NFU
I like pie.
why shouldnt they? neither one ever opens their mouth without at least SOMEthing fairly substantial to say.
Overrated 'Classics' (Review Thread: Lists are For Fags)
- Thread starter Armageddon's Child
- Start date
affinityband
Member
fyi tolkien takes like 4 pages to describe a blade of grass or smth
fyi storm of the lights bane is not overrated.
fyi storm of the lights bane is not overrated.
Justin S.
Member
Mumblefood,
I will try to respond concisely to your concerns (contrary to what others have suggested I am not merely expressing at you). Indeed, the problem at hand is communication.
When one responds defensively and attacks another for asserting an unyielding position (especially when accusing them of "arrogance", "using big words" or being "pretentious"), it communicates many things: internalization of their criticism, insecurity (both intellectually and perceptively), and a misunderstanding of the process of communication in general. This response only invites further rigid assertions, now laced with spite. Defensive "affirmations" are self-serving; they are dialogues within the subject, persuasion of the self, not something that is expressed for the other. Guys like A.C. smell this and pounce on it, and the breakdown in the process is complete. It is unreasonable, and (frankly) indicative of certain modern ideologies, to defensively attack another for firm and unapologetic assertions. The irony is that this reaction is set as the unyielding position that all must conform to. A much more fruitful method is to meet such assertions on equal ground, to put forth your own and evaluate them in a critical manner (to trust and develop your perception as they do theirs [realize there is no substitute]), to view what others communicate on its own terms, and not project contention within oneself outwardly in the form of "strawmen".
However, I see that there is more to your statements than this. You have genuine concerns over A.C.'s combative style, and I agree this can be off-putting. The problems above are primarily of "method". There are many misunderstandings of what we might call "content".
A.C.'s critical approach to music is not arbitrary, and is intricately linked to more general "philosophical" notions (as is mine). His criticism transcends a merely physical or "emotional" appraisal of music (including aesthetics, composition, or instrumentation alone). It is ontological (music's primordial meaning in terms of man's being). I understand this can seem rather esoteric, even arbitrary, but I assure you there is quite a bit of thought involved, and this largely explains his condescension. He thinks, possibly often correctly, that others have not given it the amount of thoughtful attention he has- an understanding that cannot be gained through exposure, an encyclopedic "knowledge", or through training/instrumentation alone. It is a matter of perception- and those that hone it feel no qualm about asserting it. In fact, they may take it as their goal to "correct" others, which is where I break from A.C. (in this context).
To finish this, which is longer than I intended: A.C.'s combative approach is largely amplified by the responses he receives- in fact, they reaffirm his condescension. If responded to in kind, I would imagine him to be more reasonable. That said, I think he is somewhat of an asshole intrinsically
, so if you cant deal with it and see it for what it is, then I would suggest not trying to communicate with him, saving yourself the time and ridicule.
I will try to respond concisely to your concerns (contrary to what others have suggested I am not merely expressing at you). Indeed, the problem at hand is communication.
When one responds defensively and attacks another for asserting an unyielding position (especially when accusing them of "arrogance", "using big words" or being "pretentious"), it communicates many things: internalization of their criticism, insecurity (both intellectually and perceptively), and a misunderstanding of the process of communication in general. This response only invites further rigid assertions, now laced with spite. Defensive "affirmations" are self-serving; they are dialogues within the subject, persuasion of the self, not something that is expressed for the other. Guys like A.C. smell this and pounce on it, and the breakdown in the process is complete. It is unreasonable, and (frankly) indicative of certain modern ideologies, to defensively attack another for firm and unapologetic assertions. The irony is that this reaction is set as the unyielding position that all must conform to. A much more fruitful method is to meet such assertions on equal ground, to put forth your own and evaluate them in a critical manner (to trust and develop your perception as they do theirs [realize there is no substitute]), to view what others communicate on its own terms, and not project contention within oneself outwardly in the form of "strawmen".
However, I see that there is more to your statements than this. You have genuine concerns over A.C.'s combative style, and I agree this can be off-putting. The problems above are primarily of "method". There are many misunderstandings of what we might call "content".
A.C.'s critical approach to music is not arbitrary, and is intricately linked to more general "philosophical" notions (as is mine). His criticism transcends a merely physical or "emotional" appraisal of music (including aesthetics, composition, or instrumentation alone). It is ontological (music's primordial meaning in terms of man's being). I understand this can seem rather esoteric, even arbitrary, but I assure you there is quite a bit of thought involved, and this largely explains his condescension. He thinks, possibly often correctly, that others have not given it the amount of thoughtful attention he has- an understanding that cannot be gained through exposure, an encyclopedic "knowledge", or through training/instrumentation alone. It is a matter of perception- and those that hone it feel no qualm about asserting it. In fact, they may take it as their goal to "correct" others, which is where I break from A.C. (in this context).
To finish this, which is longer than I intended: A.C.'s combative approach is largely amplified by the responses he receives- in fact, they reaffirm his condescension. If responded to in kind, I would imagine him to be more reasonable. That said, I think he is somewhat of an asshole intrinsically
, so if you cant deal with it and see it for what it is, then I would suggest not trying to communicate with him, saving yourself the time and ridicule.
I am damned as inflexible and unresponsive, but Mumbles is completely unwilling to give me any reason to re-evaluate my positions, nor anything substantive to respond to.
Instead, he has adopted the position that the mere fact that he holds an opinion demands that opinion (and by extension, Mumbles himself) be validated by others, regardless of the nature and quality of the evidence he provides (or rather, fails to provide) to support his opinions. Anyone who doesn't immediately leap at this magnanimous offer to agree with Mumbles is then suject to personal attack. Am I contemptuous of people that adopt that sort of 'debate' posture? You bet your ass I am.
And you know what? I'm right to do so.
Instead, he has adopted the position that the mere fact that he holds an opinion demands that opinion (and by extension, Mumbles himself) be validated by others, regardless of the nature and quality of the evidence he provides (or rather, fails to provide) to support his opinions. Anyone who doesn't immediately leap at this magnanimous offer to agree with Mumbles is then suject to personal attack. Am I contemptuous of people that adopt that sort of 'debate' posture? You bet your ass I am.
And you know what? I'm right to do so.
Manbient
Queer Old Man
Mumblefoot,
I will try to respond concisely to your concerns (contrary to what others have suggested I am not merely expressing at you). Indeed, the problem at hand is communication.
When one responds defensively and attacks another for asserting an unyielding position (especially when accusing them of "arrogance", "using big words" or being "pretentious"), it communicates many things: internalization of their criticism, insecurity (both intellectually and perceptively), and a misunderstanding of the process of communication in general. This response only invites further rigid assertions, now laced with spite. Defensive "affirmations" are self-serving; they are dialogues within the subject, persuasion of the self, not something that is expressed for the other. Guys like A.C. smell this and pounce on it, and the breakdown in the process is complete. It is unreasonable, and (frankly) indicative of certain modern ideologies, to defensively attack another for firm and unapologetic assertions. The irony is that this reaction is set as the unyielding position that all must conform to. A much more fruitful method is to meet such assertions on equal ground, to put forth your own and evaluate them in a critical manner (to trust and develop your perception as they do theirs [realize there is no substitute]), to view what others communicate on its own terms, and not project contention within oneself outwardly in the form of "strawmen".
However, I see that there is more to your statements than this. You have genuine concerns over A.C.'s combative style, and I agree this can be off-putting. The problems above are primarily of "method". There are many misunderstandings of what we might call "content".
A.C.'s critical approach to music is not arbitrary, and is intricately linked to more general "philosophical" notions (as is mine). His criticism transcends a merely physical or "emotional" appraisal of music (including aesthetics, composition, or instrumentation alone). It is ontological (music's primordial meaning in terms of man's being). I understand this can seem rather esoteric, even arbitrary, but I assure you there is quite a bit of thought involved, and this largely explains his condescension. He thinks, possibly often correctly, that others have not given it the amount of thoughtful attention he has- an understanding that cannot be gained through exposure, an encyclopedic "knowledge", or through training/instrumentation alone. It is a matter of perception- and those that hone it feel no qualm about asserting it. In fact, they may take it as their goal to "correct" others, which is where I break from A.C. (in this context).
To finish this, which is longer than I intended: A.C.'s combative approach is largely amplified by the responses he receives- in fact, they reaffirm his condescension. If responded to in kind, I would imagine him to be more reasonable. That said, I think he is somewhat of an asshole intrinsically
the philosophical aspect of music is not interpretted in the same way the aural aspects might be. analyzing the purpose behind a piece of music and treating the music as asecondary to the expression of an ideal is fine and all, but i don't think that should bleed over into the actual AURAL analysis of the music. If there's one thing i'm sure of, it's that AC doesn't agree with this notion. I think he should. He may be incapable of that, which is unfortunate, but his fascination with the non-musical aspects of music are creating a serious lack of respect for those who are more concerned with the musical aspects, not to mention actually robbing him of the satisfaction of certain music. I'm not really sure which occurs first with him; the understanding of philosophical purpose and the judgement of the "music" second, or vice versa. I'm inclined to think it's the latter, and the philosophy is rather used as justification for either liking or not liking what they do. That's purely speculation i suppose.
btw, what do you mean by "ontological"? Do you mean there's a more fundamental purpose for music than provocation of an emotional response via sound? If so, i can't really say i agree. I'm willing to hear your reasoning though.
Manbient
Queer Old Man
What do you want to know exactly? I'll give you a full explanation, even though i DO think it doesn't require more reasoning than enjoyment being a better experience than distaste. You can't be "wrong" if your purpose for listening to music is enjoyment, and you recieve that reward. The means are interesting, but inconsequential.
Manbient
Queer Old Man
I'm not playing the HA HA!! I SAID SOMETHING TOTALLY AWESOME IN ONE LINE! game with you, AC. I want to understand some things about you, and i want you to understand some things about other people. Can you at least try to address some of the issues i brought up?
What 'issues'? Babble all you want, couch it in noble sounding phrases, do whatever you like, but when you strip away all the bullshit, all the posturing, all of your frantic attempts to position yourself as the aggrieved party, this discussion has NOTHING TO DO with you trying to understand anything, and everything to do with the fact that you're a small little man who got offended when someone disagreed with you and refused to be bullied into silence. You demand that I explain myself - but I've already explained my position in minute detail a hundred times. I'm not going to waste my time with yet another explanation which you will meet with some variation of "Well, that's not what I think, so nuh uh!"
all_sins_undone
New Metal Member
- Oct 5, 2005
- 4,934
- 7
- 0
Manbient
Queer Old Man
I don't get offended when people disagree with me, i get offended when people tell me my opinion is wrong and i haven't thought about it enough. You know the issues i'm talking about, it's the ones i'm discussing with Justin S. It's the issue of your need to be sure we all feel as though we have some thinking to do until we really understand what the "right" opinion on certain music is. It's the discussion of philosophy of music vs. aural interpretation. You haven't really shown any ability to seperate the two, and i'm wondering if you can. I'm trying to get you to explain to me not why you feel the way you do about the music you like/dislike (that i can see), but rather why you feel other interpretations, by people like me, are utterly rediculous failures. What IS the purpose of music anyway? Does the purpose have to be the same for everyone? do the means of achieving this purpose have to be identical for all individuals? Why don't you discuss further with me the analogy you made earlier, or explain to me the point i am missing when you brought it up?
all_sins_undone
New Metal Member
- Oct 5, 2005
- 4,934
- 7
- 0
I think the good old saying "true knowledge comes from realizing that you don't know everything" applies here pretty damn well
Justin S.
Member
Mumblefoot said:
You greatly mischaracterize A.C.'s evaluation of music, and my own as well (an ontological approach). There is no division, and certainly no dichotomy, between the "aural" and "philosophical"; they are integrated. An ontological approach is a holistic one- it is concerned with the aural, but is not limited to it; it assesses composition and instrumentation, the impact on the listener and the feelings evoked, but is not bound to them. In this sense, "music" is not evaluated by any set of criterion privileged (the aural, the instrumentation, its evocable power, etc.), but as a whole in its relation to our being (which includes these aspects). There is not a "top-down" imposing ideology that is applied which tramples over the reality of sonic properties, etc. Rather, the "philosophy" is the perception of the "aural" itself- our thinking determines what is salient as aural. I know as a fact, from reading his posts, that A.C. is greatly concerned with the "aural"; he is also concerned with much more, and so does not limit himself to this criteria alone.
Sadguru
In my dream...
I'm a little late in this conversation. Would you care to explain what is the aural domain of music? Do you mean only the sensory aspect of music?
Manbient
Queer Old Man
hmmm... i really think it's quite possible to seperate the two. It may not be your favored approach, but i think interpretation of music can be done without the philosophical "baggage" attached. Music is very psychological, for sure, and a lot of what constitutes "taste" in music is partially a result of, not objective truths, but conditions which have shaped us up to the point. However, these responses occur mostly without thought. a PHILOSOPHICAL interpretation, however, requires much more of a person, and a different part of the brain is used. I don't think they are necessarily intertwined. What i mean, for example, is this: imagine you hear a piece of music for the first time, there are no lyrics, and your only source of interpretation is what you directly hear in the music. Right there, you have formed what i think is not a PHILOSOPHICAL interpretation of the music. Not in the sense where you would, in the example of burzum, know what he stands for and what the outlet of his music is meant for. You wouldn't know of his stance on important issues. Now, imagine you read up on the musician, you learn his ways, and only LATER attempt to apply them to your listening experience. Does the listening experience change? For most people, i bet it will. My argument is that it doesn't need to if you can control your frame of mind. I've come up with what i think are a few of the key "variables" involved in the development of musical "taste". Frame of mind is one of the big ones. Listening environment and familiarity with the music i think are a couple other important ones.
Does the infusion of newly-learned philosophical ideals of the artist have to necessarily change your interpretation of the music? Not really. You can also train yourself to place importance on other things, in a sense manipulate your musical taste, depending on what you are hearing. The bottom line for me is this: The music you hear upon re-evaluation after "enlightenment" is the same music. Sonorally nothing has changed. I think there's a clear distinction here between what was interpretted aurally, and what was later added as a philosophical pairing.
affinityband
Member
Sadguru
In my dream...
I have to stop you there. How can these responses occur without thoughts, they are one and the same.
Demilich
Remember
it is hilarious to watch Bumblefoot writhe away, continuing his valiant crusade to project his own denial of the opinions of others onto A.C. and Justin S. Seriously Mumblke, you need to take a step back and do some self-examination on this one! Read the thread from the beginning of this "altercation" and review what those two are trying to get across. Now, these are not people with whom I historically agree upon very much at all, or with whom I have much in common, but I am developing a sincere respect for their capacities with the English language. I believe that despite some antagonism from A.C., they're honestly frustrated at your apparent unwillingness to leave their way of doing things alone. You expect them to conform to your way of critiquing music? Why is this? Because you believe the "aural" and "philosophical" *CAN* be separated, they have to listen to you babbling ad nauseum about the importance of the "music"? I think you could learn something from these folks. Doesn't mean you have to concede to their way of doing things at all, and nor do they to yours.
Manbient
Queer Old Man
Actually, we're having a discussion now and i'm not telling them to adhere to what i am saying, and i've been encouraging them to explain another side to me. Justin hasn't said anything to belittle me, and i thought we were just sharing opinions. I'm not exactly sure why you can't stop suckling the teet of AC lately, but what you can do now is actually read my posts instead of trying to figure out a way to make me look dumb. What i've said repeatedly is that i'm not demanding people share my opinion, but rather i'm trying to get some people to accept that my opinion could possibly have some merit, DESPITE not being congruent with their own. There's room for alternate interpretations. If you're going to use that criticism against me, the least you could do is offer the same courtesy to your mommy.
I also don't think Justin and AC should be referred to as some sort of collective mind, "they". Justin doesn't get his jollies belittling others, and i doubt they share so many of the same opinions.
