When I say that there are objective standards and that I am trying to identify what those are, it is not the same thing as me saying that I am the universal decider and what I say goes.
This is not that difficult and yet you continue, time after time, to act like I am trying to make myself the final artistic authority. I am not. There is a difference between "there is a truth, and this is what I think that truth might be" and "what I say is the truth because I am saying it." Please stop accusing me of trying to posture myself as an authority who "gets to determine" things. I have explicitly stated about five times now that I am not doing that. Okay?
Okay, then, I'll phrase the argument differently: when it comes to "music production", there is no universal truth, or objective standard. Period.
Okay, but here's the thing. Maybe you and Lars are wrong. Maybe I'm wrong that clarity is the proper standard. I have said repeatedly that I'm willing to concede that possibility. But just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean that it is false. Just as you have said to me many, many times: You don't get to decide.
Of course we can be wrong. We're human. And here's where you have to understand me: I don't at all think I'm right. NOT AT ALL. That's the very premise of my argument. Because I can't be right all the time - neither can you, or Lars - anything that arbitrarily decides between two things can't be right either. I'm not deciding at all; remember, I don't think there can be a standard. We're not arguing a binary thing here; you're not saying "on" and I'm saying "off. What's really happening is that you are saying "on", and I'm saying "there is no switch".
Again, this opens a massive door for something that is actually inaudible to be considered good. You've clearly shown that you're okay with that. I'm not. I think it's insulting to people who are actually good at what they do to go up to them and say "Yes, you're good at what you do, but so is the guy who made the decision to make Death Magnetic literally painful to listen to for some people. You are both equally good. We cannot say that either of you is better than the other."
YES. Something can be considered "good" even if it is inaudible. Are you familiar with any of The Flaming Lips "audio experiments"? The boomboxes in the parking lots and such?
I think your "insulting" comment misses the point. It's no different than Steve Vai being "insulted" if Kurt Cobain wins a "Guitar God" award. Notwithstanding that I think a true professional would be smart enough to look at where the skill really was ("wow, sounds like shit, but it took a lot of patience, effort, and dexterity to get there!"). You're dealing with a logical fallacy: you can't say "wow, I'm insulted! That sounds like SHIT!" UNLESS the assumption is that "not sounding like shit" is the standard. I'm saying that assumption is not necessarily right for all people.
Now, some of these may be personal preferences, some not. I don't want to get into all of those—we're talking about production, not composition or perferomance, and all but one of those is related to one of those two and not production (though there are objective standards for those two as well, they're just harder to pin down). But terrible brickwalled production is terrible, because when you listen to the record you can't hear what's going it, it clips, it warps and it can be painful. That's actually bad, and if the "artist's intent" is to be bad, fine, but it's still bad.
I don't see any difference between "production" and "composition" or "performance". I know some do, but I don't. I think they are all but steps between the germ of the idea in the artists head and me sitting with a Guiness and enjoying my latest CD purchase.
Do you not believe that art may in fact present unpleasant emotions? Was the beginning of "Saving Private Ryan", probably the hardest 45 minutes of film I've ever had to watch, meant to be "pleasant" or "pleasing"? Many good artists challenge us. Sometimes "challenging us" is to make us uncomfortable. Lars von Trier does not make "pleasing, pleasant" films. They are jarring, they are sometimes painful (watch the whipping scene in "Nymphomania"). These are emotions, like any other.
What if James was happy with it in 2008, but he decides to play it again now and realizes it's really bad and not what he wanted it to sound like at all?
He's the artist; his prerogative. This is not all that uncommon. Def Leppard with Slang. Phil Collins with the drum sound on "Invisible Touch". Some artists update their catalogue as they go; rerecording. George Lucas is both infamous and reviled for this.
I also notice that you ignored my comment about AJFA. This is something that you have to answer or this whole premise of subjectivism is internal contradictory. Lars likes the production on AJFA. It is what he intended. Jason hates it. It is not what he intended. Is the production on AJFA good, or bad? (For reference, I posit that it is bad, since one standard for quality in production surely must be that all the instruments are audible)
Well, I didn't answer because I felt the answer would be too complicated, and perhaps not one that we on the outside could ascertain. There are two levels to this: the simple one is "who had the final call?". The producer for ...AJFA is "Metallica and Fleming Rasmussen". Rasmussen wasn't there for the mixing, but Hetfield and Ulrich were. Later Metallica albums were produced by "Bob Rock, Lars Ulrich, and James Hetfield". So my answer is "Ulrich". He's the producer, not Jason. the other level is that this isn't really a question germane to this conversation. This is more about democracy and decision-making in bands than "production".
Also LOL at the very idea of calling the DM production good. But that's what is so often said about bad things that people only claim to be good by saying that there is no real standard of quality.
That's not really accurate, and that's not what I'm saying, necessarily. I mean, I am saying there is no "standard", but I'm willing to accept that there IS a standard, I just wouldn't put it at something so subjective that if you polled ten people you would get ten different answers.
Art or not art is a binary condition. It makes no sense for something to be more art or less art than anything else. It can be better or worse art, but there's art and then there's not art. SFAM and Lemonade are both art. They are equally art by definition since there are no degrees of art.
I'd buy that for a dollar.
Untitled 1-10 all express my feelings about people saying that artistic quality is subjective. Some of them are white. Some of them are blue. Some of them are off-white—what is often called cream. And each and every one of them is worth $25 million. They are great masterpieces of art paralleled only by the work of a composer who didn't write a score and said that the score he did not write was a work of artistic genius.
I can't comment on this, one, because I get a tone of sarcasm, two, I'm not sure I understand the point, and three, you don't get to decide "what they are worth"; the market does. "Worth" in terms of monetary value is not related, necessarily, to artistic considerations.
Silence is an element the same way that blank space on the canvas is an element. They aren't really elements, but they can act sort of like them by their position in relation to the elements. They're space between elements. And putting that space between elements can serve a great purpose in a painting or a composition. But if there are no elements and there is just space, then that is not art—it's not made up of any elements at all.
Says you. I opt for Fripp's (and Jackson Pollock's) interpretation. They are, after all, "artists".
It's not art because it's nothing. Nothing is not art. It's nothing.
Then it IS art, because it ISN'T nothing. You can have an mp3 of '4:33' that is more than zero bytes. It is also a statement, and a rather clear one. So it IS art.
But if you think John Cage's nothing is so great, I have a great new album to share with you. It's called "Memorex CD-R." Looks like it has three songs: 52X, 700MB and 80min. I hear it's a must-listen for fans of 4'33". Some people are even saying it's better than Cage's work. You should really check it out.
Your sarcasm is both tiresome and illustrative that you do not understand the point. I'm not mocking you, or being sarcastic with you. If you opt for that tack, I'll put Cram out of his misery and end this.
I don't know any of Cage's other compositions. One or more of them might be good, for all I know (in order for it to be good, it would have to contain actual music). But Cage is also considered a postmodernist. And though there are exceptions, I have typically found people associated with that movement to be [UK swearing incoming] pretentious wankers. I'm not applying that label to Cage's other works, though 4'33" alone deserves the title "pretentious wankery," but I certainly am applying it to the likes of James Joyce, who is the Jackson Pollock of literature.
Who said that for it to be good it has to contain actual music? Can you post that link? Art has no "rules", per se. Whether someone is a "pretentious wanker" or not is not indicative of whether it is "art" or not.
And being judgmental is not a bad thing. In fact, it is a good thing. It's the only way to have any success in life. But of course, judgment can be harsh and mean and is totally incompatible with a view that places "whatever went through Kirk Hammett's brain in 2008" as more important than whether the result is enjoyable or even coherent.
So calling poor people "lazy" and transgender people "whiners and psychos" is a good thing? I'm going to beg off pursuing that line of inquiry.
But the reason for the greatness of the Mona Lisa is not that it is an expression. Da Vinci expressed something by making that painting, yes, it's true. But the Mona Lisa is objectively better than the results of a hobo flinging paint at a wall. Maybe the hobo is expressing something just as strongly as Da Vinci was with the Mona Lisa, but only one is a great work of art. No, the point of the Mona Lisa is that it is the rearranging of elements of reality in accordance with the artist's judgment. Yes, the artist does express things, but this not the primary thing that makes something art. There are plenty of forms of expression that are not art—that means that "art is expression" is a bad definition.
You contradict yourself. If DaVinci is just "rearranging the elements of reality", so is Cage. So was Bruford (arguably his very presence influenced the final work; how do you know that Wetton didn't choose notes based on the assumption that Bruford WAS going to play?)
I think above all things your position calls for an almost unlimited number of assumptions that you can't make - no one can - and that is why I respond. I think a refreshment of "Occam's Razor" (I mean the real meaning of it, not the pop culture interpretation) might be in order. My position has almost no assumptions under it, and if it does have any, it's for the artist to determine, not you and me.
Yeah, or you could articulate it by coming up with a better definition than "art is expression." A better definition also allows you to throw out nonsense like 4'33" that just expresses "I'm really pretentious, but also I don't want to have to put in the work of actually writing a score."
Even if that IS the expression, it's still an expression, isn't it? How is Cage's "pretentions", which actually make you think, any better than another very pretentious artist (that I know you love), Chris Martin? I'm not digging on Coldplay - I like them very much and have all their albums, including all the b-sides up to and including those for "X&Y" - but "pretentious wanker" is subjective, and therefore doesn't qualify in any way in determining whether we're talking about art or not.
Almost all of this paragraph is actually quite a good description of what makes some music good and some not. Why throw in that first sentence which contradicts the whole thing?
Not sure at all how it conflicts. It's the PREMISE for all that comes after.
A refrigerator is art. This is the kind of absurd conclusion that you've demonstrated you're fine with. The fact that you get to such a bizarre conclusion doesn't seem to suggest to you at all that some of your premises may need checking. Well, I'm not fine with such an absurd conclusion.
Well, you're over simplifying to the point of absurdity. I didn't at all say "a refrigerator is art" as a blanket statement. It is subject to context.
This debate matters, and here's why. When you throw out all standards in art and make it entirely about the artist's intent, you've ruined art. You've certainly attacked great art. Because when you say that random paint splatter is no worse than the Mona Lisa, that degrades the Mona Lisa to the same status as the paint splatter. The whole trend of artistic subjectivism is probably why fewer people appreciate the truly great historical works of art today—because they have been equated with miserable works that are not great. If Jackson Pollock's splatter is considered a "great work of art," but nobody can make heads or tails of it at all, most people won't even bother looking at "other great works of art" that are actually great.
I'm glad you wrote that, because I think it illuminates the disconnect. You are missing a key step. The Mona Lisa is not "better" because it just
is, or because there is some universal standard. It is only "better" in the context of some stated standard that has to be declared by the person making that assessment. There are thousands of BOOKS (not just words) written on what makes the "Mona Lisa" great. We're not going to pinpoint why here, but we can say that it will be based on some stated standard specific to that analysis and not some universal standard that everyone agrees with. And I am unequivocally right here, because of the latter half of your paragraph; you disparage Jackson Pollock as "paint splatter", and yet he IS considered one of the greats of the art world, was a rock star of sorts during his life. Recently (the last ten years or so) it's come out that his stuff ISN'T "random paint splatters" and whether you buy in that he meant it, researchers can tell using fractal analysis - with an almost 95% success rate - between a true "Pollock" and someone looking to imitate him.
Topic: The Metallica Thread v. Reloaded (Read 385446 times)
