Who are bigger enemies of the ILM, the six people who voted they don't like Black Sabbath or the sixteen people who voted they don't like Led Zeppelin?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I say the Sabbath haters because Zeppelin's catalog is so overplayed one could confuse being sick of it for not liking it.

But all 16-22 of them (allowing for overlap) are indeed enemies, make no mistake! Come clean, nay sayers!

― NYCNative, Friday, 20 April 2007 00:11 (eighteen years ago)

Hahaha. I have to say I found it funny and don't regret including that option. Every poll should, but yeah people should at least post why and join in the debate rather than voting silently.

Most detractors of polls complain about lack of debate anyway. (unless it was them who actually voted of course).

― Brigadier Lethbridge-Pfunkboy, Friday, 20 April 2007 00:15 (eighteen years ago)

And of course they won't own up. Especially if you make threads to embarrass them!

But please keep the "I Don't Like" option in the polls. This is a general music board, not a board dedicated to actual bands and everyone's opinions should be allowed.

― Brigadier Lethbridge-Pfunkboy, Friday, 20 April 2007 00:31 (eighteen years ago)

ok who hates sabbath????????

― river wolf, Friday, 20 April 2007 00:31 (eighteen years ago)

6 people apparently according to the poll.

― Brigadier Lethbridge-Pfunkboy, Friday, 20 April 2007 00:32 (eighteen years ago)

where is the duke nukem "save the messageboard" gif?

― ian, Friday, 20 April 2007 01:40 (eighteen years ago)

That's Bad Dudes not Duke Nukem ffs!

― jim, Friday, 20 April 2007 01:44 (eighteen years ago)

Just wait until someone does best Metallica album with the i dont like option.

― Brigadier Lethbridge-Pfunkboy, Friday, 20 April 2007 01:46 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.mna.hkr.se/~ene02p7/images/enemystate.jpg

― Roberto Spiralli, Friday, 20 April 2007 01:47 (eighteen years ago)

I wonder who would get the most votes in a most hated band poll.
Dave Matthews band or Creed?

― Brigadier Lethbridge-Pfunkboy, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:30 (eighteen years ago)

Creed.

― Jeff Treppel, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:32 (eighteen years ago)

I was just about to start a 'most hated' thread. But not one with chart rock (someone should, tho).

― Tape Store, Friday, 20 April 2007 02:33 (eighteen years ago)

Maybe they were just being subversive due to the over-abundance of poll threads...unless they were being honest like everyone else, and there are also a handful of people who think Shaq is the best musical talent to come from NJ.

― musically, Friday, 20 April 2007 05:12 (eighteen years ago)

I voted against Zeppelin. And it wasn't ironic.

― Mordechai Shinefield, Friday, 20 April 2007 05:27 (eighteen years ago)

Why is it important, useful or valuable to have an "I don't like" option in polls? I don't get it.

― Bimble, Friday, 20 April 2007 05:44 (eighteen years ago)

So everyone can vote, I assume.

― Mordechai Shinefield, Friday, 20 April 2007 05:45 (eighteen years ago)

It pre-empts complaints of "what if you don't like them".

"Don't vote then" doesn't properly capture the difference between not caring enough to vote and actively disliking.

― mrlynch, Friday, 20 April 2007 06:57 (eighteen years ago)

i didn't vote but i would have voted "don't like" to both black sabbath and led zeppelin. i would have thought lots of ilm-ers would do the same.

― lex pretend, Friday, 20 April 2007 08:49 (eighteen years ago)

I voted "don't like" for both, does that make me a supervillain?

― Tuomas, Friday, 20 April 2007 08:51 (eighteen years ago)

I used not to like Led Zeppelin! And I started ILM! I kind of wish the people who argued with me about Led Zep then were around now so I could say "Sorry, actually they were good."

― Groke, Friday, 20 April 2007 08:54 (eighteen years ago)

You started ILM so you could dis Led Zeppelin?

― Tuomas, Friday, 20 April 2007 08:58 (eighteen years ago)

That sorta makes sense.

― Tuomas, Friday, 20 April 2007 08:58 (eighteen years ago)

It wasn't the primary motivation.

But the Led Zep thread was really early.

― Groke, Friday, 20 April 2007 09:03 (eighteen years ago)

I wouldn't know what their best album is though, I only have III and I really like it but otherwise I've just downloaded tracks people recommended.

― Groke, Friday, 20 April 2007 09:03 (eighteen years ago)

I confess! I am a zep hata.

― ledge, Friday, 20 April 2007 09:07 (eighteen years ago)

I think LZ are pretty good in small doses. I've never really investigated BS.

― Scik Mouthy, Friday, 20 April 2007 09:11 (eighteen years ago)

You really, really should.

― NYCNative, Friday, 20 April 2007 09:12 (eighteen years ago)

You started ILM so you could dis Led Zeppelin?
It wasn't the primary motivation.

It would have been great if it was... I Love Music... ALL OF IT EXCEPT FOR FUCKING LED ZEPPELIN!

― NYCNative, Friday, 20 April 2007 09:13 (eighteen years ago)

i didn't vote but i would have voted "don't like" to both black sabbath and led zeppelin.

From the guy who said that not liking Madonna "is simply not an option," for the record...

― NYCNative, Friday, 20 April 2007 09:15 (eighteen years ago)

I voted "don't like" for both, does that make me a supervillain?

It might, Tuomas. What do you like?

― NYCNative, Friday, 20 April 2007 09:17 (eighteen years ago)

Almost anything that's not rock.

― Tuomas, Friday, 20 April 2007 09:17 (eighteen years ago)

I only like Good Times, Bad Times.

― MRZBW, Friday, 20 April 2007 09:22 (eighteen years ago)

Almost anything that's not rock.

Such as? Name five bands you like and I (with help from the board) can probably recomend a mix tape from both bands that you, maybe won't love to death, but possibly can appreciate. It might not be exclusive to those two bands but will be mostly those two bands and anything else included will be a lot closer to Zep/Sab than what you usually listen to.

― NYCNative, Friday, 20 April 2007 09:37 (eighteen years ago)

i should point out that led zep are probably as close as i'm going to get to liking this kind of rock music; i actually like some of the guitars on some of their songs! the crunching punchy riffs anyway. 'immigrant song' i think i like. what's off-putting are the widdly-widdly pointless wanky riffs and, predictably for me, that cat-being-castrated voice.

― lex pretend, Friday, 20 April 2007 09:42 (eighteen years ago)

Lex I think you'd like "Trampled Under Foot" a lot.

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 20 April 2007 10:40 (eighteen years ago)

I actually don't mind Sabbath. I wouldn't say I'm a fan, but if , say, "Electric Funeral" came on the radio or something I probably wouldn't change it.

Led Zeppelin, on the other hand, are wretched.

From the guy who said that not liking Madonna "is simply not an option," for the record...

Your point? Madonna is certainly much better than both Zeppelin and Sabbath...

― The Brainwasher, Friday, 20 April 2007 12:07 (eighteen years ago)

Madonna is certainly much better than both Zeppelin and Sabbath...

^^^^^^^
so colossally untrue and wrong that it defies description.

― m the g, Friday, 20 April 2007 12:08 (eighteen years ago)

Well for one thing you can actually understand most of the lyrics!

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 20 April 2007 12:17 (eighteen years ago)

or in other words, you don't know how to argue effectively against it. (xpost)

― blueski, Friday, 20 April 2007 12:17 (eighteen years ago)

Well for one thing you can actually understand most of the lyrics!

But when you understand them you kinda wish you hadn't.

― blueski, Friday, 20 April 2007 12:18 (eighteen years ago)

i'm so glad i don't have the kind of ears/brain which would make me think led zeppelin and black sabbath were worthy of even licking madonna's boots

― lex pretend, Friday, 20 April 2007 12:19 (eighteen years ago)

funny, I was about to write the same thing, only in reverse.

― m the g, Friday, 20 April 2007 12:20 (eighteen years ago)

At least Madonna was actually AROUND during my life. That counts for a lot.

― blueski, Friday, 20 April 2007 12:21 (eighteen years ago)

They seem quite silly things to compare. I've had immeasurably more pleasure and use from Madonna records than either of the others, but if I wanted to listen to "War Pigs" then frankly Ms Ciccone hasn't made any acceptable substitute.

― Groke, Friday, 20 April 2007 12:23 (eighteen years ago)

i'm so glad i don't have the kind of ears/brain which would make me think led zeppelin and black sabbath were worthy of even licking madonna's boots

-- lex pretend, Friday, 20 April 2007 13:19 (12 minutes ago)

funny, I was about to write the same thing, only in reverse.

-- m the g, Friday, 20 April 2007 13:20 (11 minutes ago)

actually, I wasn't. that was an unduly stupid and rude response to a provocatively stupid and rude comment. my apologies.

but I'm intrigued - why is AROUND such a deal breaker? certainly, the artists you hear during your formative years will always be special to you - but that doesn't in any way mean that they had to be alive or active when you first heard them.

unless by AROUND you mean she came round your house to babysit you.

― m the g, Friday, 20 April 2007 12:40 (eighteen years ago)

i'm so glad i don't have the kind of ears/brain which would make me think led zeppelin and black sabbath were worthy of even licking madonna's boots

haha i love ILM.

a universe that does not have all three of those bands PLUS wu-tang clan and merzbow is not a universe i want to live in!

― Emily Bjurnhjam, Friday, 20 April 2007 13:11 (eighteen years ago)

I could write an essay as to why I think that Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin are better than Madonna however I fear that many of my objections will be dismissed as rockist bias (and they might very well be). For example, I think that the creativity involved in songwriting is kind of important as opposed to hiring songwriters and producers who do most of that work.

I can also talk to influence if you feel that counts for something (and I do) - it seems to me that although Madonna was involved in the making fo some fairly decent-selling discs, much of which was catchy and some of which holds up, she didn't really do much more than react to trends until she was already established and even how many artists speak reverently about how "Beautiful Stranger" was such an influence? Certainly not as many who look to Sabbath and Zeppelin.

And those who did take the blueprints of those respective artists, how muchquality was there? Sabbath helped begat a ton of music, commercial and underground, bands that garnered popular as well as critical acclaim. Zeppelin is a little behind and their influence is somewhat stained by that bad period in the '80s where bad Zep-clones roamed the earth. Where is Madonna's influence, I mean aside from how modern pop divas respect her (which ain't the same thing).

I'd also wager that Madonna listened to a little Zep as she grew up. Maybe not Sabbath but that's why she's not as good... :)

― NYCNative, Friday, 20 April 2007 13:42 (eighteen years ago)

I dunno why the people here who say they like LZ and sabbath are using such strange arguments. You like sabbath because of the influence it had? because of how the songs were written. what?

I like Sabbath because they have great riffs and drums!

― frankie driscoll, Friday, 20 April 2007 13:53 (eighteen years ago)

and because sabbath are catchy!

― frankie driscoll, Friday, 20 April 2007 13:53 (eighteen years ago)

...And Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin are awesome.

― Brigadier Lethbridge-Pfunkboy, Friday, 20 April 2007 14:04 (eighteen years ago)

Skipping 196 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

ok. but i dont feel like i have to trust them very much. music is too vast a field for any one expert or experts to really have a handle on it all. there's too much of it, too many variables, for anyone to have THAT much trust placed in them. but if you want to trust them a lot, and i want to trust them a little, it doesn't make a huge difference. as long as no one trusts them completely!

― ryan, Monday, 23 April 2007 22:53 (eighteen years ago)

Rockist, I already justified that claim at great length. If you have a particular objection to my justification, then we could discuss it.

music is too vast a field for any one expert or experts to really have a handle on it all.

That's why I said many times that trust in an expert should only extend to their particular area of expertise. Yes "music" is a vast field, but the fields of "jazz" or "bebop" are far less vast.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Monday, 23 April 2007 22:56 (eighteen years ago)

of course. that narrows down the chance of error, but still doesnt eliminate it.

― ryan, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:00 (eighteen years ago)

Which is why I agreed that the experts are fallible, but I dismiss the objection that we shouldn't trust experts because there are too many different types of music. So we seem to be largely in agreement!

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:02 (eighteen years ago)

maybe it's your rhetoric i am disagreeing with. I dont like the word trust! so by all means, lets listen to experts! I'll hear them out.

but my own inclination is not to trust "experts" very much when it comes to art or music. I'll take ILM over most music experts. to what degree you value the opinion of an expert is important but not absolutely critical. just so long as it is not total!

― ryan, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:05 (eighteen years ago)

http://enri.cas.psu.edu/images/askexpert.jpg

― m coleman, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:06 (eighteen years ago)

*is wondering if Ryan has noticed that a lot of the people that post on ILM tend to, in fact, be music experts to some extent or another, whether it be Chuck, Ned, Scott Seward, Frank Kogan, etc., which sort of defeats his point of trusting ILM more than music experts*

― Jeff Treppel, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:11 (eighteen years ago)

Gah, I thought we were finished here! Yes, we should evaluate arguments and not simply accept things as dogma, but there's a point at which we have to accept that other people are doing the hard work for us to come up with the answers. Again, that doesn't mean you are compelled to enjoy what the experts say is good, but in the absence of your own substantial knowledge of the field I think you should probably believe them about the value of the work.

I don't know or care very much about, I don't know, polka. If someone who's spent decades studying polka music tells me that piece X is considered one of the great works of polka, I'm probably going to take his word for it, even though I might not enjoy the piece. Were I to decide to learn about polka, I'd probably take a look at that piece and see if I could understand what made it good. Yes, he could be lying to me, or he could be insane, or whatever, but absent any indication of those things, I think it's rational to believe him that there's something valuable about that piece of music.

Now what's your reason for saying you'd take ILM over most music experts? It seems to me that ILM contains many music experts. Maybe you're viewing my usage of "expert" as some kind of exclusionary academic term or something?

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:13 (eighteen years ago)

Yes, what Jeff said.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:14 (eighteen years ago)

I don't know who you are Catsup dude. We weren't discussing my music (and you haven't even heard my record, as it's not released yet), so perhaps you should go back to the kiddie table or something.

-- St3ve Go1db3rg, Monday, April 23, 2007 3:05 PM (4 hours ago)

You have your nose so far up Jeff Mangum's ass that any record you make is going to be shit. PS YOUR MP3S SUCK AND NO AMOUNT OF PRODUCTION CAN SAVE YOU

WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW

― JW, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:17 (eighteen years ago)

POSTED 6:20 PM Friday
Pop con: Finding deep meaning where there is none

April 20, 2007

You learn things at the EMP Pop Conference. For instance, I did not know that rock T-shirts and posters were full of significance and meaning until I attended a panel this afternoon on "Iconography." Also, not being a mallrat, I had never heard of Hot Topic before but found out at the same panel that it's a mall retailer despised by the rock cognoscenti because it's not really punk, dammit!

In keeping with the general tone of the panel — i.e., finding deep meaning where there is none — there was also a paper on "American Idol" which postulated, shockingly enough, that all the contestants oversing! Who knew?

Of course, being a highfalutin intellectual talk-fest, the word "oversing" was never used, because it's too understandable. Oversinging was referred to as "melisma." Upping the intellectual quotient even more, Machiavelli's "The Prince" was cited because Idol "is political," according to panelist Katherine Meizel, a Ph.D. candidate on ethnomusicology at UC Santa Barbara. "It's an election, after all," she explained, to titters of laughter.

Michaelangelo Matos, a local rock writer who sometimes freelances for The Seattle Times, read his paper about Bob Marley posters on dorm room walls, without ever saying what he thinks of Marley's music, or its significance. His point seemed to be that "wasptafarians," or white college-age Marley fans, deserve to be sneered at because the only reggae artist they know is Marley, and they only like him because he smoked pot. It didn't seem to occur to Matos that maybe white male college students have Marley posters on their dorm-room walls because they actually like his music. There's probably an academic word for it, but I call it "good taste."

― latebloomer, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:18 (eighteen years ago)

Rockist, I already justified that claim at great length. If you have a particular objection to my justification, then we could discuss it.

I don't believe there are facts about value (in the sense of this is good this is bad, this is beautiful this is ugly) to be discovered to begin with, so the idea of experts on such things seems silly.

― Rockist Scientist, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:19 (eighteen years ago)

<i>but in the absence of your own substantial knowledge of the field I think you should probably believe them about the value of the work.</i>

probably yes, but i certainly dont HAVE to believe them.

I was taking "expert" to be an exclusionary academic term, "musical literacy" as i believe you put it. if the term is not meant to designate a fairly exclusionary and rigorous group then im not sure what relevence it has at all. why not say "the community of music lovers"--which again can be deconstructed. these terms are are helpful but NOT absolute designators of who we should or should not trust.

― ryan, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:20 (eighteen years ago)

Too many xposts!

That's weird, JW.

latebloomer, you could have said "I don't care for academic discussions" in a lot less words. That reads to me like a high school student complaining about his English homework.

Rockist, I don't think we need to deal with facts about value in that kind of broad sense. I think it makes sense to say "this is a good pop song" or "this is a good symphony" without necessarily implying "this is a good thing" in some kind of general way. The idea of something being good generally is a different (and bigger) philosophical question.

ryan, scroll up to the part where I explained what makes someone an expert on a particular type of music. It's a large conglomeration of things which varies with the type of music in question, and it's not solely about "musical literacy."

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:24 (eighteen years ago)

i was not posting that article as an example of my own opinion

― latebloomer, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:26 (eighteen years ago)

latebloomer's post was from an article

― félix pié, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:27 (eighteen years ago)

xpost

― félix pié, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:27 (eighteen years ago)

I see, sorry latebloomer. So strike my first sentence to you and keep the second.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:27 (eighteen years ago)

damn this thread is like dramatic and s***. apeshit, as a word, is kindof ridic.

― Surmounter, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:35 (eighteen years ago)

KHAAAAAAAAAAAN!

― Jeff Treppel, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:44 (eighteen years ago)

I saw red when I read that "Pop Con" post the other day. There was a number listed at the bottom, I seriously considered calling and saying FUCK YOU AND YOUR SNOTTY JUVENILE WRITING STYLE.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:44 (eighteen years ago)

that article is funny! I imagine it being written by the Reggae version of alex in nyc

RASTA IN NYC!!!

― JW, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:51 (eighteen years ago)

is this thread worth reading? i just noticed how long it had gotten.

― scott seward, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 00:04 (eighteen years ago)

I thought some parts of it were good, but then again I'm not really an expert on ILM.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 00:06 (eighteen years ago)

Okay, let me ask this (and maybe it's answered above--I haven't read every word of this thread), St3ve Go1db3rg. If the experts can be fallible (about what is a good rock song or a good merengue or a good free jazz performance), how could we potentially find out when they have been fallible? Where do we look? Other experts (who maybe come later chronologically)? I would have trouble swallowing a statement like, "A famous rock music expert used to think this was a bad rock song, but now we know he was wrong."

But honestly I originally just meant to take potshots from the sidelines.

― Rockist Scientist, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 00:10 (eighteen years ago)

(But now I do mean that question seriously about how one would know an expert got it wrong. It's not just a sarcastic rhetorical question.)

― Rockist Scientist, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 00:13 (eighteen years ago)

THIS THREAD = http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/I,_Mudd

― JW, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 00:19 (eighteen years ago)

Rockist, I'd say we'd know he was wrong if someone else came along and made an argument which showed why he was wrong (and of course that argument would have to take a form other than "he's wrong because I enjoy this song"). I don't think it would be anything like your hypothetical example, but certainly the catalogues of various artists are re-evaluated at different times and via different critical frameworks, and sometimes these re-evaluations can lead us to value the works differently.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 00:39 (eighteen years ago)

When you guys nail this all down, I'd appreciate it if you could try to bang out the aesthetics of visual art as well.

― KANTLIPS, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 01:03 (eighteen years ago)

"know" provisionally, of course.

― ryan, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 01:03 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.artsandopinion.com/2003_v2_n1/volume_images/mona-fordummies.jpg

― John Justen, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 01:07 (eighteen years ago)

This thread is great. Fuck the haters.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 01:36 (eighteen years ago)

http://feeds.static.paidonresults.net/0/gads-13130-300x300.jpg

― John Justen, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 01:47 (eighteen years ago)

"I would have trouble swallowing a statement like, "A famous rock music expert used to think this was a bad rock song, but now we know he was wrong.""

Search ILX for any Xgau discussion. He's the posterboy for "establishment" criticisms now disagreed with. (Of course, there's also a fair number of times he was the lone critic to not swallow some random bullshit...)

― I eat cannibals, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 02:00 (eighteen years ago)

It all sounds very test-of-time-ish.

― Rockist Scientist, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 02:03 (eighteen years ago)

Well of course these things aren't necessarily ever "settled" definitively. At one point there may be a large amount of consensus about a particular album or band or composer or what have you, but later on that consensus may shift or become fractured into different competing viewpoints which our hypothetical readers would have to digest and choose amongst.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 02:08 (eighteen years ago)

Lest we forget, entire books have been written that beg to differ with critical consensus.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 02:10 (eighteen years ago)

Whole books?! Really?! WOW!

― Jeff Treppel, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 02:59 (eighteen years ago)

re: dissent from consensus. id be tempted to argue that in the realm of music criticism it serves to expand the canon by pointing exactly those areas that the canon is blind to or wrong about. much like using sounds not previously considered "music" expand the idea of music and make it new.

― ryan, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 03:10 (eighteen years ago)

― ryan, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 03:14 (eighteen years ago)

oh, and i still mostly disagree about the "expert" thing!

― ryan, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 03:15 (eighteen years ago)

Rockist, it sorta is test-of-time-ish. extending inquiry into the future works like sort of a peircean "regulative hope"--doesnt mean our inquiries will result in true knowledge, but that we should operate under the assumption that they will because it's better than the alternative.

I've never been too taken with that idea, although I have to admit I haven't read Peirce himself. But I guess my big issue in this case is that I don't see what would count as evidence that we are progressing toward some point of true knowledge (even an imaginary one we couldn't possibly reach). In the sciences, it's much clearer what counts as evidence of the truth of a particular theory. The kind of "arguments" made by music critics about the worth, or lack of worth, of a particular piece of music (or particular performer) just don't strike me as very compelling.

I'm not sure why it's better to posit this imaginary end-point of knowledge about aesthetic judgments (or value judgments in general) rather than simply accepting subjectivism. (Not that I find subjectivism about these issues entirely satisfying emotionally, but the Percean idea you bring up seems akin to ungrounded religious beliefs.)

I also am too meh about pursuing it, but I think falling back on experts at least being "good rock song" (as Steve does above) assumes a degree of genre-stability that might not exist. In fact, maybe that's what changes sometimes when we "realize" that we were wrong about saying something wasn't good: our concept of genre has expanded or otherwise changed. There's also always the possibility of an artist saying, "Okay, well, I'm not even trying to make jazz, man, I'm just making music." "I don't play jazz, I play avant-garde"--Pharaoh Sanders (quoting from memory, so maybe not exact).

What do you do with a music critic like Chuck Eddy who says, "Why shouldn't I judge disco in terms of rock?" or that sort of thing? I find it sort of annoying when he does that, but on the other hand, it does kind of throw a monkey-wrench into this whole thing of, well, we can be sure it's a good disco song (or cumbia or whatever). Although personally, I don't have a lot of use for critics who don't take genres on their own terms, especially where the genre is fairly well-defined. (I realize "fairly well-defined" is pretty vague.)

― Rockist Scientist, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 03:43 (eighteen years ago)

Oh shut up Jeff. xposts

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 03:55 (eighteen years ago)

all very good points. and tough to answer. i agree with your last two paragraphs.

all i can say in response to the first half of your post is this:

1) i feel like subjectivism (or relativism) is wrong for a variety of reasons. these range from relativism being metaphysical (sorry for bringing that word in) to a denial of any world outside our perception (it's idealism, in other words) to the fact that i dont like it emotionally either!

2) it is akin to an ungrounded religious belief, unfortunately. derrida has a term "messianic hope" or something like that, too. but despite this i really think that if you look at something like ILM, or similar communities, you see that kind of inquiry going on every day. i have to think that our interest in other people's opinions, and that they can EFFECT our own opinion, means that we have a common (or communal) object of inquiry. i feel like what im arguing for here is going on anyway, it's sort of just what we do.

― ryan, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 03:56 (eighteen years ago)

but obviously you've hit at the point of most pressure in my own argument.

― ryan, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 03:57 (eighteen years ago)

not to mention a problem that goes back at least as far as Plato's Sophist, so it is an ugly problem indeed. that it can be solved at all is sort of the great assumption, hope, what-have-you of all of this stuff. there's got to be some affirmative moment on our part....

― ryan, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 04:04 (eighteen years ago)

x-post

I don't think relativism has to equal subjectivism, incidentally. (Not that I was arguing a non-subjectivist relativism, but I think someone like Joseph Margolis does so very interestingly.)

i feel like what im arguing for here is going on anyway, it's sort of just what we do.

Hmmm. Maybe there's a better way to describe it.

I tend not to like intellectual approaches that remind me of religious belief. (The whole theological turn in Continental thought--some of it anyway, certainly including Derrida--just tends to confirm my suspicions about it, but I admit I haven't remotely read enough to really make a judgment. I'm basically getting this second-hand.)

*

If I'm going to go on about it, I probably need to do a better job of saying why I find arguments about aesthetic value unimpressive. (Also I have a feeling my response varies a lot more than I'm admitting. The more constrained the subject is (e.g., say, the relative place of a particular artist's album in his overall oeuvre, especially if the artist stays within a reasonably well-defined genre), the more likely I am to find it persuasive, I think. The more distant the things compared are (the more apples and oranges), the less persuasive, generally.)

(I'm sleepy and I'm going to bed.)

― Rockist Scientist, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 04:10 (eighteen years ago)

And we still don't know who all the people were who voted "I don't like them" haha.

― Brigadier Lethbridge-Pfunkboy, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 12:17 (eighteen years ago)

James Joyce was probably an excellent writer. Man's inhumanity to man, the loss of innocence, the mystery of death and all that. He might have even been relevant at one point.

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 17:37 (eighteen years ago)

Two pages in and one is already half asleep, dreaming about little baby James Joyces running around screaming about the pope and whatever the word "corpuscle" means.

― Brigadier Lethbridge-Pfunkboy, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 17:48 (eighteen years ago)

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