'"I like it" and "it's good" are 1) not equivalent statements and 2) not necessarily good partners, even.'

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
So said John D. in the Zwan thread. I love this statement even though I disagree with it and much of what has been discussed on these boards could have this view applied in fascinating ways. Your thoughts?

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 16:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I agree with John, although I'm not sure of the point of liking something that isn't good.

hstencil, Wednesday, 4 December 2002 16:31 (twenty-two years ago)

i think there are three distinct questions:
a. is it good?
b. does it matter?
c. do i like it?

if you can answer all three independently of one another, you'll get an awful lot written

mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 16:32 (twenty-two years ago)

so now I know why so many overlong pretentious half-hearted reviews of music that is "good for you", if not really enjoyable are written. Thanks, Mark.

shush, Ned! Shush!

but seriously, I guess you could say something was "good jazz" and then say "you're not really into jazz" around a jazz afficiando friend but that's just being polite. Why would you NOT like something you thought was Good, and why would you think something was NOT good and like it?

Nothing really matters, anyone can see...

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 16:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think you can think something is good, and not like it, but it's very easy to like something but still know it isn't much good. This is because our reasons for liking something can be as much to do with where we hear it or what it reminds us of as much as what is inherent in the music.

i.e.

Like it but it isn't good = like something about it that doesn't transfer to other people.

e.g.

I really like Q-Tex's "The power of love" because it reminds me of being 16, discovering ecstasy and listening to bad happy hardcore radio stations, and not because it is a good song. It is actually incredibly generic bouncy techno.

Jacob (Jacob), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 16:39 (twenty-two years ago)

If we can settle on a definition of what we mean by "good" (however abstract) this is potentially very interesting.

But there's no chance, is there?

ArfArf, Wednesday, 4 December 2002 16:46 (twenty-two years ago)

You can think of something as 'good' in the way of 'efficient' or 'clever' or 'effective', in the way of appreciating the craft of it, without it being of any importance or relevance to your own resonances or interests.
(Living in a shared/pop culture makes it more difficult to remove 'importance' from this in my experience - things I dislike are 'important' to me in a bad way because I have to put up with them all over the place, and I have to put up with the sense of disappointment induced by other people liking them.)

Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 16:47 (twenty-two years ago)

This is just that fucking stupid theory used by idiots to try and criticise other people more effectively, HEY DUDE I DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WHAT I LIKE AND WHAT'S GOOD, THEREFORE WHEN I SAY THAT BAND ARE SHIT IT'S REALLY WORTH SOMETHING.

Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 16:50 (twenty-two years ago)

no ronan you need all three bits for it to be really worth something

that is why i r00l this thread and all others evah

mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 16:53 (twenty-two years ago)

oh man, now you got "4evah sheneneh" from Martin in my head.

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 16:56 (twenty-two years ago)

if "it's good" is implying that it is deemed good by the critical bodies in society at large, while "i like it" is solely refering to personal taste, i believe both of those are fine together.

i know john cage has many good works because i've been told he's a genius and what i've seen and read would lead me to agree that he's had some good moments... but do i like or enjoy 4'33" of silence as a song? do i put it on in the car to get excited about going out?

no.
m.

ps i think that in general two or three word sentences will leave a lot to the imagination of the reader and should be avoided all by themselves.

msp, Wednesday, 4 December 2002 16:56 (twenty-two years ago)

I agree with the talking dog.. "i like it" is easy enough to understand.."It is good" is terribly vague - but sucessful music critics transform "I like it" into "it is good" without the reader pulling their card... that is the difference

insectifly (insectifly), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 16:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Sometimes I like things that are bad.

Ben Williams, Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:01 (twenty-two years ago)

"but it's very easy to like something but still know it isn't much good."

I could never do that, I have to say. If I like something, I'll always defend it as something "good". People often say "Am I wrong for liking this? I know it's crap, really". I don't understand that. I don't expect to convince anyone, but I'd never accept that my love of something is "wrong" because I'm in a minority, or because its widely considered to be bad form to like it, etc.

weasel diesel (K1l14n), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:01 (twenty-two years ago)

But that's just human nature hur hur

Ben Williams, Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Sometimes I like things that are bad.

Why? Or how, even?

hstencil, Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:02 (twenty-two years ago)

I think "I like it, but it's not good" means "there are aspects that I like, but there are other aspects I find annoying and would never encourage be used in anything else."

Melissa W (Melissa W), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:05 (twenty-two years ago)

But Ronan, your reactionary approach to this idea is to say that if you like something then it MUST BE good. Of course this isn't true. I employ mark's three questions with every record I write about. I find this helpful particuarly when I'm writing about an album that is clearly derivative and uninspired, but it's derivative of a style or sound that I like. So:

a: is it good? no, it's doing a half-assed take on someone else's idea
b: does it matter? no, it's been done better before
c: do i like it? yes, because i'm a sucker for the sound

And from that I will write a negative piece. And I'll do the same thing for something that I don't like as well.

Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:08 (twenty-two years ago)

"Why? Or how, even?"

I might equally ask why, or how, even, everything you like must be good. Doesn't that seem incredibly solipstic to you?

Ben Williams, Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Ned, you do agree that "I like it" can mean something other than "It's good," and vice versa, don't you? That's a separate question from whether or not you really believe anything is good in some objective sense.

And Jacob, when I find myself thinking of these two a meaning different things, I don't have too much problem saying something is good, but also saying I don't like it. At the very least I suspect it's good. I suspect that most of the canonical works in classical music and in jazz really are good (if anything really is good. . . ha ha ha), but for the most part I don't like them. Similarly, I think that certain bubble gum salsa songs I like are probably bad, but I still like them, because I can't help myself (and don't try to help myself, usually).

Rockist Scientist, Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:14 (twenty-two years ago)

point of order: has yancey korrektly understood the "does it matter?" question, mark?

zebedee, Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:15 (twenty-two years ago)

If I was to write such a piece, it would stress that this is a very enjoyable take on someone else's sound. I couldn't speak badly in a review of something I like.

I think what I'm trying to say is that my own opinion is the only thing I have to decide whether something is "good" or not, so I use "I like it" and "It's good" as essentially the same thing. I don't think people who have the opposite view are "wrong" essentially, but I will defend something I "like" as something "good".

weasel diesel (K1l14n), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:15 (twenty-two years ago)

That was in response to Yancey.

weasel diesel (K1l14n), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Ned, you do agree that "I like it" can mean something other than "It's good," and vice versa, don't you?

I think you mean John D! That's his quote starting this all off, not mine.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:17 (twenty-two years ago)

I guess my problem with the "it's not good but I like it" deal is that you're judging a piece of work based not on your own taste, but some perfect objective taste. I think you can admit in an article that you're a sucker for a sound and not have to give it a negative review. I mean, if you think it's a "half-assed take on someone else's idea" you probably don't LIKE it as much the "original" and therefore you don't think its as good. I mean, you don't LIKE the half-assed just as much as the original, do you?

Also, the idea that something "matters" because it hasn't been done before is why DJ Shadow and the Avalanches get rave reviews from people who probably won't listen to the albums three months after they came out.

Surrendering your own taste to some sense of objective good and relevancy means you're more suspectible to hype and peer pressure. The point of a review is to express your reaction to the work. The best critics have the best sense of WHY they liked it - and also appreciate a wider range of attributes found in the art (they don't ignore lyrics and only listen to the guitars, for instance). Saying you like it but it isn't good means you don't think you have good taste, so why are you writing? At its worst it can be solipsism (especially if you don't understand exactly why you like something and can't explain it coherently to your reader), but that's still preferable to going with the flow.

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:20 (twenty-two years ago)

I guess my problem with the "it's not good but I like it" deal is that you're judging a piece of work based not on your own taste, but some perfect objective taste. I think you can admit in an article that you're a sucker for a sound and not have to give it a negative review. I mean, if you think it's a "half-assed take on someone else's idea" you probably don't LIKE it as much the "original" and therefore you don't think its as good. I mean, you don't LIKE the half-assed just as much as the original, do you?

Also, the idea that something "matters" because it hasn't been done before is why DJ Shadow and the Avalanches get rave reviews from people who probably won't listen to the albums three months after they came out.

Surrendering your own taste to some sense of objective good and relevancy means you're more suspectible to hype and peer pressure. The point of a review is to express your reaction to the work. The best critics have the best sense of WHY they liked it - and also appreciate a wider range of attributes found in the art (they don't ignore lyrics and only listen to the guitars, for instance). Saying you like it but it isn't good means you don't think you have good taste, so why are you writing? At its worst it can be solipsism (especially if you don't understand exactly why you like something and can't explain it coherently to your reader), but that's still preferable to going with the flow.

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Or maybe "like" here is something being interpreted as an involuntary reaction? Like crying at a Hallmark card commercial. You cry because it is pressing your buttons somehow, but you'd never say the commercial was a triumph of cinematic achievement. So maybe if you like something but think it's not good, it's because you know it is pressing your buttons.

Melissa W (Melissa W), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:21 (twenty-two years ago)

woops. I didn't mean to run that twice. Sorry.

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:21 (twenty-two years ago)

zebedee: A good question. That's the way I use it: Does it have cultural significance? Does it add anything new? Is it inventive in some way? Can it point to a larger trend? Does it question anything? Basic questions like that.

Well, we differ Kilian. I've written many bad reviews of records I enjoy and vice versa. I always make it obvious that my feelings are mixed, however.

Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:24 (twenty-two years ago)

but, Melissa W, does anyone say they LIKE those ads, even if they are touched by them? To me saying you like something immediately implies approval.

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Anthony- I agree with your points immensely except that I was wondering whether you thought there was an "objective good" that you could rate the music against? On this we disagree...

insectifly (insectifly), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:25 (twenty-two years ago)

But why must everything we like be "good"? This is just tautology. If everything we "like" is automatically "good," then "good" is a meaningless term and we should dispense with it immediately. And then would take all the fun out of "bad"!

Ben Williams, Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:26 (twenty-two years ago)

If everything we "like" is automatically "good," then "good" is a meaningless term and we should dispense with it immediately

ahhh-haaaaa !!!

insectifly (insectifly), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I might equally ask why, or how, even, everything you like must be good. Doesn't that seem incredibly solipstic to you?

Not at all. There can be more than one criteria as to why something's good. But I do agree that to say "It's good because I like it" isn't necessarily rational or all that illuminating or whatever.

hstencil, Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I had a feeling this was going to happen :)

It's foolish and misleading to compare food to music/art, but since I am foolish & prefer analogies to almost anything, let's imagine this: when I was in Scotland I was introduced to a foodstuff called a Chip Buttie. I found this particular foodstuff really yummy and subsisted entirely on Chip Butties for the better part of two days. I love 'em. But to call them "good food" does something of an injustice to makers of good food the world over.

I don't draw the "good"/"I like it" distinction in order to say bad things about music that other people like/love; my general rule is that I only write about stuff I like. I just don't accept the proposition that in art, all standards are ultimately subjective.

J0hn Darn13ll3 (J0hn Darn13ll3), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:30 (twenty-two years ago)

There's probably something closer to an "objective formal perfection" or "objective professionalism" that you can note, but that's not the same thing as "objective good." Shakier is this idea of things being "objectively new or relevant." I could see some arguing that this need to focus on one's own taste is merely timidity about trying to claim the big culture zeitgeist deal, I'll admit.

saying it's good because you like it is plenty rational, but it definitely ain't illuminating. And illumination is the whole point of a review.

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I guess I'm looking for a word separate from "like". But basically, a sort of base reaction to music. For example, certain chord progressions in songs will ALWAYS get me, regardless of the fact that I think the actual song or artist is horrible and annoying and should be flayed.

Melissa W (Melissa W), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:32 (twenty-two years ago)

No my approach to the matter is that if I like something I like it and I can say why I think it's good but all else is madness.

Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Well of course it's my taste, Anthony, but by approaching an album in that way I want to look outside my own personal preferences... not towards hype and peer pressure, which you mention, but just an acknowledgement that my taste is not pure and pristine. With your approach it's all self-affirming, you make it sound as if no other opinions matter other than your own.

As far as "matters:" Umm... so attempts to create something new shouldn't be an issue at all? We should only praise things that personally appeal to us? And why do you bring up DJ Shadow and Avalanches? I see "matters" as being something completely separate from "like" and "good," and even from the music itself. "Matters" to me is context, relevancy, cultural implications... things larger than the record itself or the artist's intent, and these are the most interesting issues of all.

Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:34 (twenty-two years ago)

I dunno, if I listen to Debussy's piano music I can appreciate the craft. It achieves the effect I think it's supposed to. I just don't really care to engage with that watery, dreamy, aesthetic most of the time these days. It does something for me but I don't really care to have that done to me. Like, you can find a horror movie scary but not like being scared - it's good at being scary but you don't like it. I can think a man is handsome without being attracted to him.

sundar subramanian (sundar), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:34 (twenty-two years ago)

see, J0hn, what you're saying is you don't understand what "good food" is, and that your taste isn't "good." Which is why you aren't a food critic. But if you bother being a music critic, you better think your taste is good.

I'll agree all is not subjective to a point. Most people can agree when album is "long" or "full of loud songs." Subjectivity comes in when people decide whether it is "too long" or "too loud."

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:35 (twenty-two years ago)

"Surrendering your own taste to some sense of objective good and relevancy means you're more suspectible to hype and peer pressure."

Yes. This is the problem I have with the "I like it but it isn't good" statement. I don't like the notion that I should disparage what I enjoy to conform to some orthodox critical consensus.

weasel diesel (K1l14n), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:36 (twenty-two years ago)

see, J0hn, what you're saying is you don't understand what "good food" is, and that your taste isn't "good." Which is why you aren't a food critic. But if you bother being a music critic, you better think your taste is good.

I don't know about that. I'd say that if one wants to be a critic, one had better think that one's writing is at least entertaining to read, and that one's opinions might lead others to have pleasant experiences with the music under scrutiny.

J0hn Darn13ll3 (J0hn Darn13ll3), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, Sundar, you can observe (x) without "liking" (x) or thinking (x) is "good." That's why reviews (if you're assigning quality and not just giving a factual account of what went down) are inherently subjective. You're claiming that (x) is important to quality or isn't.

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh, and I bring up DJ Shadow and Avalanches because the reviews focus on how the albums are made (relevance) rather than the music you hear (which is respectively bland techno-jazz and undanceable casserole).

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I think what John is saying is precisely the opposite: that he has the good taste to know something isn't good, but he likes it anyway.

"It's good because I like it" isn't rational, because it is a tautology ("true by virtue of its logical form alone"). And being rational is all about proving things by deductive reasoning, rather than relying on tautologies.

But I'll be here all day if I don't watch it... must go.

Ben Williams, Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh, and I bring up DJ Shadow and Avalanches because most of the reviews focus on how the albums are made (relevance) rather than the music you hear (which is respectively bland techno-jazz and undanceable casserole).

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:41 (twenty-two years ago)

goddamn. sorry for all the fuck up double posts. sorry!

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Funny how no one has yet to offer even a rough approximation of what 'Good" means and how it is different from "I LIKE"- apart from technical skill, and no ofcourse not hype...

insectifly (insectifly), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:43 (twenty-two years ago)

When writing a review for a glossy mag, hype isn't really a factor at all. I mean, you're writing the piece three months before its release with no other reviews to use as reference points. Hype plays a part more in features, than reviews.

Anthony: Maybe they bring up how those records were made because that's more interesting than the music itself and they want an entertaining piece?

If I say I like something that isn't good, I'm not adhering to a critical line, I'm applying my critical nature towards my own taste. This is a good thing... You try to figure out why you like something, and then sometimes you discover that it's not all that great, but it strikes a chord with you, for a variety of reasons.

As for defining "like" and "good," I'm thinking about that...

Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 4 December 2002 17:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Love that 'Tippi' Hedren.

Sean (Sean), Thursday, 5 December 2002 01:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Man, we just aren't gonna agree on anything tonight

a. popular, but so was "Armageddon"
b. might be first "respect" killer animal movie
c. nice effects but acting and script are horrific

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 5 December 2002 01:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Man, we just aren't gonna agree on anything tonight

a. popular, but so was "Armageddon"
b. might be first "respected" killer animal movie
c. nice effects but acting and script are horrific

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 5 December 2002 01:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Anthony, first you say that the criteria for a review are a) do i like it and b) why?. And then you say that "I like it" and "it is good" are reviews.

You don't see a contradiction there? You don't think step b) might be missing?

Snowy's sports analogy is a good one, since it includes some criteria for why something is good other than the tautologous "i like it." And there's an added bonus: once you get through with measuring something on its own terms, you can then start to compare different terms and even venture arguments as to which terms are better!

Ben WIlliams, Thursday, 5 December 2002 01:27 (twenty-two years ago)

forgive me. a & b are necessary for a GOOD review. But if a review is basically one's assessment of a piece of work, than "I like it!" does qualify. Ebert's goddamn thumb, for instance.

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 5 December 2002 01:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Ned, where are you? You started all this.

Dealing first with work conundra and now packing. I might post something way later tonight.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 5 December 2002 01:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Lishen folx. The value assigned to ANYTHING is probably most often dependent upon its rarity or uniqueness (real or perceived) than any other quality. I think that concept is EASILY separable from actually liking said thing.

Kim (Kim), Thursday, 5 December 2002 01:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Can someone find me a picture of know-it-all ornitholigist Mrs. Bundy from The Birds? She's got such a great look. Google Images is no help.

Arthur (Arthur), Thursday, 5 December 2002 03:22 (twenty-two years ago)

I am surprised clarke hasn't come by to drop some anti-essentialist science on this thread's ass. I am way into mark's questions, but find it unfortunate that most people seem to be confronting them with a mind toward 1) giving answers based on the big words ('good', 'matter', 'like') being univocal, and then in some cases 2) throwing up their hands in despair at a failure or impossibility to do (1). but I like what rockist scientist says, that he feels he understands people when they use words like these, even if he can't really do (1). I submit that this is because we can do a lot with mark's questions without doing (1) (that is, we say we like something in lots of different situations and for different reasons, same with good, same with matter). our answers may be challenged by people, and we may have to explain ourselves, but so what? (is this unusual?)

the move to equate 'I like it' and 'it's good' - or the denial of same - seems to me to usually rush past facts about the way that our answers to mark's questions are complex and varied. why do people do that? is it a shorthand, or an argument-stopper, or a defensive tactic? (there is the possibility this could be done sincerely too, but I suspect most people would bend if they were tested on this point.)

Josh (Josh), Thursday, 5 December 2002 04:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I think all mark's questions are boring. Which is why Anthony is scoring shots off him. Rephrase them.

a. What is this good at? (all records are good at something)
b. Who does this matter to? (all records matter to somebody)
c. Who am I? (If you knew, why would you be wasting precious time trying to sort this all out?)

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 5 December 2002 05:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Don't ignore me. I'm right.

Kim (Kim), Thursday, 5 December 2002 05:15 (twenty-two years ago)

um, insert winky face?

Kim (Kim), Thursday, 5 December 2002 05:15 (twenty-two years ago)

yes sterl that's what I'm on about

Josh (Josh), Thursday, 5 December 2002 05:24 (twenty-two years ago)

*parachutes into arena...*

One thing that's been kind of overlooked thus far: saying "I like it but I know it's crap" is often a discursive strategy -- a "move" in the game of conversation, if you will. It's a tactful way to both acknowledge popular (or hipster as the case may be) consensus -- that said song/album/artist is crap -- while maintaining some semblance of willfulness and of sticking to your guns (not to mention honesty). What seems to be the mere expression of a belief is actually part of a quite complex dance of face-saving and conversational push-and-pull.

We often act and argue as if we hold concrete *beliefs* (a sticky concept if ever there was one) about the goodness of particular songs/albums/artists, and we fail to acknowledge the variety of ways and situations in which we use the word. John's food metaphor, while interesting, falls apart because (among other things): (a) food can be scientifically good-for-you, whereas music cannot; and (b) the standards for evaluating food are more firmly and universally accepted than those for evaluating music.

Ways I use the word "good" with regard to music:
good = fun
good = intellectually challenging
good = universally accepted as such
good = carries out its intended function quite thoroughly
good = embodies its genre
good = provocative

We could all come up with many more, I'm sure, but all I'm trying to get across is that statements like "For me, "good" (or at least "successful") music usually means that it strictly adheres to an implied pre-existing set of ground rules which describe the proper construction and execution of the piece" (sorry Nick) are inadequate (and thusly unsatisfying) because they fail to address the complexity of our usage of the word. [This is pretty much textbook Wittgensteinianism, but I think it works here.]

Clarke B., Thursday, 5 December 2002 05:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I kiss you clarke

time is important too; some of these words are used in very short-lived situations, and are not necessarily intended to hold up outside those situations, whereas other times they're used in ways meant to hold up over time. or to say something about say how we have thought of a piece of music over a longer period of time. the differences in time are tied to function (it's good in this bar, tonight, with these people, because it gives us something to dance to and talk about), provocativeness (some things lose their edge, some don't, but at the time they are provocative for us, whether or not we are worreid that they WILL lose their edge may be of greater or lesser interest), etc.

Josh (Josh), Thursday, 5 December 2002 06:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I wish I could offer something up to this whole wonderful mania I started, but I'm just too tired! Gotta sleep. So more thoughts another time...

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 5 December 2002 06:22 (twenty-two years ago)

My problem with Mark's questions is that answer b is almost always "It's too soon to know", a la that Chinese geezer and the French Revolution. Perhaps my history degree ruined me for this, but my criteria for "matters" are always post-facto - or rather, the question always seems to me teleological.

Anyway to go back to the actual question - a lot of the time the stuff I like writing about most is the stuff that seems flawed, where my liking of it is worrying or puzzling me. This is something similar to "I like it but it's good", maybe.

And to go back again to too-soon-to-know - one thing thats attracted me to pop records, and comic books, and the internet for that matter, is that they seem very new things. I think that the qualities and standards implied in the objective-use 'good', if they exist at all, don't come into being at the start of an artform's history - like heavier elements in the cosmos, they are formed very slowly. Objective quality might be latent in recorded pop, or in comic books, but these are still too close to their 'big bangs' for it to be possible to discover what that quality might be.

Tom (Groke), Thursday, 5 December 2002 11:16 (twenty-two years ago)

My problem with Mark's questions is that answer b is almost always "It's too soon to know", a la that Chinese geezer and the French Revolution. Perhaps my history degree ruined me for this, but my criteria for "matters" are always post-facto - or rather, the question always seems to me teleological.

The real problem with Mark's question b -- which is also why such a question is always URGENT AND KEY -- is that it is always too LATE to know. (Which is why philosophy lives on, in my belated version of Adorno).

alext (alext), Thursday, 5 December 2002 12:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Big problem with all crit approaches mentioned here - nobody sees any need to question need for a) THEMSELVES b) their own writing on whatever. The music isn't good or bad, it doesn't matter (doesn't even 'not matter'), it's just kind of there. Whether or not 'you' like it, why should anyone give a shit? The review (as read) should be more about the subject than the writer, but while it's being WRITTEN the writer should interrogate themselves more before pronouncing on the worth of something else. [ie it's writer's job to MAKE somebody give a shit - and not even about the writer!] Writing effectively is like everything else, it's an ideal more than anything, if you think you're doing it you probably aren't, and when it's done well it looks so easy ("just let go, man!") that everybody else thinks they can do it. It's the old paradox, to do something well often involves taking the job at hand 100% seriously while simultaneously realising and accepting fully that the rest of the world will accord it 0% weight, and if it no longer makes sense to work against those sort of conditions then leave it, get a real job and stop torturing yourself wondering why everyone can't see through your crap writing all the way to the GENIUS within you if only u were more articulate!

dave q, Thursday, 5 December 2002 12:47 (twenty-two years ago)

The question which a review asks, by definition is not a), b) or c), but:

should you spend money on this?

alext (alext), Thursday, 5 December 2002 14:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Not strictly true, Alex. NYLPM was started on the principle that about 2/3 of people reading it online would have the capability to download almost anything mentioned without paying.

Tom (Groke), Thursday, 5 December 2002 14:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Clarke is on the money, his first paragraph is what I was getting at with my post at the beginning of the thread, the one that was "reactionary".

Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 5 December 2002 14:15 (twenty-two years ago)

True but I wouldn't call NYPLM reviews: plenty of space there for a, b and c. I guess by review I mean something where the writer gets paid and the punter pays something. Which is obv. a very narrow definition I suppse, but I did have Uncut or something like that in mind.

alext (alext), Thursday, 5 December 2002 14:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Haven't read the whole thread yet but:

Does ANYONE have to like something for it to be good? Ie is there music which no one at all likes but which is drearily propped up as being good? It seems to me that if "good" and "like" are separable concepts then this music should exist somewhere in tune-space.

Sam (chirombo), Thursday, 5 December 2002 14:21 (twenty-two years ago)

The W stuff is all well and good, but it doesn't really get you anywhere outside of language games. I am more interested in hearing someone tell me why they think something is good (ie what 'good' means to them at his particular moment in this particular context) than hearing someone demonstrate that 'good' can mean lots of different things in lots of different contexts. Nick's 'ground rules' formulation may not describe all the different uses of the word 'good,' but that's not the point of it; the point is that it does describe what 'good' means to him. Describing what 'good' means to you takes you in the direction of an aesthetic which you can use in multiple contexts as a measure of whether you 'like' something or not. Since 'liking' something is a more inchoate and immediate response to a piece of work than declaring it 'good,' the difference between the two modes of response creates a tension which leads to the kind of self-questioning that Dave Q describes. Hmmm, I like this, how does it square with what I think is good, does it require me to revise my definition(s) of what is good, or do my definition(s) of what is good force me to question whether I really like this...

Ben Williams, Thursday, 5 December 2002 14:35 (twenty-two years ago)

It is impossible to create anything that everyone dislikes.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 5 December 2002 14:37 (twenty-two years ago)

And to go back again to too-soon-to-know - one thing thats attracted me to pop records, and comic books, and the internet for that matter, is that they seem very new things. I think that the qualities and standards implied in the objective-use 'good', if they exist at all, don't come into being at the start of an artform's history - like heavier elements in the cosmos, they are formed very slowly. Objective quality might be latent in recorded pop, or in comic books, but these are still too close to their 'big bangs' for it to be possible to discover what that quality might be.

So do you more or less mean "canon" by "objective quality" here, or do you mean something more/else?

llamaskool, Thursday, 5 December 2002 14:56 (twenty-two years ago)

I kind of mean "canon" but in an evolved-by-convention way, i.e. the canon of Western Literature may or may not consist of the 'best' or 'greatest' books but it exists and we now have to deal with it and its cultural gravity, so to speak.

Tom (Groke), Thursday, 5 December 2002 15:02 (twenty-two years ago)

But Tom, I remember you lamenting on another thread, a month or so ago, about how writers treat everything as fads now. They aren't willing to take a serious stand and say that this music matters in some real, lasting way... And you arguing against B because it seems more historical is just that. Writing about those big ideas, finding real threads to tie an album into a larger scheme is what makes writing fun! Sure, many times it ends up being bullshit and you look like a fool, but taking that chance is worth it (and can certainly lead to interesting ideas).

The value assigned to ANYTHING is probably most often dependent upon its rarity or uniqueness.

Then why are diamonds so expensive?

In regards to Clarke's first graf: I see how "I like it but it's crap" could be read as a defense mechanism for the embarrassed listener, but I do think that it has real weight. Acknowledging that such an idea exists (that yr taste ain't all that) is important, because it leads you to understand why someone else might like this, or why they would disagree with you, thus making your reasoning for like/dislike more sound and more interesting.

dave q: Questions like these are ways to ensure that the review will make someone care about it. Clearly "I like it. It's good." won't build much interest, but a solid grasp on the why's, who's, what's, etc., can, as you mentioned, by virtue of the writer questioning him/herself.

Yanc3y (ystrickler), Thursday, 5 December 2002 15:47 (twenty-two years ago)


Q is top of the pops.

the pinefox, Thursday, 5 December 2002 15:55 (twenty-two years ago)

I was moaning about the idea that writers think all the big trends in the past (that they happened to like, generally) were Real Actual Important Things and that in comparison what is happening now is mere faddishness and therefore worse.

Whereas what I'm saying above is that even those big trends can't be satisfactorily judged now, except by looking at the present-day scene which neccessarily magnifies the importance of the past ("disco is important because look at all this dance music"; "punk is important because etc etc" - and because we can't look into the future all current music will by definition fail this importance-test) and leads to what I was complaining about.

I think writing about contemporary music always involves a leap of faith - a willingness to take the music on what appear to be its own terms, to pretend that it matters or might matter. I think that's the only way you can risk the disappointment you need as a critic - as opposed to the built-in disappointment of the "it's all fads, ah the past" point of view, which involves no risk.

I'm not sure that's what Mark meant by "matters", though.

Tom (Groke), Thursday, 5 December 2002 16:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Some chaotic ideas which haven't been discussed too much yet:

like - subjective
good - objective

Therefore using the word "good" is a little bit of an arrogation. You imply that you know all music and know the objective criteria to judge.

"Good" somehow means to me original, unique, individual.

A problem can be your restricted knowledge of music and especially the chronology of your musical experiences. Let's say you hear Elastica and don't know of Wire. You like them and think they are original and good therefore. Afterwards you hear Wire and find out that this kind of stuff has been done before. To complicate things I don't even think that with your new knowledge you should now infer that though you like Elastica they are not good as they were copycats. As personally you heard them first and they probably even did something new in terms of a more up-to-date sound to Wire you can still think they are good.

A different example where it seems more obvious would be Beck's new record. Let's say you know Nick Drake before listening to Sea Change and especially this one song where Beck uses a string arrangement by Nick Drake. You can still like Beck's song but to say it is good would stretch things I guess. As you always hear Nick Drake behind those strings and know that Beck must have heard them before composing his song you can't possibly say Beck's version is good.

This is a mess, don't know if I added anything.

alex in mainhattan (alex63), Friday, 6 December 2002 00:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Yancey - the diamond thing is actually exactly what I meant. We can make synthetic diamonds no problem these days, the fakes have the same look and feel (even to experts) but one type is still valued more, is considered BETTER. Why? Because perfect natural diamonds are SCARCE. It's a relatively objective measure of determining value. The only complicating factor in applying this idea to music is that the rarity of the stuff is not as concrete as it is with material things. This is where my idea dovetails with Tom's idea of being most attracted to "new things". New things of course being called "new" because they're somewhat unique. Yes?

Kim (Kim), Friday, 6 December 2002 01:08 (twenty-two years ago)

As you always hear Nick Drake behind those strings and know that Beck must have heard them before composing his song you can't possibly say Beck's version is good.

This thread is so long I don't remember if I've contributed to it yet or not, but I disagree with the above. Can't a phony diamond be good? Can't a song that is pleasant until you discover it rips something off be good?

Personal to Arthur: I'll have something in your inbox tonight!

Sean (Sean), Friday, 6 December 2002 01:16 (twenty-two years ago)

You can appreciate it equally perhaps, but that's not the point. Or rather - that's the point when appreciating things. It's not the point when assigning remote values. The supposed problem with "good" is that it's a halfway word that points to either or both.

Kim (Kim), Friday, 6 December 2002 01:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Obviously a fake diamond isn't a good diamond. But can't it be a good fake diamond and thus be good? I say yes.

Sean (Sean), Friday, 6 December 2002 03:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes... and? Ok, I'm stopping now.

Kim (Kim), Friday, 6 December 2002 03:23 (twenty-two years ago)

ben, my point (and what I get from clarke's) was not to play around with some esoteric stuff. I was claiming that those usages ARE employed by each of us, not just that each person uses the term in their own way. recognizing that this IS the way we DO talk is supposed to be a challenge to the idea that we can just state what good is 'for us' in a semi-tidy way like nick did. or that it is desirable, in any case, to do so. we already HAVE 'good' to use in plenty of contexts, just not the sort you might prefer.

Josh (Josh), Friday, 6 December 2002 05:09 (twenty-two years ago)

:)

Ben Williams, Friday, 6 December 2002 05:24 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't actually disagree with any of that Josh. Or rather, I don't disagree with the account of how language works. Just the conclusions you seem to draw from it. I wasn't meaning to suggest that Nick's statement was some kind of private definition of 'good'; obviously there is a web of preexisting meanings of the word, into which we plunge whenever we use it; we are not in full control of language, etc. But I don't think it's in full control of us either, and we can use it however imperfectly to make statements that will be understood by others in the way that we intend to some degree. Inevitably these statements will utilize some pre-existing meanings of 'good' and discard others, depending on how they apply to the context in which we're working and depending on how well they fit the meaning we're trying to convey. And if we're really, uh, good at using the word, maybe we can even have an impact on its meaning (but we would probably find this easier to pull off if we selected a more obscure and less universal word than 'good' to work with--like, I don't know, 'punctum' maybe--one that is more receptive to being shaped anew, which is what aesthetes these days tend to do). Analysing all the different ways in which 'good' is used in language is a way of restoring precision to it--something all of us in this thread would find helpful haha--but counting them, and then concluding that because there are so many of them, and because they were around before we were, we cannot possibly use the word in any particularly defined way that refers to our own life-experience, and should therefore give up on trying to do so altogether, seems to me a peculiarly pessimistic conclusion.

Of course, you may be saying something else entirely haha. It's a long time since I read Wittgenstein.

Ben Williams, Friday, 6 December 2002 13:40 (twenty-two years ago)

if you have in mind by saying 'private' that I have private-language stuff in mind, I don't, that's a totally different matter (aside from the fact that someone's defn might RELY on private stuff in that sense but that's another story)

you're right about language not being totally in control of us either, I think, but if I made it seem as if I think this investigating-how-good-is-used is sort of done in-place, static, well, I should find another way to put it. there's something I don't like about the sort of definition nick advanced, though, despite this. the best I can do at the moment without sliding into some things I'm philosophically very unsure about is this: I suspect that attempts to have an impact on the meaning of a word like this lead back to the kinds of disputes about language they're meant to somehow quiet, so I don't think they're an answer; that might be ok with me as long as the people doing the impacting (and the ones impacted and arguing about it) are able to at some point recognize what's been going on, and not just start arguing over the impacter's use of the word as if the question is whether or not theirs is the right one in an essentialist/usual W targets sense. does that make any sense to you?

Josh (Josh), Saturday, 7 December 2002 20:27 (twenty-two years ago)

carrot = close as rabbit gets to diamond?

dave q, Sunday, 8 December 2002 11:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Josh: Yes.

Ben Williams, Monday, 9 December 2002 01:09 (twenty-two years ago)

In Grade 7 and 8 we had to do a subject called Art History and Appreciation. Obv. the History bit was about history but the Appreciation bit was basically about learning about "good" as the word has been used on this thread. Mostly this subject was about paintings, sculpture, photography and film because drama and literature had their own subjects.

They weren't trying to indoctrinate us or re-educate our taste. The idea was for us to learn to critically analyse art.

One result was meant to be that we would examine why we liked what we liked and therefore be able to further develop our taste or interest and that this would contribute to our own art making.

Another aim was for us to not just go "I don't like it, it's crap" about things that didn't immediately take our fancy but rather to, once again, critically analyse stuff and to take an interest in what the artist was trying to achieve, their success in doing so and to get value from a piece of art whether we liked it or not.

Most of the 12 and 13 year olds in this class could handle the concept of appreciating art they didn't actually like.

toraneko (toraneko), Monday, 9 December 2002 02:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh, and music had its own subject too. We listened to The Four Seasons andCarmen and Bolero and Carmina Burana and Westside Story and stuff like that so they obviously weren't testing our abilites to appreciate stuff we didn't like in music.

toraneko (toraneko), Monday, 9 December 2002 02:40 (twenty-two years ago)

We listened to The Four Seasons andCarmen and Bolero and Carmina Burana and Westside Story and stuff like that so they obviously weren't testing our abilites to appreciate stuff we didn't like in music.

???

Rockist Scientist, Monday, 9 December 2002 02:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, everyone likes the first four anyway. They're so *easy*. Westside Story might have some defectors but there are enough songs in it that everyone must like at least one.

toraneko (toraneko), Monday, 9 December 2002 02:52 (twenty-two years ago)

you know, reading Christgau's post re: "suck" gave me some terminology I'd want to use here.

It's not so much "I don't like it = it's crap" as much as "I don't get it = I have valid reasons that I do not support or enjoy this work. And since I'm supposed to be sharing my opinion I'm not going to pretend I don't have these reasons just to appease a culture or subculture's sense of what is objectively good. If you wanna know why you should like it, read someone who does."

An easy way to point this out would be if you did a 10 Best Albums of the year list. Shouldn't it be the same as your 10 favorite albums of the year?

Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 9 December 2002 03:27 (twenty-two years ago)

I would aim for more variety in a 10 Best Albums of the Year list. My 10 favourite albums of the year would probably all be sugary chiXor pop and commercial techno/dance because that's the stuff that made me feel good this year but there were heaps of very good other albums put out too - eg. System of a Down - which I love but which didn't make me think of fairy floss and glitter.

btw - go to http://abc.net.au/triplej/2002/albums/vote.htm for a good list of albums released this year.

toraneko (toraneko), Monday, 9 December 2002 05:53 (twenty-two years ago)

eight months pass...
Notebooks out, plagiarists!

N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 1 September 2003 20:36 (twenty-one years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.