Playing Devil's Advocate

[sp4cetiger]

There are a lot of intelligent people here with a genuine curiosity about music, but I feel like many subjects get brushed under the carpet because people are afraid of arguments. And I get it, aside from cluttering the forums with bickering, arguments can be very stressful, especially if you feel like your character or intelligence are being questioned.

So I have an idea… bear with me, cause I've never tried this before. The purpose of this thread is to take the personal element out of arguments. One or more people will play devil's advocate for a controversial position, while those who disagree with them will argue as they see fit. There are several very important rules for these arguments:

DEVILS AND THEIR ADVOCATES:
- You must not at any time lay claim to the position you're advocating. You can say up front that you *disagree* with it if you're especially concerned about perception, but it's better if you keep your peace. This isn't just for your sake, it's also to help keep the arguments impersonal and flame resistant.

OTHERS:
- Please no personal attacks. This rule should apply to arguments in general, but it's especially key here because you have no idea if the person you're arguing with actually agrees with the position they're taking.
- Along similar lines, please no vague characterizations of the hypothetical people that disagree with you. This includes statements like, "people who think that are just stupid" or "people who think that are just insecure about…", etc. We're here to discuss music, not psychology. In most cases, if your argument includes a reference to your hypothetical opponent, it's probably out of bounds.

To start, I'll play the devil for the following position:

Any music that is enjoyed by someone is automatically good. It's just a matter of seeing things from the point of view of the person who enjoys it. As such, music criticism is just a way of enforcing the status quo and holds no actual validity for a sufficiently open-minded listener.

Anyone can argue either side here, but please follow the rules I give above. When I think that an argument has run its course, then I'll call for a new devil. Fire away.

[Norman Bates]

'k I'll give this a go.

[sp4cetiger]

[Norman Bates]

"Well, that's certainly not a good start".

One does what one can.



"I'm not sure why you need me to define enjoyment, because it seems like a word that most of us have an intuitive understanding of. "

What I meant - and sorry I wasn't clear - is that some music definitely works outside the reach of "enjoyment" (again, whatever that means), and quite possibly against it (e.g. extreme noise), and is not necessarily "bad".



"A perfect reproduction of a person's point of view is impossible, yes, but all human brains work in essentially the same way. We cannot reproduce another person's experiences, but we can attempt to empathize with them by drawing parallels to our own experience. "

OK let's say you're right. Now saying "it's just a matter of seeing etc" sounds like making something appear simple when in fact it's terribly complicated.




"Would you say that music reviews do not criticize or are you using a more formal definition of "music criticism"?"

I'd say music reviews do not criticize. They review.

[sp4cetiger]

[sp4cetiger]

Okay, I'll put the review vs. criticism part of the argument aside, since that's a separate question. Let's just suppose that someone chooses to criticize music; that is, they say that it's "bad" or just "worse" than other music. Are they wrong to do it?

Norman, perhaps the reason you're looking for a clarification of the word, "enjoyment," is that certain types of enjoyment are more fulfilling than others. For example, I may "enjoy" the Monkees, but perhaps that enjoyment is in some way inferior or less fulfilling compared to the enjoyment I'm likely to get from Coltrane. Is that what you're getting at?

[Norman Bates]

"However, it sounds like you're implying that some music is made with the intent that it not be enjoyed? "

Absolutely. So according to you, any music can be "good" because every song or musical piece has this lowest common denominator: somewhere, somebody "enjoys" it. Following your reasoning, some music must be bad if there is such a thing as music one doesn't "enjoy". I say there is, or at least there is some that definitely refuses to do so, and I do believe that it makes your reasoning at least crumble.



"It can be, certainly, but I am not saying that one should always make the effort to enjoy all music, just that it is possible, in theory. "

Do you think that it is possible, in theory, to enjoy all music, or that it is possible, in theory, to make the effort to enjoy all music?




"When Pitchfork describes TMBG's Mink Car as "crap," they are not being critical? Is that merely a description of the music?"

My Good Sir, thou art jesting. It's neither one nor the other, as well you know: it's an insult. It's not a review, and it's not a critique.

[meccalecca]

Enjoyment and quality are not one in the same. If a psychopath enjoys murdering children, does that make the act of killing children inherently good? It does not. Many can enjoy what even they do not like.

For instance. I enjoy Wesley Willis's odd outsider music, but would never classify it as good.

But on the otherhand, I do believe that any music that has been enjoyed, has proven to have a purpose in the world.

I think the answer is that good is a terrible, lazy word to describe art. Art should be described and classified by its effects rather than the quality of the work.

[Wombi]

[Norman Bates]