rebelled by crafting art that deliberately didn’t appeal to the senses: paintings without form, stories without plot, poems without verse and rhyme, music without tonality. Arnold Schoenberg captured this attitude when he said that, “those who compose because they want to please others, and have audience in mind, are not real artists… they are more or less skillful entertainers who would renounce composing if they did not find listeners.” Cognitive science, to the contrary, shows that the brain, though malleable, anchors artistic taste. Just like all taste buds reject and welcome certain food, certain aesthetics stimuli are, despite culture, inherently pleasant and unpleasant. Artistic taste varies, but the brain contains several innate predispositions implemented by natural selection that ground what we consider aesthetically pleasing. Try as we might, we’ll never enjoy art as long as it does not appeal, at least partially, to what the senses naturally appreciate. But can someone’s music opinion be “wrong?” To answer this that question I turn to the cognitive science of music, where the most thorough account of music from the psychological perspective is Sweet Anticipation, a 2008 book published by musicologist David Huron that builds on the ideas of Leonard Meyer. Huron argues that despite surface complexities, music is, at its core, the fulfillment or alteration of expectations. Just think about the seconds before your favorite chorus, lyric or guitar riff. Immediately before the sounds enter your ears, the brain, tipped of by a cascading of familiar notes, signals that auditory pleasure is imminent and prepares a “limbic cocktail” of pleasurable neural chemicals. When the sounds enter your ear the brain rewards itself for an accurate prediction; the first person experience is usually intrinsically pleasing. For some this is Pete Townshend hitting the F chord[2] in Baba O’Riley to break the flurry of synth notes; for others it’s Ringo’s drum fill that leads into guitar solos in the Beatles’ “The End.” Because the brain habituates to repeated sounds it rewards discovering something new. This is why a good composer outfits repeated lyrics, harmonies or melodies with variations and surprises. To paraphrase Daniel Levitin, we take pleasure in matching mental beats with a real-in-the-world beats but, at the same time, the brain takes delight when a skillful musician violates an expectation in an arousing way. One hallmark of good music, therefore, is a balance between familiarity and novelty; it builds and fulfills expectations while incorporating surprises. The details of Huron’s theory are summarized by his ITPRA model, which states the pleasure any music elicits is grounded in five distinct emotional responses: Imagination, Tension, Prediction, Reaction, and Appraisal. The pleasure of music – the surprise, the tension, the comfort, the “chills,” the resolution – is simply the musician “[tapping] into these primordial functions to produce a wealth of compelling emotional experiences.” The takeaway from Huron’s research is that the psychological processes music engages are grounded in evolved cognitive mechanisms. It follows that despite the fact that listeners enjoy a wide variety of genres and musicians, all music engages the same general cognitive processes. Thus, there are certain arrangements of sounds no brain will enjoy and every brain will enjoy. Music that changes key every beat, fluctuates tempo from 5 bpm to 500 bpm, and alters from ppp to fff will be universally rejected because it ignores what the brain naturally appreciates. Conversely, music that balances predictability with surprise, while maintaining relative consistency with regard to tempo, key, rhythm, melody, tonality, harmony and other elements of music, is pleasurable for the brain. These are facts about human psychology grounded in empirical research. Can someone’s music taste be “wrong?” In his last piece of philosophical writing, “Of the Standards of Taste,” David Hume clarifies that a sentiment is how people feel when they perceive art and it is neither right nor wrong because “it has a reference to nothing beyond itself.” To that end, subjective preferences in music are real and they cannot be “right,” “wrong,” “good” or “bad”. But someone can be wrong about what sounds the brain finds intrinsically pleasurable. By analogy, someone who thinks Reed’s Metal Machine Music is good is wrong about how music elicits pleasure in the brain in the same way that someone who believes feces is good is wrong about what food elicits gustatory pleasure.* Proclaiming that “I like song x” is uncontroverted. But saying “song x is good” is shifting from a subjective preference to a claim about how the brain processes music and what elements of music it finds inherently pleasing. It’s possible to be wrong about in this regard, and research from Huron, Levitin and others provides the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Victor on Dec 8, 2016 14:50:18 GMT
My point is simply that MY opinion about Quo is MY opinion, doesn't mean I have to judge someone else for thinking different about Quo. I may not be able to understand someone else's opinion about it, but that doesn't make them wrong. What IS wrong is if i'd be judging and/or insulting anyone else for liking Quo in a different way then I do and that's my last word on it.
|
|
|
Post by Victor on Dec 8, 2016 14:53:41 GMT
Looks interesting PF, need to read it further.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgirl on Dec 8, 2016 15:14:23 GMT
In that long article you've quoted PF - there is the perfect example of where taste is indeed subjective. When the Impressionist artists first exhibited in France, their work was trashed by the critics and people shunned it. Now paintings by Van Gogh and others sell for millions. At the time, people were scared of the new and couldn't tell that the work was good. Taste is subjective. It has to be, surely, or we'd all be the same, liking the same things etc... So how can we tell if something is good or not? Its tricky because we do all respond differently to something. But its identifying some common criteria which can be assessed which helps. But in the end, even that isn't an exact science. I heard a good podcast which used an article from The Slate Magazine on good and bad acting to see if that applied to creative writing. The two writers who run the podcast Scriptnotes start by saying that ultimately most views on what is good and bad writing are subjective and are a matter of taste. However, this is what they uncovered from the article. But I'm not sure it does apply to music but lets see. Good acting makes the audience believe in what the character is going through. For writing that means we believe or suspend our disbelief and immerse ourselves in the story. Great actors surprise us. Good stories also surprise us or we'd stop watching/reading if we can predict what's going to happen next. Great actors are vulnerable and show the character's inner, painful moments. Good writing also explores those emotions. Good actors listen to other characters in a scene. Good dialogue also needs this or what they're saying doesn't engage or move us. Great actors use their instruments to best effects. Good writers know what they're good at and use that to best effect. Reading this back I think all this applies to the music we love and the musicians who play it. Beyond that, its all subjective. And we have to agree to disagree when it comes down to taste.
|
|
|
Post by paradiseflats on Dec 8, 2016 15:26:58 GMT
I accept entirely that judging art, yes I include music in that is subjective. As the article above says, if I say I love Thirsty Work that is my subjective opinion. However as soon as it's qualified into opinion based on reason it is open to debate where a judgement can be made. But these judgements as Curious says are not finite but can evolve over time.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgirl on Dec 8, 2016 15:38:59 GMT
I accept entirely that judging art, yes I include music in that is subjective. As the article above says, if I say I love Thirsty Work that is my subjective opinion. However as soon as it's qualified into opinion based on reason it is open to debate where a judgement can be made. But these judgements as Curious says are not finite but can evolve over time. Interesting PF. What do you mean by "opinion based on reason" ?
|
|
|
Post by twentytwenty on Dec 8, 2016 15:52:44 GMT
Regardless of taste , this band that uses the name STATUS QUO couldn't entertain a crowd without the FF songs . Why do you think that? Whenever I listen to studio recordings from Status Quo it's more often post 86 material than FF stuff. I would love for them to do a tour like that!
|
|
|
Post by Victor on Dec 8, 2016 16:03:35 GMT
Regardless of taste , this band that uses the name STATUS QUO couldn't entertain a crowd without the FF songs . Why do you think that? Whenever I listen to studio recordings from Status Quo it's more often post 86 material than FF stuff. I would love for them to do a tour like that! The problem is that Francis is too insecure for that. If he really had guts he would indeed do a tour without any of the FF material...instead he keeps relying on the music he constantly tears down. If the current band would leave the ff material out it would do them a lot more justice then what they do right now. Francis is the one who openly dislikes the ff stuff...well then he shouldn't rely on it with the current band and take the step and stand up for the music he clearly wants to make now.
|
|
|
Post by Victor on Dec 8, 2016 16:10:10 GMT
PF, as I said, some very interesting things in your post...but as CG says, it's still tricky. An example...take some of the more extreme sorts of metal you and I like... We can still find it pleasing for instance for it's brutality or whatever...I am fairly sure though that , going by some of the definitions in your post, it could be classed as "wrong" to like it or think it's good too, don't you think so ? I would like to read more of the researchers you mentioned though, some very interesting things in it for sure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2016 20:26:02 GMT
Just because people still attend the gigs and enjoy them, doesn't make them kids. It just means they enjoy a Status Quo concert, which they're allowed to do. Doesn't make them any less of a person. In the same way that you don't enjoy the current situation, it doesn't make you better or worse than anyone who still enjoys it. Go on Facebook and see what the fans FW is referring to are saying. Click directly onto their profiles and submerge yourself in the incoherent ramblings they spew daily. Ask yourself, are those people capable of forming a logical opinion? If that offends anybody, apologies, but if it was OK for derryquo to be called a nutjob on here then my comment should stand.
|
|
|
Post by paradiseflats on Dec 9, 2016 16:38:08 GMT
I accept entirely that judging art, yes I include music in that is subjective. As the article above says, if I say I love Thirsty Work that is my subjective opinion. However as soon as it's qualified into opinion based on reason it is open to debate where a judgement can be made. But these judgements as Curious says are not finite but can evolve over time. Interesting PF. What do you mean by "opinion based on reason" ? Hi Curious I am sorry I have not replied in full. Having a 'bad day'. But what I mean is if you explain your opinions so for example the melodies in the songs as opposed to saying you like them it is then open to debate. Sorry if that doesn't make sense, hopefully tomorrow will be better.
|
|
|
Post by Victor on Dec 9, 2016 19:45:18 GMT
Interesting PF. What do you mean by "opinion based on reason" ? Hi Curious I am sorry I have not replied in full. Having a 'bad day'. But what I mean is if you explain your opinions so for example the melodies in the songs as opposed to saying you like them it is then open to debate. Sorry if that doesn't make sense, hopefully tomorrow will be better. If it is what I think it is, just these words: Fight back and don't give in. If it's not applicable, sorry... but the words come from my heart.
|
|
marc
New Rocker Rollin'
Posts: 21
|
Post by marc on Dec 9, 2016 22:14:17 GMT
Thought I'd give it a go quo came on at 2100hrs in Bournemouth It's 2213 and I'm at home What a load of shit . I'm so gutted.
|
|
|
Post by charles on Dec 10, 2016 10:55:14 GMT
What went wrong? Breakfast not delicious, no parking? You might want to read a review by the rockdoctor, it's a brilliant tour.
|
|