Heavy Songs Without Growling?

[Justin S.]

To compartmentalize the way Moonlapse has done is problematic.

Objects, experiences, "pursuits", "interests", however you wish to describe phenomena are certainly not on some arbitrary playing field of equality. One might respond, "but valuing is subjective", and I would agree as the distinction between objective/subjective is also artifice. My objection has nothing to do with "valuing", but concerns relationships.

Prior to any ideas of valuing, we can discuss and be critical about what a thing is, and what relationships it has to an individual. In fact, the only way to claim things are "equal" is to bring them into subjective valuing, as prior to it they stand as they are in difference.

Secondly, to be critical of ones thoughts is to be critical of "them"- what else is a person? To state otherwise is to claim some unassailable "worth" which is again, valuing, and metaphysical.

Things are not neatly bounded, they are holistic. What a person does and what they think is what they are and determines their existence and relationships to all objects and other beings. To state otherwise is to engage in the worst sort of "philosophizing".

 

[Dreadful]

You do know that you don't have to be an asshole to critically discuss something, right? If what you mentioned happened, i would take the cue to not bother discussing music at all, since the person is obviously uninterested, and we would talk about something else (without burning his tastes).

If however we were talking about, say, albums we've been listening to lately and he said that slipknot's latest has been dominating him, this would probably trigger a completely different conversation. Id mention why i don't like slipknot, and what i prefer to it, along relatively similar lines (eg. metal...i wouldn't bother bringing up folk singer-songwriters from the early 70s, because that has no relevance. Not that i really could anyway, since i know approximately 1), expecting that person not to curl up and whimper softly to himself, but to talk back in defense of slipknot, or about the bands ive mentioned. I can both respect him as a person and deal criticism at the same time against crappy music tastes.

well you pretty much typed about the "non asshole" critic scenario for me. the point of my original post is that you don't have to be an asshole.

 

[the_3_toed_sloth]

Actually, id side more with moonie - it is problematic to over-personalize your tastes towards saying something about you as a person. That way leads to fanboyism, where you lose the capacity to rationally respond and discuss, as you attach far too much importance to the casual to-and-fro of a forum.

Of course they do say something about you as a person...but this is always going to necessarily be such a small fragment of who you are that imparting the criticism aimed at music to yourself as a person makes little to no sense. If i shudder at your bad breath, do i expect you to take offense and never speak to me again? No, because it is so small as to say nothing about you yourself - you just have bad breath is all.

ps. Can we see these rules Moon-man?

 

[tildeath]

the only thing I'd have to point out is that the mutation/maturing/etc. of 'taste' takes time, though that's obvious, I mean you can't wave a magic wand and *boom* everyone no longer likes band _______... but from what I recall you've always helped those seeking help and the more open-minded when it comes to pretty much any genre

I think when 2 people are talking positively about a band and you come in from the side lines and slam them it can seem harsh sometimes, but nothing that can't be digested with a grain of salt... people should just go "hah yeah well, I like em", and leave it at that, and maybe one day they'll agree with you, maybe they never will, doesn't really fucking matter one bit either way and that's the point, people should stop dwelling it

Wow, that was very insightful-I agree

 

[Justin S.]

...it is problematic to over-personalize your tastes towards saying something about you as a person.

I ask again, what is this ellusive "person" if not thought and action? What would "say something about you as a person"?

Of course they do say something about you as a person...but this is always going to necessarily be such a small fragment of who you are that imparting the criticism aimed at music to yourself as a person makes little to no sense.

So decisions do reflect upon the actor, but in a limited fashion. Certainly, and I never said otherwise. Each glimpse of a persons thinking adds to evaluation. However, certain areas are so huge, and so full of complex decision making (whether the subject chooses to engage or not) they speak volumes about an individual. This reality is more powerful than any arbitrary value judgment.

If i shudder at your bad breath, do i expect you to take offense and never speak to me again? No, because it is so small as to say nothing about you yourself - you just have bad breath is all.

That is not a very appropriate example. Bad breath is not of the same magnitude or causes as a failure to engage the history of thought (written works).

 

[the_3_toed_sloth]

I ask again, what is this ellusive "person" if not thought and action? What would "say something about you as a person"?

You assume that it is possible to fully describe a person. I do not.

So decisions do reflect upon the actor, but in a limited fashion. Certainly, and I never said otherwise. Each glimpse of a persons thinking adds to evaluation. However, certain areas are so huge, and so full of complex decision making (whether the subject chooses to engage or not) they speak volumes about an individual. This reality is more powerful than any arbitrary value judgment.

They may indeed speak volumes. But that is far and away from you being able to correctly interpret said information - if a person is not even able to fully grasp why they like something themselves, how are you, a third party to said enjoyment with a totally different frame of reference, going to interpret that correctly? All you are seeing is the end result. None of the steps leading towards that result, the important values and systems of thought affecting the decision, are evident. Thus any interpretation you give to what limited 'glimpses of a persons thinking' you have say as much about yourself as it does them.

That is not a very appropriate example. Bad breath is not of the same magnitude or causes as a failure to engage the history of thought (written works).

This is your own judgment as to what magnitude it is of. Bad breath may be related to a long running coffee addiction, due to a history of substance addiction in your family, which is why your father left himself when you were little, causing your mother to whore herself on the street just to pay the bills, after which she would return late at night and get high to escape the misery of her life, which you saw and could do nothing but dwell on, all night long, keeping yourself awake with coffee for fear of sleep, meaning you might take this accusation very personally indeed. Or you might just have forgotten to brush your teeth. The point is that i know neither way, and an innocent criticism is exactly that; criticism not meant to say anything deeper about you as a person.

 

[Ermz]

ps. Can we see these rules Moon-man?

Sorry, not yet man. Everyone will see them if they become official.

About this discussion. It's gone way beyond the scope of what I was trying to say. I don't understand why there needs to be a drawn out 2-page break down of person-object relations and how much a person's opinion defines their own character.

My idea was simple. Any criticism should be made with constructive insight, whether in regards to an idea, issue, song, band or person. It shouldn't be an outright attack simply because it can be.

 

[Heckelgruber]

How is Nirvana embarassing? Overrated, sure, but still a band that deserves respect.

You're right of course, I just used it as an example because I thought it might be the kind of thing that might earn me some "taste flak" on the forum. It's possible to like them without taking part in the cloying cult of personality associated with them.

Silence can be a form of approval - when you tell someone not to voice their opinion on the dimmu borgirs of the world, you are in effect telling them to give their approval to continued listening.

Condonement rather than approval I suppose, without wanting to split hairs (which I just did).