Bands that everyone seems to love that you can't stand - Music

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

Satie wrote:

I think what Rocky's trying to express is that you add a positive value judgement in with your description of what is "art," so your use of the word artistic, say, when you describe the Edge's guitar playing, is meant to put forward this sort of claim to quality while also hedging the position that it's "real art" (as opposed to this specter of, ostensibly, "not art"). That's all well and good, but I (and I assume Rocky) don't take the same approach. I rarely say something is art because I take it as a given that everything I listen to is going to be art, from Britney Spears's CDs to the Edge's guitar playing to Sciarrino's take on Wagner's Lohengrin that I find myself listening to at the moment.

I think that my opinion is being confused for a different one, namely that if I see something as cynically commercial*, I don't see it as art. I still think Led Zeppelin is art, and I don't criticize it for not meeting some checklist of attributes. I dislike the way their music sounds. What transpires from that opinion and becomes a discussion of where their role in history was and how much of an impact they had in making more people make more music that I dislike is a separate discussion from whether I see them as artists. But I'm going to get all wound up into another back and forth on some points I think Rocky covered well above, so I'll refer you there for any further explanation.

*EDIT: Oh, look! I was right! Laughing

Ok. I guess I do that due to my degree in German Literature. I took a class on Wagner's "gesamtkunstwerk" (complete/total/summation work of art) where his idea of the greatest form of art was when you combined all forms of art from poetry (the highest form of art according to German philosophy of the time (Kant maybe?) to music (the lowest form of art because it was strictly emotional and warranted no cognition (no lyrics, just tone).

For me there are positive and negative values in art and kinda why I think this site exist (best ever albums=what's the best art, for me at least).

Maybe I'm not understanding you guys well, and I apologize if I'm frustrating you. I'm not intending to do so.

mickilennial
The Most Trusted Name in News

Gender: Female
Age: 35
Location: Detroit

Quote:

For me there are positive and negative values in art and kinda why I think this site exist (best ever albums=what's the best art, for me at least).

See, I’ve always been at odds with this internet assertion of “best” when for the last eleven years I’ve only seen it used arbitrarily and subjectively, more describing individual's favorites rather than any objective analysis to defer to. This is probably because there is no such thing because there is no objectivity to it in my experience, only shallow justifications and assertions. Even when I joined this site “Best” wasn’t being used in an objective context but in a “best sounds for my personal tastes” way that continued what I had known in half-a-dozen forums I’ve discussed and seen the same things on.

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

The following will be posted at the risk of totally derailing the originally intended purpose of this thread for the sake of furthering an in depth discussion that I believe could blossom into something much greater than the typical dog-chasing-tail subjective/objective debate. If people believe that a new thread needs to be opened, please do so.

@Satie I apologize for often directly countering you. I understand how this could make you feel singled out, and in reality, it does have a certain way of singling you out, but I'd like to explain.

Unlike many many other users among the forums, and specifically in this thread, who essentially post one word responses, Satie's denouncement of certain legacy acts contains a certain level of depth. He's not simply stating "I dislike X popular band". He provides logical reasons that provide a certain insight into his evaluation process which differs from others which differ from others. But with this depth of response comes a seed for discussion which those one word/list responses lack. Satie's denouncement is specifically strong. He questioned whether or not these legacy acts made a single worthwhile contribution to music, or if their contribution was actually a negative one on the trajectory of rock. Though I opposed this idea, there's merit to the argument made by Satie. Satie finds himself a target frequently due to the fact the he expresses opinions with both conviction and cognition. Thank you Satie, I appreciate your desire for depth in discussion more every day.

We've know reached the point in which the thread has hit the wall. This is in part to my own terminology regarding musical enrichment and junkfood. Breaking down art into such simplicity was a bit haphazard on my part, as it presents a black & white view in a world of nuance.

As we attempt to evaluate art (or whatever reason we even do it), it's worth exploring the intent of art. Contemporary fine art is often criticized in its abstraction and it's value of meaning over simple aesthetic pleasure. I see the avant-garde (of all artistic realms) as a dialogue amongst artists. Often, its intent is not as much to communicate with the general population but with those entering the dialogue with a certain prior knowledge. It's very much like an inside joke. There's not an implicit intent to place these barriers but they form regardless. This is not simply elitism or snobbery, but there's a certain awareness that not everyone is in the know enough to get it. What occurs within this dialogue is often existential argument/examination of the very idea of what is and isn't art, and if there are actual guidelines.

On the other end of the spectrum, there is art created for entertainment. It can be incredibly direct and seemingly shallow, and yet it can often communicate to a far larger part of the population. What's being said, the entire intent of this art is left up to the artist.

Within all art, there's a certain conscious or subconscious desire to communicate an idea. Success of the art often lies within how well this idea is communicated, but we also judge art more in regards to whether or not the idea has value to ourselves, or our concept of the needs of the general population.

While I've presented two ends of the spectrum, the avant and the art for the masses, the reality is that the bulk of art falls in between, and these two things are not mutually exclusive.

We'll often evaluate art based on its contribution or lack of to the artistic medium, regardless of whether the artist had any intent. This generally falls into the realm of originality. Some new shoegaze band is unlikely to contribute on the level of a John Cage, but they're also not attempting to. So should they be evaluated in relation to the avant garde? Of course if they claim to be exceptionally original, then it's totally fair.

Popularity is an exceptionally difficult way to evaluate success because of additional variables such as money, marketing, etc, but simultaneously, there's value in it as a measuring tool. Nickelback is/was immensely popular. I personally believe they are pure shit and can't imagine what ideas they were communicating that such a large population was able to connect to. But it's hard to deny there's not something. But, as an outlier it's important to also understand that I'm not a good representation of the standard population. Sometimes, the outliers react to this separation by further separating themselves from the public. Sometimes they act elitist, stating things like "you wouldn't understand" or shitting on an artist people like in a way that puts them down as inferior. And also, sometimes the public just sees them as elitists as pretentious without good reason.

And this is just one of the many nuances of art which makes interaction with it so difficult to evaluate beyond our own individual experiences. As a population we tend to reward what directly impacts the most people favorably. This may not be totally fair, but in a lot of ways it's sensible.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

liveinacar

Gender: Male
Age: 59
Location: Wokingham

Oasis
Manchester music scene really divides me:

Can't stand :Oasis, Happy Mondays, Stone Roses and the whole 90's stuff.

Love: Joy Division ,Buzzcocks

Used to hate but now love: The Smiths and Morrissey

creator

Age: 36
Location: chicago

I can't get into Sonic Youth.

I've revisited Bad Moon Rising, EVOL, Sister, Daydream Nation, Goo, Dirty, Washing Machine, and Murray Street a few times, but none of them have clicked.

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

liveinacar wrote:

Oasis
Manchester music scene really divides me:

Can't stand :Oasis, Happy Mondays, Stone Roses and the whole 90's stuff.

Love: Joy Division ,Buzzcocks

Used to hate but now love: The Smiths and Morrissey

I agree.

Pentagonal

I can't honestly say I read most of the discussion here, but I agree with many of the points raised by mecca in his summary. One notable exception, though, is that I don't see the avant garde as being on a different level so much as communicating in a language that most people don't speak. Perhaps that's just quibbling semantics, but I think the distinction is important. For example, I find it much easier to connect with a Merzbow album than most pop, but I can often still appreciate the latter if I give my mind time to adjust and understand.

There's music I just plain dislike as well, but I'm not sure what people would gain from me listing it off here.

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Pentagonal wrote:

I can't honestly say I read most of the discussion here, but I agree with many of the points raised by mecca in his summary. One notable exception, though, is that I don't see the avant garde as being on a different level so much as communicating in a language that most people don't speak.

Thanks. Yeah. I didn't quite mean it as a being on a higher/different level so much as often requiring a certain context that popular art does not require. For example for much of the past century, fine art movements have been direct responses to prior movements. We can enjoy avant-garde works aesthetically without context, but context often provides a deeper appreciation. For example the genius of Duchamp's "Fountain" is often overlooked by those who fail to see the deep theoretical context of the work.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

Pentagonal

meccalecca wrote:

Thanks. Yeah. I didn't quite mean it as a being on a higher/different level so much as often requiring a certain context that popular art does not require. For example for much of the past century, fine art movements have been direct responses to prior movements. We can enjoy avant-garde works aesthetically without context, but context often provides a deeper appreciation. For example the genius of Duchamp's "Fountain" is often overlooked by those who fail to see the deep theoretical context of the work.

The vast majority of my context is sonic. I don't really know how much I'd gain from studying theory or history - I certainly enjoy a lot of the avant garde without it.

babyBlueSedan
Used to be sort of blind, now can sort of see

Gender: Male

meccalecca wrote:

As we attempt to evaluate art (or whatever reason we even do it), it's worth exploring the intent of art. Contemporary fine art is often criticized in its abstraction and it's value of meaning over simple aesthetic pleasure.

There were a lot of good points here but this is what stands out to me. The reason I started listening to as much music as I do was because I realized it was becoming one of my main hobbies. I was spending a lot of time reading music reviews and best album lists and found myself thinking about music while in school or at work. Where other people would be playing video games or reading or knitting or what not I found that I enjoyed listening to music in my free time more than anything else. So naturally I wanted to seek out more music that would make that time more enjoyable.

Even now, as I have a much better understanding of different genres and scenes and the history of popular music in general, I still find myself sticking to that main concept. I find it very difficult to appreciate music in a way that delves deep into what the music is meant to convey if I don't enjoy it. That's probably the reason I find it difficult to get into things like Trout Mask Replica or Oneohtrix Point Never or many of Scaruffi's favorites. I tend to naturally gravitate towards albums that I enjoy without having a reason - albums that I enjoy without having to give multiple listens and "trying" to get into them. Not that I evaluate albums purely by what I think resonates well with people. If so I would listen to way more pop than I do and I would hate things like Daniel Johnston and Spiderland (two random examples of things I enjoy that the average public would perceive as avant garde).

Just wanted to say that because I think that's how some people approach music evaluation. I would never say something is worthless because I don't understand it. Even if I don't enjoy listening to Can I usually word the reasoning as "I can't connect with it" or "it's not something I enjoy" or whatnot. Honestly I wish I enjoyed some of those artists, but if I spend an hour of my time listening to an album I do want to get some enjoyment out of it (not to say people who like avant garde don't enjoy it - I just don't happen to). I find it much easier to appreciate an avant garde piece of visual art which I can consume quickly and not spend a lot of time trying to unpack.

And in my opinion it's a waste of time to evaluate how "real" a piece of art is, because anything that's been released as an album, from ...Baby One More Time to Dark Side Of The Moon to Music For Church Cleaners is art. But also keep in mind that in most cases people's journeys into music discovery start with the classics, so often Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd are some of the first artists people see are considered "acclaimed." I used to be a le wrong generation child who scoffed at hip hop. Now Kanye West might be my favorite artist and I consider 2015 to have been one of the best years of music ever. People need time to develop; some might listen to Led Zeppelin for their entire lives while others might graduate to avant garde and others might do both. When speaking with someone about their musical tastes it's important to realize that "the things you like aren't as good as you think" or "listen to this music, it's better than what you like" aren't productive dialogues. Most of the discussion I've read in this thread hasn't been of that nature, but it's just important to remember that people are often very attached to the type of music they enjoy.

TL;DR Daniel Johnston made good music (in my opinion)
_________________
And it's hard to be a human being. And it's harder as anything else.