Music

[Fox]

Okay, that's fine. That's your opinion. But personally, I like some of their songs. Does that mean I'm wrong? Not at all. Does that mean I have "bad taste in music"? Not that I can see. But like I said, they became pretty popular, so they must have done something right...regardless of what it is.

[Minkman]

wow, wasn't sure if anyone here would have similar taste, but you seem to like pretty good bands. radiohead, the flaming lips, and interpol are some of my top bands, and i like quite a few others you have listed. the decemberists, sufjan stevens, and neutral milk hotel are probably my top three. lots of others: the new pornographers, belle and sebastian, dungen, jens lekman, iron and wine, the shins, devendra banhart, joanna newsom, pixies, okkervil river, etc.

 

 

moso, your taste is nearly identical to mine. I wonder why it is we as a group share many tastes. Perhaps its the power of fur.

 

Anyways, perhaps I could suggest listening to of montreal. Theyre a bit electronica, but very good. Especially more recent music

[Guest]

nevermind

Edited June 25, 2006 by Guest

[s1m17]

I think to define bad taste, you'd have to be completely objective and also have vast knowledge of music, experience in music and possibly a good ear. I'm not sure who is most qualified to proclaim someone's taste in music to be either good or bad, maybe critics but I suppose it depends on opinion somewhat.

[Foxy Lady]

PETA and music, two completely different subjects. It is ALL still a matter of opinion.

[Mr Barguzin]

Outta the mouths of Babes.......

 

 

often comes THE TRUTH!!

[Fox]

peta has gotten pretty popular. guess they're right as well.

 

In the eyes of those that supoprt them, yes. Just as in Green Day.

[Guest]

As I said before

 

everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but clearly not every opinion is of the same value.

 

Rational argument should produce some fundamental truth, criteria of assessmnet etc that means one opinion should prevail on many issues, until it in turn is defeated by a superior argument.

 

Of course with music, there are many diverse types...its not possible to

have a meaningful discussion over which tastes better, apples or oranges....however , it is possible to say whether a cox's apple is better than a golden delicious. Now some people would prefer the taste of a golden delicious, but it is actually an inferior apple in terms of texture.

So taste is not just a matter of opinion.

 

As for PETA foxy lady....their opinions can be easily debunked.....they are based on false premise and are irrational. Defending the right to an opinion is one thing....but holding everybody's opinion as equal is dangerous and wrong.

 

Now my opinion on musical technoque, skill, form and structure would be inferior to someone who was a music professional. However, when it comes to assessing music as a cultural phenomena, Art etc...then my opinion should carry some weight.

 

What is popular can quite often indicate low understanding level....and therefore arguably inferiority in terms of cultural value. S club 7 appeal to all ages on all continents...because its music for the lowest common denominator....that doesnt make it good does it?

 

Fox your use of the term culture to describe all human bevaviour in social groups is correct, but what I am saying is that gobalised culture actually destroys indigenous culture, which is often more sophisticated and rooted in tradition.

So for me Johnny Cash has integrity because it is rooted in western culture. Blues the same, rooted in a blend of cultures in the deep south.

Even Tamla and stuff have integrity despite commerciality.

Green day have taken some very weak style references from British punk music and blended them with the most obvious style refernces in west coast music. The result is music with little cultural roots in terms of integrity.

 

Welcome to the Hotel California by The Eagles was good, well composed, expressed feeling and had cultural integrity too rooted as it was in a meeting of country and rock music, with a bit of blues thrown in. It was sophisticated ,and honest, though its not my cup of tea. It reflected the generation of the west coast culture that came out of the sixties.

 

Likewise the early punk bands played simple melodies because they had little musical skill but plenty of energy and feelings to express about urban society in the Uk in the late 1970s. It has bags of integrity because it was not commercial...music made for the craic and as part of an escapist alternative cultural movement.

 

So to take these disaparate musical forms and water them down just to come up with a vaguely nostalgic and commercial form that sells to a wide audience of people who remember both and also younger people who dont remeber the importance of either, and call it important is nonsense. Its derivative, wishy washy and cam be compared to painting by numbers. As a cultural manifestation, its weak. Its still culture yes, but its vapid and without meaning . Now Green Day may well be sincere about what they do. So are amateur watercolourists. But neither are important....both sell because it takes little to understand them. And when it comes to music, thats what record compnies are feeding us to the detriment of honest and valuable indigenous music. Its awful to go to eastern europe and the radio has nothing but U2 and Green day when their own music is vastly superior and being crushed by western music companies.

 

The same is happening with cuisine...in Prague its now easier to get A burger or a KFC than a bohemian roast duck...which is tragic. There is quite clearly a qualitive difference despite the fact that fast food is popular.

 

Now there are plenty of American punk bands that are more US punk inspired that are better than Green Day....so go listen. Who are that band who do "City of Angels" with the video of the dead angel in LA....thats powerful, simple but kind of more honest than Green day if that makes sense.

[Foxy Lady]

So to take these disaparate musical forms and water them down just to come up with a vaguely nostalgic and commercial form that sells to a wide audience of people who remember both and also younger people who dont remeber the importance of either, and call it important is nonsense. Its derivative, wishy washy and cam be compared to painting by numbers. As a cultural manifestation, its weak. Its still culture yes, but its vapid and without meaning.

 

I may be young, and not remember the era, but I certainly have a very wide musical taste. Including everything from the 1940's to present day, classical, rock, alternative, pop, jazz (Coltrane is awesome!)country, techno, PUNK (and yes, I mean REAL punk), r&b, some hip-hop/rap (not much, but some), and much more! I still do not agree with you saying any music (regardless of who sang or wrote it) has NO meaning.

 

And even with PETA, just because you do not agree with their opinions (not that anyone here does) does not make them wrong, or not entitled to it. TRY to have an open mind.

[Fox]

everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but clearly not every opinion is of the same value.

 

So you're saying one persons opinion is better than anothers? Not only is this horribly subjective, but also a very disturbing mindset to have.

 

Rational argument should produce some fundamental truth, criteria of assessmnet etc that means one opinion should prevail on many issues, until it in turn is defeated by a superior argument.

 

I agree that rational argument should produce some "fundamental truth", and perhaps even criteria of assessment, but these criteria are things that should be completely subjective, and not open to opinion, i.e. there are 365 days in a year (with the excpetion of leap year). In other words, things that can be clear cut. The fault with defining "good music" is that what's "good" to one person will not be "good" to the next for possibly a myriad of reasons.

 

Of course with music, there are many diverse types...its not possible to

have a meaningful discussion over which tastes better, apples or oranges....however , it is possible to say whether a cox's apple is better than a golden delicious. Now some people would prefer the taste of a golden delicious, but it is actually an inferior apple in terms of texture.

So taste is not just a matter of opinion.

 

It might be inferior to you, but someone else might very well enjoy that particular texture. It's all subjective.

[Guest]

so s club 7 which are well made, but purely commercial glossy pop is of the same artistic value as Shampoo (who make similar sounding music but did so 7 years before and with a dadaist subversive edge)?

 

There is an argument that because one is more popular that actually it can have more impact (The Beatles being a case in point) than more worthy music. I would accept that (....whilst at the same time claiming it leads to cultural decay).

 

however to claim it jhas more artistic merit is luidicrous, and not just a matter of opinion.

 

It is entirely possible to assess importance and quality of all Art and to suggest otherwise is not only absurd, but actually undermines democracy.

 

Is my opinion of cardio vascular surgery on an equal par with that of a heart surgeon? That is not an "absolute" truth and the best action for a patient may be a matter of opinion between two doctors, but I shouldnt have a valid opinion......unless of course its from a different perspective(eg ethical)

 

So yes, you are entitled to listen to Green Day, and say that you like it.... but dont tell me that its a matter of opinion whether its Art or not.

 

Of course I would accept an counter argument if it was rational, vaild, relevant and actually disproved mine. But hiding in the "its my opinion " mode is actually closed minded.....not open.

 

PETA have no rational argument since the whole notion of animals having rights suggests that we are not animals. If animals have any right at all its the right to survive, often by killing to eat or defend itself. Likewise we as animals have that right. Argument over.

[Guest]

nevermind

Edited June 25, 2006 by Guest

[Guest]

Crispness is generally one criteria used by the industry as an objective assessment of quality. Coxs and Granny Smith are therefore superior eating apples to golden delicious on texture. However if the next criteria is sweetness...the golden delicious is better.

 

Do you think wine quality is a matter of taste?

Do you think mcdonalds burgers are on a par with a top chef made one?

 

There are some things which opinion is equal. Guesswork for example with no information to go on. Like predicting lottery numbers.

 

But all valid opinion must be informed.

[Guest]

The thing about artistic value as opposed to taste is one actually has some basis of objective judgement and the other is almost totally subject to the vagaries of opinion.

 

Artistic value is most often obvious on its face, like Theloious Monk or Mozart. They can be discussed but any attempt to discredit them or argue their lack of value is an excercise in futility or a display of ones lack of appreciation for the obvious.

 

You may not personally like them or listen to their music but to attempt to dismiss them only reflects ones own ignorance. Some may consider this elitest which by definition of the word means to be elected, hence recognised for outstanding value.

 

Most Classical music by its longevity is selected by time as are some formerly popular music such as Classical Jazz, older Bluegrass and others. Their value is voted on by time. There is no such thing as a NEW Tradition. Who ever thought up that absurd advertising slogan should be shot.

 

The fundamental problem with more current Popular music [Hip Hop, Rock, heavy Metal, etc.] is its intrinsic whimsical, transitory and temporary fadishness. The very forms are transitory with so many contributors of such wide range of talent or the lack thereof that the act of choosing chards of value is nearly impossible. Like the infinite number of monkeys trying to type the collected works of Shakespear.

 

Compair this to Leo Kottke, Paul O'Dette, Charlie Byrd, Willie Nelson or Randy Travis on a bad day at a "guitar" to the vast majority of these other "musicians" who can't match them on the best day of their life.

 

OFF

[Unclejoe420]

Wish i'd never mentioned anything now... However, i don't remember saying Green Day was art - just a band whose music i listen to, plan and simple. If people don't like them, that's their choice - last time i checked that was still a free thing to make, and i will not pass judgment on someone purely because of their musical taste. Like someone probably once said, "If you don't like their music, the radio has an off switch".

 

Just thought that needed to be said.

 

Unclejoe

Edited March 13, 2006 by Guest

[Guest]

PETA have no rational argument since the whole notion of animals having rights suggests that we are not animals. If animals have any right at all its the right to survive, often by killing to eat or defend itself. Likewise we as animals have that right. Argument over.

 

Unfortunately you're not talking rights here but speciesism, which is a whole new moral and ethical ball game. If the world was black and white your arguements might be fine, but we have horrid shades of grey there too, and thats where you flounder with much of what you say.

 

Tryxie

[allfurme]

TouchofSable,

 

You must be really good at typing, it would take me a week to type one of your posts!

 

PS no criticism intended; your posts are very interesting.

[ReFur]

Ok, guys.

 

Just checking in....

 

I must admit after setting at my Mothers bedside, and preparing to bury her, I probably have a different view point here. I only skim read the last few pages. But, I got a feel for something that I need to address.

 

No matter what the topic, is any opinion worth hurting another member's feelings, or to make them feel wrong or inferior?

 

Intelligence without wisdom is like unharnessed energy.

 

Opinions are good, but when discussion turns to hurt, we need to remember what is important about life. To feel strongly about one position does not mean another is wrong. Arrogance simply alienates and makes insecure individuals feel superior.

 

Respect is a simple requirement to discussion. It is OK to differ. That is healthy. Debate is not dominance. Debate is not attack. To think that any one opinion is the only correct answer seems to me to be the heart of problems with fundamentalist groups and extremists.

[Unclejoe420]

Ok, guys.

 

Just checking in....

 

I must admit after setting at my Mothers bedside, and preparing to bury her, I probably have a different view point here. I only skim read the last few pages. But, I got a feel for something that I need to address.

 

No matter what the topic, is any opinion worth hurting another member's feelings, or to make them feel wrong or inferior?

 

Intelligence without wisdom is like unharnessed energy.

 

Opinions are good, but when discussion turns to hurt, we need to remember what is important about life. To feel strongly about one position does not mean another is wrong. Arrogance simply alienates and makes insecure individuals feel superior.

 

Respect is a simple requirement to discussion. It is OK to differ. That is healthy. Debate is not dominance. Debate is not attack. To think that any one opinion is the only correct answer seems to me to be the heart of problems with fundamentalist groups and extremists.

 

Hey Linda

 

If this relates to any of my posts, then i apoligse if i offended anyone with what i said. I'm not normally out to deliberately berate or put someone down - so if i have done so, feel free to let me know, and i will be more than willing to own up to it admit that i was wrong to do so.

 

Hope that helps clear the air.

 

Unclejoe

[Foxy Lady]

No matter what the topic, is any opinion worth hurting another member's feelings, or to make them feel wrong or inferior?

 

Intelligence without wisdom is like unharnessed energy.

 

Opinions are good, but when discussion turns to hurt, we need to remember what is important about life. To feel strongly about one position does not mean another is wrong. Arrogance simply alienates and makes insecure individuals feel superior.

 

I certainly could not have said it better.

[ReFur]

Uncle Joe,

 

No not at all. I am referring to the overall tone of the last few pages of the thread.

 

I just love this wonderful group so much. I love the strong personalities, I love the differing opinions. But, sometime we don't realize the weight of our words.

 

And, when we know "the right answer" many times we loose out on the greatest chances to learn. If we already know everything, then how can we learn?

 

It is true that one can evaluate the "quality" of music in its catagory. But, we cannot judge what taste should be in music any more than fur, etc.

 

It is this issue of "judging" than allows individuals to feel they have the right to dictate. We all have our preferences, but we do not have the right to say that our taste is the "right" taste.

 

Now we are addressing the heart of PETA and fundamentalist. THEY know what is best. What is right.

 

When being "right" is more important those we care about, then we need to pause and think.

 

That is all I meant.

 

Love,

 

Linda

[allfurme]

I have just thought of the best band ever - SNOW PATROL

 

I know nothing about them but i do know they have the same name as a film with lots of fur in it!

[s1m17]

Snow Patrol are pretty good (in my opinion). A genuinely nice sounding band

[Guest]

Nobody should get offended by argument...its not personal.

 

And it does avoid bloodshed on times.

[Unclejoe420]

Nobody should get offended by argument...its not personal.

 

And it does avoid bloodshed on times.

 

True - argument may not be personal, but judging someone purely on musical taste (or lack thereof) isn't a good thing. A good sense of humour is pretty vital too - lord knows we all need a chuckle now and again.

 

oh, and as for the bloodshed part... don't get me started - we'll be here all night!!

 

Unclejoe