Missing The Point

This question seems awfully narrow. Do you think you could expand the parameters a little?

"you missed the point" is used often as a defense for an artist/band when someone else mentions they either don't like or get the artist/band.

Now when someone says they don't "get" it, "missing the point" is more of a natural response, but "you missed the point" is also used to refute people who say they simply don't like or care for an artist/band as well.

Now, I totally grabbed this phrase out of context. I'm not singling out pipecock here. I just saw the phrase, and realized what an odd phrase to use when describing something so subjective.

So obviously there's a strong colloquial context at play wrt "missing the point".

Anyway, contend, (finally! and thanks for being patient), in more specific terms:

Person A states that he/she doesn't like or care for an artist and explains why

Person B states, in little or more words, that Person A is "missing the point"

What is Person B *really* saying?

Are you being ironic? x-post

Missing the point in KateMusik = describing any of my beloved dronerock bands as "Oh what's the big deal. They just play the same two chords over and over turning different effects pedals on and off."

Um.

Is that the kind of thing you mean?

Getting there!

Kate, what does "They just play the same chords over and over turning different effects pedals on and off" tell you about the people saying this?

That they shouldn't be listening to DRONErock?

The whole point of dronerock is to simply the chord structure, bring on the old LaMonte Young "Disappearance of Melody" so that one can concentrate on the texture of the music.

Listening to Dronerock for the melodies or the chord structure is just plain foolish. Dronepop, maybe... but Dronerock is about texture, not melody or chordal composition.

For me, it's mistaking non-sonic part of a work for being part of the music, by which I mean mythologizing music in lieu of listening to what it actually sounds like. Obviously context is still important, and of course concept, but when those overtake what's coming out of speakers, then it starts missing the point.

The phrase "you're missing the point" is most-often used when people criticize a musician or a genre of music for succeeding at what they set out to do; see, for example, people criticizing rap for "just being talking over beats" or trance music for being repetitive. It implies that the person making the criticism doesn't know what they are talking about.

When people accuse others of "missing the point" or "not getting it" they're often priveliging their own understanding over that of others. They're saying, "I understand something you don't. Therefore, the best I can do is to condescend to your limitations."

But that's only the laziest, most easily dismissed reading. In the statement above, it sounds like pipecock is saying that audio fidelity (the product of careful engineering) is a secondary consideration WRT whatever band they're discussing. Which could be a fair argument, if they're talking about Dead C bootlegs or something. I dunno. (HI DERE's post explains this better.)

That's why I was ribbing you earlier. It really depends on the situation, on the particulars of the discussion.

"rap is just talking"
"trance is repetitive"
"ilx is just a bunch of semi-articulate socially awkward narcissists pretending to be experts on things about which they are generally ignorant"
"drone rock is just a bunch of effects pedals"

It's a reasonable response in many cases, but the problem is it can become a kind of argument-proof defense

"This guy's just hitting a wood-block over and over again. It's boring!"
"You're missing the point. It's supposed to be boring."

accusing someone this really just means you are not making your argument clearly/emphatically enough...its an excuse is what it is

"ilx is just a bunch of semi-articulate socially awkward narcissists pretending to be experts on things about which they are generally ignorant"

Yeah, but this doesn't miss the point!

o da lols

just means you are not making your argument clearly/emphatically enough

-- bb

Increased emphasis is often a poor pathway to increased understanding. But I get yr drift.

I don't think it implies condescension. It is simply the way of genres that genres require rules or boundaries or guidelines that makes music belong to that particular genre.

You have to accept music within in that genre on its own terms.

I'm not denying that Dronerock is, well, lots of it *is* about playing two chords with different effects on - what makes it interesting or worthwhile is the skill with which those textures are generated. If you can't accept that fundamental constraint, then you're not really going to enjoy it.

That's not to say that there can't be good or bad examples of Dronerock. But if you're going to have a problem with a lack of melody, then it's clearly just not the genre for you.

The phrase "you're missing the point" is most-often used when people criticize a musician or a genre of music for succeeding at what they set out to do;

OK, impetuous alert: When does an artist/band *fail* to succeed?

Or I guess my point is: is an artist/band "succeeding" basically the same thing as "this artist/band has succeeding in making me enjoy the music and/or succeeding in what they may have explained in the press what they were trying to achieve"?

Just trying to pinpoint that synapse between subjective thoughts and objective rhetoric in this case.

WAIT, YELLING DOESNT ALWAYS WORK!?!YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT!

perhaps compellingly is a better word choice...

depends on how yr defining "success", na klat

Also, consistently accusing others of missing the point is to an extent, missing the point.

and in xpost masonic boom's last one:

but accepting that a genre doesnt work for you is different than just not understanding how it works, or could be affecting for others...ie: missing the point

I don't think "you're missing the point" = "you have no right not to like this!" Mackro.

For example, obviously if you don't like talking over beats, you don't like talking over beats. It's when you elevate that subjective dislike to a *criticism* of rap as a genre that you're "missing the point."

or just denying there could be one.

which is the classic "thats not music, thats just noise" sort of "argument"

I think I'm "missing the point" of this thread.

that's your problem

I don't think "you're missing the point" = "you have no right not to like this!" Mackro.

Woah. "not having the right" to like something is waaay beyond what I originally meant. Did I ever say this here, or possibly imply it?

Anyway...

For example, obviously if you don't like talking over beats, you don't like talking over beats. It's when you elevate that subjective dislike to a *criticism* of rap as a genre that you're "missing the point."

See, while I obviously see more to hip-hop than "talking over beats", I'm not sure that telling such a person he/she's "missing the point" would be wise. If he/she wanted me to defend my like of hip-hop, I would go on to mention what good I see in it, and inject any interesting genre history, along with genre-crossing pre-cursors (depending on who was criticizing.)

To further elaborate on contenderizer's request, I guess I'm looking for any counterexamples to "missing the point" being an otherwise offputting empty refutation or modifier thereof -- because I can't think of any.

you're missing the point

The phrase "you're missing the point" is most-often used when people criticize a musician or a genre of music for succeeding at what they set out to do; see, for example, people criticizing rap for "just being talking over beats" or trance music for being repetitive. It implies that the person making the criticism doesn't know what they are talking about.

-- HI DERE, Friday, February 29, 2008 5:00 PM (53 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

i think dan hit it on the head here.

no further discussion necessary. everybody out.

I take back my snark toward Kate. Her example was otm, and this thread is purposeful obtuseness, probably stemming from some grudge.

Problem is yr. question, Makro. "You're missing the point," in isolation, is an empty and offputting remark. And as long as you insist that we treat it as a high-relief abstraction, it's indefensible.

But there are many concrete situations in which it could be a fair, constructive objection:

"I hate Can. They have these great beats, but they can't figure out what to do with them. So they just noodle around while the shit goes on and on. It's maddening."

"You're missing the point. It's not like they couldn't come up with changes: they actually wanted that kind of eternal organic process feeling. You're supposed to get hypnotized and sucked in."

my point in the original comment that started the thread is that J Dilla's beats fit to his own aesthetic perfectly. he purposely used old crappy sounding samplers (mpc 60, sp1200) and did weird things with his levels (check the buried vocals on janet jackson's "got till it's gone") that were obviously done purposely as not every track he made was like that. so if your criticism is that his tracks don't sound like they were engineered for the 2008 radio market or something, you are missing the point!

dilla tha last hippy