Elitism/Advanced Music Listening/Long Post!

[demon talented]

Originally posted by YaYoGakk
The thing with having "respect for artists who do it well" is that its extremely hard to know if they are doing it well or not, if you dont happen to get into it.

This is true. You cannot reply solely on reputation, although you may also listen to someone with a taste that is different and simply has different tastes for music. I'm not into emo, but I know someone who is who has great overall taste in music. If he says an emo band is good, I might not enjoy them that much, but I wouldn't likely think they were good at were they do... Besides that simple and not-to-the-point thought, the better response is just acceptance of subjectivity. Technically, everything can be regarded as subjective. If we can look objectively as we can, we may see something to it that makes it what others would and should like, even though we may not enjoy it or appreciate it.

Originally posted by YaYoGakk
But then its also extremely easy to look at apparenlty similar music (lets say Tool and Opeth) and start thinking they are trying to do the same thing just because of a few similarities (which in the Tool and Opeth case is a very big mistake, as both have vastly different aims, yet ive seen them compared as if they are supposed to be the same a few times). Thats why you hear so many people say stuff like "They're trying to do <blah> but they just arent" about music they dont like.

If you knew little about rock music, then yes, you might confuse the two.

Originally posted by YaYoGakk
If i completely dislike a band then i often become really intrigued when i see someone who loves the band. I then try and listen to these fans of the band and see what they are getting from it, ask them what areas the band excels in, what they get from the music, how they listen to it. Can open up some completely new ways of looking at and appreciating music. I can of course pick out technical stuff myself, but easy to miss stuff, and technical stuff is only good to the point where it achieves its aims (hard to judge if you dont know the aims!)

You can even do it with bands you already like, theres always going to be people who listen to your favourite band in a different way to what you do, who notices other things you've never noticed. Can be refreshing.

One of art's greatest benefits is the ability for personal interpretation. If it can touch people in some way, it can be regarded as successful.

Originally posted by YaYoGakk
But yes, not everyone is elitist because there are many like you that recognise that just because they dont like something doesnt mean its not good (and the opposite as well), its just the elitists who tend to be noticed because they are the ones to say "THIS IS SHIT".

I have often said that people with this narrow-mindedness cannot accept their subjectivity, which is essentially the same thing as you have phrased earlier.

Originally posted by YaYoGakk
and banging on a lead pipe can easily be considered music... and if someone liked to listen to it then thats fine. And people do listen to stuff like that as music. Though if it was just banging on a lead pipe with nothing else it wouldnt hold its effect for long i wouldnt imagine.

I suppose this comes down to personal opinion, but it could regarded with the hopefulness of objectivity.

From www.m-w.com :
Main Entry: mu·sic
Pronunciation: 'myü-zik
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English musik, from Old French musique, from Latin musica, from Greek mousikE any art presided over by the Muses, especially music, from feminine of mousikos of the Muses, from Mousa Muse
Date: 13th century
1 a : the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity b : vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony
2 a : an agreeable sound : EUPHONY <her voice was music to my ears> b : musical quality <the music of verse>
3 : a musical accompaniment <a play set to music>
4 : the score of a musical composition set down on paper
5 : a distinctive type or category of music <there is a music for everybody -- Eric Salzman>

Obviously, the first 2 are the ones that apply here. Many places contradict what is said here by saying music is sounds having rhythm, melody, AND harmony, rather than "or," which is perhaps confusion on my part.

So, technically, this says anything COULD be music... but will it be? It's the ART of ordering tones... you could scribble lines on a paper, but it wouldn't be art. In the same manner, making a bunch of random noises would not be art. Isn't music, to state simply, the art of sound?

An agreeable noise is subjective. All tastes are subjective. My whole reality is subjective. With that said, to how man is banging a lead pipe an agreeable noise? I actually believe there would be "many" people (far away from a majority, but more than once at least) who would think so. And so, the scribbles on the paper might do then too.

Maybe the key here is the connection between art and artist. Can we say art is a form of personal (you could almost say "subjective") expression? If so, the guy banging on the lead pipe may be having fun getting all of that agression out... But it is unlikely he's doing it for aesthetic purpose. The scribble of a paper seems more apparent, as we can do things quite randomly and it isn't really art.

Also from www.m-w.com :
Main Entry: 2art
Pronunciation: 'ärt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin art-, ars -- more at ARM
Date: 13th century
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : LIBERAL ARTS b archaic : LEARNING, SCHOLARSHIP
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : FINE ARTS (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art

I stopped with 4 as it is the most important. I'd like to emphasize art is the CONSCIOUS use...

So, as I may say, it may not be impossible, not it seems unextremely unlikely.

I am not thinking terribly hard at this, and I'm just letting my thoughts go as they may. If you have comments or feel different, please say so.

 

[Brooks]

You're preaching to the choir, my friend...

 

[Ormir]

I don't like Opeth because my brain isn't big enough?

 

[extensive desolation]

I believe in the existence of SOMETHING which is the source of genius.
You can call it “higher force” or you can call it “more brain activity”. And maybe “the manifestation of the higher force through the brain activity”. Whatever. If you have an access to this higher force it will manifest through all your “art activity” (everything that is or seems to be random ) It’s not about complexity, music genre or whatever else. It’s about that force which makes you genius. Both Akerfeldt and Schuldiner express this force through their music. Their music is completely different but the force is the same.
If you think that solo from “Zero Tolerance” was written by a mere mortal reason then god bless you. I don’t think so.

 

[extensive desolation]

Originally posted by Ormir
I don't like Opeth because my brain isn't big enough?

No. Because you haven't seriously taken my advice to stand on your head.
(Probably it won’t help anyway but it’s good for health)

 

[YaYo]

Originally posted by TheLedTool
I stopped with 4 as it is the most important. I'd like to emphasize art is the CONSCIOUS use...

Yep, but music isnt necessarily art. Just like a drawing isnt necessarily art. I certainly dont call a jingle on a commercial "art", but i do call it "music"... But should there also be an allowance for the viewer of art? If someone is looking-at/listeneing-to something and experiencing it in an artful way (using to evoke emotions or similar) does it matter whether it was created intentionally as art?

As with all such definitions, they struggle with the borderline cases.. but its not really important. Something is what it is, the word we use for it is unimportant.

I don't like Opeth because my brain isn't big enough?

I didnt see that implied anywhere.

I believe in the existence of SOMETHING which is the source of genius.
You can call it “higher force” or you can call it “more brain activity”. And maybe “the manifestation of the higher force through the brain activity”. Whatever. If you have an access to this higher force it will manifest through all your “art activity” (everything that is or seems to be random ) It’s not about complexity, music genre or whatever else. It’s about that force which makes you genius. Both Akerfeldt and Schuldiner express this force through their music. Their music is completely different but the force is the same.
If you think that solo from “Zero Tolerance” was written by a mere mortal reason then god bless you. I don’t think so.

Why? What evidence do you see to suggest this?

Ill tell you what i see, i see human beings, randomly born with different levels of skill in different things. Some are good with sport, some can build a house, some have good use with words, and some are good at music things. There is of course something (either due to things learnt and experienced during developing years, or through naturally more brain power in the area that helps with music (maths i guess would help?)) that makes certain people more likely to be good at music, but they of course still need to develop that. And most humans will be born with more brain power in certain areas than others, nothing different there.

You make it sound like its something special, like they are gods. They are just humans. I assure you. They do absolutely nothing that is amazing at all. Like i said earlier, music is just a collection of simple ideas. Show me something that is not capable to be done by human hands. And while you're thinking of that think of how complex language is, and how you perform to your current level with ease, because it might show you how easy it is to learn 'hard' things.

 

[Ormir]

Originally posted by YaYoGakk
I didnt see that implied anywhere.

The more complex material requires more brain activity.

After all, the brain can only develop skills through learning and practice, and it takes time to be able to appreciate lengthy complex pieces.

No. Because you haven't seriously taken my advice to stand on your head. [so more blood will flow into my head] (Probably it won’t help anyway but it’s good for health)

 

[YaYo]

"The more complex material requires more brain activity." - Was about more complex material, in reference to Yes. More complex meaning more complex than simple pop music. Do you disagree with the statement that metal in general takes more brain activity (ie thought, concentration) than your typical britney spears? Coz thats all that was being said. Not even suggesting that complex music is better.

"After all, the brain can only develop skills through learning and practice, and it takes time to be able to appreciate lengthy complex pieces." - No indication about brain power there. Talks about taking the time to learn it only, later on an indication that some people dont want to take the time and that thats fine. Do you disagree with this? Opeth doesnt take time to appreciate? Nowhere was it implied that people will like it if they do take the time, nor that they MUST take the time if they are going to like it. Just that it is more complex than most mainstream pop (do you disagree?) and for many people more complex music (with Opeth as an example, not as the subject) will take more time to get into.

"No. Because you haven't seriously taken my advice to stand on your head.
(Probably it won’t help anyway but it’s good for health)" - This was posted AFTER your comment... (and yes this guys comments are often over the top)

 

[Ormir]

I resent the implication that Opeth fans are more intelligent than other because of the music they listen to.

 

[Till Fjalls]

Wow, so many replies! Some great and insightful thoughts here, I'm going to have to take some time responding....Be back later today hopefully to clear up some misconceptions...

 

[YaYo]

Originally posted by Ormir
I resent the implication that Opeth fans are more intelligent than other because of the music they listen to.

Look there are elitist fans on this board who think that way, sure. I think its stupid too. But it just wasnt in this thread (other than extensive whatever), you've obviously become so pissed off with it that your searching for it now. Im pretty sure Till Fjalls only used Opeth as an example in his post because its an opeth board, hence more people are going to understand his example.

Read this from his post
"Chances are they have more advanced listening skills, and Opeth's music doesn't stimulate the senses enough to make it interesting to them"
and
"and what they are hearing in Opeth is just right at this particular time."

Where are these 'implications that Opeth fans are more intelligent than other because of the music they listen to'? All that was said that Opeth are a band who are more complex than most simple mainstream stuff. And that more complex music requires more thought. Do you disagree with either of these things? If not then what are you arguing against?

 

[Furious B]

Originally posted by YaYoGakk

As we can see, this is a good example of someone confusing their subjective opinion (that they dont happen to find the topic interesting.. which is fine) with an objective statement (that the content of the thread is "crap"). A fine example of how this happens not only in music, but in everything. I'm hoping that the post was a subtle clever joke...

Nope.

 

[IanDork107]

Originally posted by Ormir
I resent the implication that Opeth fans are more intelligent than other because of the music they listen to.

We aren't more intelligent because of the music we listen to. We listen to the music we do because we're more intelligent...hehe

 

[Malaclypse]

it must be very lonely at the top

 

[bleedingskeptic]

i think a big thing you people are missing is society's assumptions on what music is and the general population's attention span.

society tells us that music with growls is death metal and that death metal is satanic or violent. so if someone hears opeth the little thing called a "conscience" (or what i like to call society's nagging voice) will kick in and flood a person's head with stereotypes and generalizations. they will call opeth satanic and stop listening to anything you try to tell them. we've all had this happen.

society also tells us that music is meant to be written with 7 notes and their respectiv sharps or flats. society also tells us what time signatures sound "normal". now we all know there are way more than 12 pitches of sound, but because of the way we were broght up to hear music that's just what we expect. what if people came out with an instrument that played 28 different "notes" or pitches it would sound like shit to us because we were brought up with 12 and we came to assumptions as to what harmony sounds "good".

also, with our culture of conveniance people want things to be quick. i know people who can't even sit through an hour and a half movie. how the hell are these people supposed to sit through a ten minute song when there are plenty of three minute songs available?

 

[Blackspirit]

WOW!!! All my respect to YaYoGakk! Again you amaze
me with one of your posts! What you have written is
almost what I have thought, but still you have taken it
so much further, and I have actually learned something
today! This might be my all time favourite post on um,
ever.... Brilliant! ) *copy/paste* *saves* >)

Great topic Till Fjalls! Really interesting to read this! )

 

[Ermz]

Amen YaYoGakk, to everything. It's good to see someone that can actually explain their point of view as opposed to 'you are stupid, sit on your head and appreciate Opeth', which I hope has to be a joke.

 

[Ermz]

oh, one thing I think you didn't mention though is that society is biased against forms of music, such as Opeth (main example here) from the start as there are all these stereotypes flying about the whole satanism and evil thing. Then there are of course the bands that thrive off that and actually do make 'evil' music just for the sake of it and that stereotype is actually given substance, which makes it very hard for bands like... Opeth.

So I appreciate that everyone has different music tastes but I feel that this form of music is overshadowed as far as airplay and opinion goes. That's why I feel it's good if we preach and make people realize that there is music outside of the simple tunes they listen to... and if they do start appreciating this form of music that it may give them a greater reward than say a Britney Spears song would.

 

[IanDork107]

Originally posted by IanDork107
We aren't more intelligent because of the music we listen to. We listen to the music we do because we're more intelligent...hehe

That was completely a joke, for the record.

 

[Claire's Horror]

Originally posted by extensive desolation
I believe in the existence of SOMETHING which is the source of genius.
You can call it “higher force” or you can call it “more brain activity”. And maybe “the manifestation of the higher force through the brain activity”. Whatever. If you have an access to this higher force it will manifest through all your “art activity” (everything that is or seems to be random ) It’s not about complexity, music genre or whatever else. It’s about that force which makes you genius. Both Akerfeldt and Schuldiner express this force through their music. Their music is completely different but the force is the same.
If you think that solo from “Zero Tolerance” was written by a mere mortal reason then god bless you. I don’t think so.

go take a course on musical appreciation, you goddamn dumbfuck.