As requested - The argument about crap music...and a (fair) poll
There are people who maintain that Ashlee Simpson's music is ACTUALLY as good as Jimi Hendrix's music…and think that I’m crazy for thinking her music’s actually crap. Well…I got a problem with that.
…
Upon request from the last thread where this was discussed, I have put together my argument regarding crap music.
Now it’s long, but I challenge people who have disagreed with me (like the 17 in that last poll) to read this. I also think those who have agreed with me (like the 6 people in the last poll) will find the elaboration supports the argument well…that there is crap music out there.
Now this is all stuff I’ve said before…from my basic argument to my philosophy behind it…but I have elaborated on each of the points to clear up any misunderstandings.
A few things though that I want to bring to your attention…
If you’re gonna make points…saying stuff like “you’re being an idiot” isn’t productive. I have not at all been acting like an idiot in the threads where this has recently been discussed over the past couple weeks…. I could show you people who are truly acting like idiots if you want. I have just simply been supporting my argument. If it’s me not agreeing with you it’s because I see things one way and you see them another…don’t get that confused with acting like an idiot.
Also, there was one person in particular that kept insisting “you just don’t wanna accept you’re wrong”. I wouldn’t have spent the time and energy I did writing this if it was just about not wanting to accept I’m wrong.
And finally, just because I’ve simply been arguing what I believe in doesn’t mean I should “apologize for being a fool” as someone who had just stepped into the argument had said. It’s silly to apologize ‘cause I like to talk about what I believe…and I do this in this case because I think my argument is productive, thought-proving, and worthwhile…and I never adamantly argue something if I don’t think this is the case.
Comments like that or just simply saying “this is the biggest piece of…blah, blah, blah” and that’s all, don’t offer anything, and I would have to question if you’re actually reading the posts.
So again, if you think I’m crazy for thinking Ashlee Simpson’s music is actually crap…then go for it…read this…and tell me what’s up.
That’s it…enjoy.
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Apr 27th, 2007 at 05:56 AM
There’s 2 major parts here…in part 1 I’m just gonna say what I’m arguing and give some explanation as to why…and then in part 2 I’m gonna talk about the philosophy behind what I mean when I propose this argument. So here goes…
There is truly crap music and truly non-crap music. I say Ashlee Simpson is crap, and Jimi Hendrix is not crap. I think with an example like Ashlee Simpson, it’s pretty easy to say this (even though I’ve admitted I can’t PROVE it). I’ve also said it wouldn’t be easy to say that The Rolling Stones are better than The Beatles, or Nirvana are better than The Beatles, or Led Zeppelin are better than The Beatles. When it comes to Ashlee Simpson and saying she’s crap, I think it’s easy because of how people with informed opinions on music have LARGELY described Ashlee Simpson’s music…in comparison say to how they have LARGELY described Jimi Hendrix’s music. Again, not PROVING anything.
Now, there are some things that are commonly associated with certain artists or music that people with informed opinions LARGELY consider crap. They say things like, “the music is contrived, it’s in no way innovative, it has no substance, it has no emotion, it lacks depth, the lyrics are cheesy, it has no soul, etc…” So these are commonly the things that are associated with certain artists and music which (often times), a large majority of people with informed opinions uniformly point to and say are crap. A large majority have done this with Ashlee Simpson’s music by using these determining factors.
Now, some of you will say…“well, it’s just opinion when people determine these things like cheesy lyrics or contrived melodies”…“and opinion doesn’t really mean anything, because who’s to say you’re right and I’m wrong” To that, I have a few things to say:
1) An opinion of someone who isn’t really into music…say someone who might just listen to music in his car on his way to work, or buy the odd CD/download the odd song (and there are people in the world like that), I’d say is different from someone who has an informed opinion on music. Now by informed opinion I mean, someone who might work for a major music magazine, who has listened to (or in the least heard of) the major music acts in popular music throughout the years, who is also familiar with music from different cultures or periods even if that’s not his area of expertise…(he’d know of Beethoven for example), who has a job where he critiques music (and hears a lot of other critiques of music), who might very well also be musically inclined…which a lot are (meaning he can carry a tune, or maybe play an instrument), and who… most importantly…has a record of condemning a lot of (although not ALL) the same music that a majority of others with informed opinions have condemned…and says it’s crap. And this is something a lot of people with informed opinions on music end up doing - largely agreeing with others who have informed opinions on music on certain things being crap.
I say, there’s a difference in the value of this opinion and how it approaches determining factors in music…but what do I have to back this up? Now, I’m not trying to PROVE it’s a FACT that one’s opinion matters more than another’s ( I don’ think you can actually PROVE that…and I’ve always said this) …I’m just simply supporting what I’ve said. And one reason I’m doing this is partly because people have argued that even though there are those with informed opinions who from time to time largely agree on something being crap…that this doesn’t really mean anything…it’s still “just opinion.”
So, if someone with an uniformed opinion (like the first guy) said to me “I like Ashlee Simpson” (which some people could very well say)…and then said “there’s no way Ashlee Simpson is crap because I, for one, like her”…what I would say is…“don’t you think maybe it’s possible that what you might happen to like, might not be very good?”…“and because you have a very uninformed opinion on music, you just might not recognize certain music is “truly” crap?
To which he might then answer “no”…because why would he admit to liking something that is actually crap (…even though this is something I myself do all the time).
So then I would say…“but what you happen to like is completely arbitrary. If you like the movie Blades of Glory, you like the book The DaVinci Code, and you like Ashlee Simpson more than Jimi Hendrix, then that’s just what you like. It’s what does it for you….it’s what strikes a chord. But what I’m suggesting is, apart from what you happen to just simply like, maybe you don’t have an informed enough opinion to realize that what you like is actually crap. And the reason I’m thinking this is because I often see people who DO have informed opinions who’ll often, and as a majority, consensually end up pointing to a lot of the same artists and saying that they’re crap. Now, I know that doesn’t PROVE anything, but it makes me wonder if there’s any connection between you (and the uninformed opinion you have) saying Ashlee Simpson is not crap, and them (with the informed opinions they have) LARGELY saying Ashlee Simpson is crap.”
As an aside, I’m NOT saying every critic agrees every single time an album ends up largely getting called crap. That’s ridiculous. At the end of the day, everyone’s making a decision…and those decisions will differ…and it’s quite possible that someone with an informed opinion who’s said Ashlee Simpson’s album is crap, will disagree on another occasion and be a minority when some other album is hugely trashed by people with informed opinions (and in this case should maybe consider the possibility that perhaps he’s missing something others with informed opinions have picked up on…and this is something I myself am open to when I give a decision about stuff being good that doesn’t meet the majority of others with informed opinions who say it’s crap). So again, it’ll happen that someone like the second guy I described above might not agree with a majority decision of others with informed opinions when something is largely panned or praised…but MORE OFTEN THAN NOT…and ESPECIALLY when it comes to something that ends up being determined as being “crap”, people with informed opinions (like this guy) will tend to agree with other’s with informed opinions. And there’s ENOUGH OF THEM who’ll tend to LARGELY agree on this stuff on any given occasion, where you’ll end up getting these incidences (like with Ashlee Simpson) where an album is widely panned.
2) A second thing I’d have to say regarding someone who says …“well, it’s just opinion when people determine these things like cheesy lyrics or contrived melodies” is that these informed opinions themselves regarding music, tend to gain more value as they are re-affirmed by others with informed opinions on music….ESPECALLY when considering criteria that suggests crap music…and this can happen very quickly with someone.
Again…a lot of people with informed opinions say Jimi Hendrix isn’t crap. Let’s say one of these people with an informed opinion who heard Jimi Hendrix, thought he was innovative, had soul, was a good instrumentalist, was expressive etc...went on to make the decision that Jimi Hendrix wasn’t crap music. Then he noticed that those very considerations he made and his thoughts on that music were echoed and re-affirmed by many of his other peers with informed opinions on music who also said Jimi Hendrix isn’t crap. So his opinions of what is not crap, and ESPECIALLY the reasons he’s putting forth for them, are quite often in line with a large number of others who have pointed to similar reasons for certain music WIDELY not being considered crap…(like The Beatles, Nirvana, Led Zeppelin). So this guy’s opinion itself is being more refined and gaining more value as OVER and OVER this “consensual understanding” of what isn’t crap is re-affirming the very things he usually says about the stuff that largely ends up not being considered crap. And again, it’s not like he agrees on every single occasion where there is a large agreement on certain music or a certain artist…but he does, on an individual level, gain an understanding (and rightfully so) of the value of his opinions as he starts to realize more and more (and pretty quickly) that the reasons others with informed opinions on music are giving for certain music not being crap, are very much in line with the reasons he (with his informed opinion) gives for the same stuff not being crap (and often for the same stuff as being crap)…you know…like what happens with Ashlee Simpson.
Nothing proven here of course…but how does this happen? How does it actually happen? Hmmmm…
3) My final point about someone saying something like …“well, it’s just opinion…”, or “who’s to say what I like is actually crap?”, is that if this is truly the case (that there is no crap or non-crap music), then it means that you couldn’t possibly make crap music if you tried. After all, there is no “crap” music…right? On the same token though…you couldn’t POSSIBLY, no matter how hard you tried, make good music…That’s kinda tough to swallow…
If someone tried as hard as they could to make music that even they themselves would totally hate (which, let’s say…consisted of recording themselves singing totally of tune for an hour…throwing in the occasional crash symbol every 7 minutes…coming up with the cheesiest lyrics they could think of…blatantly ripping off a melody from a well-known artist…randomly banging on the drums in no particular time structure or rhythm…you get the picture)…then the result of that couldn’t possibly be crap music…according to your argument…that IS what you’re saying. It’s a far-fetched example, but it doesn’t take away from the matter at hand with what you’re actually saying is the case about music, and how it can’t be truly crap…or not crap.
Well I disagree. I think that would be crap music. Sorry. And I think most of you also agree that would be crap music…but wait…how could you agree? Your logic doesn’t let you agree with that…because “it is all just opinion”, “there is no truly crap music”, and “who’s to say I’m right?”
Yeah.
Still though, I couldn’t PROVE this. EVEN IF that piece of music would reflect every single one of those things people with informed opinions most often associate with crap music, and EVEN THOUGH they could overwhelmingly agree that it is truly not a good example of what they hold as decent music…it still could not be crap…because I can’t prove that it is. Ahhhh.
*Well, my response to that (which has to do with part 2…the philosophical part) is, “sure, maybe you can’t PROVE certain things don’t exist…but that doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t…it just means we don’t have any proof”. Much like we don’t have PROOF God exists…so then what…therefore he doesn’t? Is that what you’re saying? He DOES NOT exist because we don’t have proof? That’s a pretty bold statement about God, but also simply about truth. But we’ll get to this stuff shortly.
Back to the last example though, to show how silly I think it is when people say something like this…“I like it…therefore who’s to say it’s not good”. There COULD very well be ONE person that actually likes that music I was just talking about (and claimed was truly crap). So again, if they like it…who’s to say it’s crap…right? People say this all the time.
But what’s even being said there?
There’s only 4 real possibilities surrounding this:
Possibility A). There IS truly crap and non-crap music…and because certain music is truly non-crap it makes people say “I like this music”…(which would then have to mean we would all have to like the same music that’s claimed as being not crap).
Possibility B). Again, there IS truly crap and non-crap music…and when people say “I like this music” it’s not because of whether or not the music itself is crap or non-crap…why they say they like it is just arbitrary…(and this is the one I believe).
Possibility C) There ISN’T truly crap and non-crap music…and when people say “I like this music”, it suggests something about the music itself…(which holds some real contradictions that I‘ll get to in a minute).
And possibility D) There ISN’T truly crap and non-crap music….and when people say “I like this music” it’s not because of whether or not the music itself is crap or non-crap….why they say they like it is just arbitrary…(sorta like possibility B)
So, first with possibility C (where there ISN’T truly crap and non-crap music) …saying “I like this music”, shouldn’t say anything about anything…should it? It can’t…because there is no crap and non-crap music for it to be saying anything about …right?
Possibility A is also just ridiculous.
Possibility B is the one I myself agree with…so therefore I’m guessing the one you all must agree with is the last one…possibility D, which says…when people say “I like this music” it’s not because of whether or not the music itself is crap or non-crap….why they say they like it is just arbitrary.
Now, just as an aside, if I ever hear any you people ever say “I like it…therefore who’s to say it’s crap” (which is an example of the flawed possibility C)...it would be a completely pointless sentence. Like in possibility C, there is an implication in this sentence that “I like…” suggests something about the music itself. But I showed how possibility C is flawed if you believe what you believe about music not being crap or non-crap. All you’re just saying with “I like it…therefore who’s to say it’s crap” is that it appeals to you in the first part of the sentence, and then completely contradicting what you’ve said you believe regarding music in the second part of the sentence.
So since possibility D is what left for you, every time you’ve posted any kind of remark about music or a band you think sucks, or music or a band you think is awesome…what are you even saying? All you COULD be saying is “I really, really like it…or I really, really hate it.”
I’m guessing that’s just bugged a lot of you right now. And the reason it’s bugged a lot of you is because you think you have a good reason for saying “this sucks” or “this freakin’ rules”.
So what…is there good and bad music or isn’t there?
If you’re starting to think there is…then again, be careful with what it means when you say “I like this music” (while agreeing there is truly crap and non-crap music). As I showed in example (A), if you think because certain music’s truly non-crap is WHY you like it, then really, we would all have to like the same music that we consider isn’t crap.
Well that’s silly.
So again, if you’re thinking there’s a good reason for saying “this band sucks” or “this band rules”…then the only other option apart from option (A) when it comes to saying “I like this music”…is option (B). And it says what you like has nothing to really do with what makes music good or not…there’s reasons for that which are separate. What you like it just arbitrary. And this is what I think is the case.
The most important thing then to remember here though is this…you have to admit you can’t possibly know or prove what music is crap or non-crap (because it can’t be proven), so then something you can go by if you believe music can be crap or not is this phenomenon of what I was talking about in the 3 examples regarding people with informed opinions LARGELY panning music they consider crap for many of the same, common reasons…and consider the value in what that’s being said regarding what you believe about music about.
So to sum up this first part of my argument…there’s all those things I showed about informed opinion that we have to consider (no facts, but quite an overwhelming occurrence) while believing in possibility B…and then…there possibility D (since A and C were duds). And what does possibility D say about ANYTHING? “I really, really like it…or I really, really hate it.” That’s all.
So, either that’s all you could really say ever again in your life regarding music (and I’m right in saying this, am I not…check it again), or you can do what I do and say…you know what…there is crap music, ad sure even though I can’t prove it…the fact that so many people with informed opinions about music often and largely point to the same reasons for music that ends up being considered crap, might just say something….as opposed to the alternative which just says “I really, really like this music”.
Yeah.
* Just as a note here, in regards to “taste” and “subjective”…when people say “taste is subjective” (if “taste” means what appeals to you)…well that’s obvious, and I’ve never argued this. Taste (in the sense mentioned above) is subjective because different people are deciding for themselves what appeals to them (and I’ve always separated what appeals to appeal from what the music is). Now, according to you, you can’t say the alternative… “taste is subjective” (if “taste” means your ability to recognize good or bad music), because according to you there is no good or bad to be recognized.
So then when people say “taste is subjective”, what does it (with stance you have with good and bad music) apart from what I just said it does?
Last thing to conclude this first part, I have always said that the band “The Police” aren’t crap…and I HATE The Police…but I would be an idiot to let my feelings and arbitrary likes and dislike get in the way of looking at the great number of redeemable qualities a band like The Police ACTUALLY have (and I’ve never even looked into what’s been said about them…although my impression is that they’ve been well received over the years). On the same token, I’ve admitted to liking a Backstreet Boys song, and lots of other music that most people consider crap. But hey…I just do. Still though, I could go on for hours about how much the Backstreet Boys’ music actually sucks.
Now, I’m not saying this is the case for all of you or making it the core of my argument, but maybe some of you might consider that why you like the music you do, is simply because you do…and consider that because you hate a band, it might not necessarily mean they suck…but that you just hate them. Still though, I think a lot of people get worried about the idea of crap and non-crap music, ‘cause then that would mean if they liked something that ends up getting widely considered crap, it says something about them or their taste…but I don’t even think that’s the case. Aging this isn’t everybody, and I’m not pointing to this as the core of my argument…I just wanted to add it in as something to think about.
Now for part 2, the philosophical part of my argument…
As I said earlier in response to someone saying stuff like “well you can’t PROVE that there’s crap and non-crap music” or “it’s all just opinion”…then sure, I said “you can’t PROVE certain things don’t exist…but that doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t…it just means we don’t have any proof. Much like we don’t have PROOF God exists…so then what…therefore he doesn’t? Is that what you’re saying? He DOES NOT exist because we don’t have proof? That’s a pretty bold statement about God, but also simply about truth.”
So again, I’m saying certain things can be true even though they simply can’t be proven.
In this case, I think there is a truth about music. I think there is truly crap music, and non-crap music. I think that this truth about music either simply just exists, or has been created by a higher power…doesn’t matter…I think it’s there.
The idea is similar to what Plato says about “forms”.
In brief, Plato would argue that the meaning we use when we say “justice”, isn’t really what justice “truly” is”. He says that there is an “ideal form” of “justice” that exists…it exists, apart from what we experience in our world. He says that this cannot be proven, or even necessarily fully grasped, but argues that it simply must exist in reality.
Plato says that the meaning we use when we say “justice” is only just a representation of what is “truly” justice. The only “true” justice can be found in the “ideal form” of “justice”. So, the meaning we use when we say “justice” is only just a representation that’s inadequate
The reason Plato argues this is because, since there has been no example of perfect justice by any nation in the past for us to go by (since nation to nation it varies), then the meaning we use when we say “justice” can then not be perfect…’cause their simply hasn’t been a perfect example of justice to go by to define it as such
So if the meaning we use when we say “justice” can’t be perfect, it then couldn’t be used as a standard to determine something like the difference between…say…a tyrant and a saint (in how “just” they each are).
Now, just as an aside, some of you might be thinking…"who’s to say there’s a difference between a tyrant and a saint in how ‘just’ they each are…it’s all relative”…very much a sort of thing we’ve differed on in the past. This will be addressed in a bit, but for now, I just have to continue with my explanation of how the “ideal form” works.
Plato says that a difference between how “just” a tyrant and a saint are REALLY exists (even if we could never point to what exactly the difference is)…and then, something else HAS TO exist to determine this claim. The only other thing that this thing which “HAS TO exist” could be, would be the “ideal form” of “justice”…which then COULD be used (unlike the imperfect meaning we use for “justice”) as a standard to determine the difference between a tyrant and a saint. Also, because it is then the thing that can point to this difference which is said to be real…then it is real. And as I said earlier, using the “ideal form” of “justice” doesn’t mean we can “point to” what the difference is between a tyrant and a saint in how “just” they each are …it would just simply be able to give us a difference (unlike the imperfect meaning we use for “justice” could), and thus making it real, since it has proven something that is said to be real…a difference.
So…just to be clear…Plato says that the “ideal form” of “justice” HAS TO exist, otherwise a difference between a tyrant and a saint in how “just” they are wouldn’t REALLY exist (because a difference couldn’t be proven…not without the “ideal form” of “justice”). So because the difference between a tyrant and a saint has to REALLY exist (according to Plato), then the “ideal form” of “justice” which proves that difference has to really exist.
And just to quickly make a modern day comparison…if this isn’t the case, then this would mean there wouldn’t be a difference between Hitler and Mother Theresa in how “just” they each are. That’s why an ideal form” of “justice” is said to HAVE TO exist…to show that real difference that is said is there. And again, an “ideal form” doesn’t or isn’t meant to point to what exactly that difference is...but it has to simply exist just to show a difference which is said is really there and must be proven as such.
Now as I said earlier I would address....people might be having a problem with this whole idea that there even is such a thing as a difference between a tyrant and a saint in how “just” they each are…it’s relative. That’s what many of you would be arguing.
There are a lot of people who would argue there’s a difference between a tyrant and a Saint…there’s a lot of people who would argue that there is a good and bad/right and wrong…and I am one of those people. Really, the argument…the whole argument…what this all really comes down to is what we believe regarding universal truths about right and wrong/“just” and “unjust”/crap and non-crap…standards that we can go by to prove a difference that’s being argued is really there. And as was explained, the “ideal form” of something…the perfect standard…is the ONLY thing that could point to this difference.
So here’s the comparison then…much like Plato said there MUST be an “ideal form” of “justice” because there MUST be something to prove the REAL difference that exists between a tyrant and a saint (what the imperfect meaning we use for “justice” couldn’t do), I have said there has to be an “ideal form” of “music”, because something HAS TO be able to prove the REAL difference that exists between Jimi Hendrix’s and Ashlee Simpson’s music in how good/crap it is (which again, is something that simply the imperfect meaning we use for “music” can’t do). Otherwise, there IS no difference between them… and nothing apart from an “ideal form” could point to a difference…which is why I think there has to be an “ideal from”.
Now, in terms of the whole relative thing, I see it as this…it doesn’t matter if Ashlee Simpson says her music’s good. Whether it’s crap or not is a separate issue …that’s how I see it. And relating to the tyrant vs. saint example (where how “just” they each are can be argued as being relative and that there’s not even such a thing as a difference between them), I find it interesting how some people pull the “well, that person might think what they’re doing is ‘just’" card…as if THAT has any value with the matter at hand. Hitler’s actions weren’t ‘just”. I really worry when people suggest that there's actually something to be said about people who think what they're doing is ok because they see it as a good thing. People really confuse "thinking that what you're doing is good" as somehow being on par with “doing good". Well, I say there’s a difference. And because there’s a difference, there has to be an “ideal form” of “justice” to prove such a difference. It doesn’t matter what Hitler simply thought regarding how good his actions were (as he ordered people to be gassed and stuck in ovens). There’s a difference between THAT and what mother Theresa did. And to be clear…on the same token I’d have to say it doesn’t even matter what Mother Theresa thought about how good her actions were. There IS a difference between THOSE actions and Hitler’s. But…according to some of you, it’s all relative…who’s to say there’s a difference.
So just to clarify…saying there IS a difference, there then has to be a standard…one that simply exists…to prove a difference…and that’s where the “ideals forms” of things come in…to prove a difference. It doesn’t matter what Ashlee Simpson thinks regarding how good her music is. There IS a difference between her music and Jimi Hendrix’s regardless of what she thinks…that’s my argument.
Now I just want to tie this all in to the first part of my argument….
There are reasons Hitler’s actions are considered to be bad…and it is because of the many COMMON things a large majority point to and say “this is bad because of this, this, and this”. There are reasons Ashlee Simpson’s music is consider crap…and again, it is because of the many COMMON things a large majority point to and say “this is crap because of this, this, and this”.
So there are determining factors in all of these cases…but remember what I said about opinion and determining factors? So much in the same way I argue that the person who might just listen to music on their way to work or listen to the odd cd COULD very well say “Well…I don’t think Ashlee Simpson’s music is crap”, a Nazi general COULD very well say “Well…I don’t think Hitler is bad”. Those two could each say that.
Hmmm.
Now…in the end…if we are left with a split on whether or not we believe there can REALLY be a difference between good or bad, and REALLY be a difference between a tyrant and a saint, and REALLY be a difference between Jimi Hendrix and Ashlee Simpson (something I say exists and most of you would argue doesn’t because there is no proof), then what exactly is in your corner?
If you’re saying there aren’t these standards that exist because there is no proof and no facts, then as I pointed out earlier you are also really saying something like God (who could be something that creates standards of good and bad/ right and wrong) does not exist…because there is no proof. And I’m NOT saying here that there’s a God that DOES then exist simply because we can’t prove otherwise…I’m just talking about a standard simply existing in reality…as Plato says. It just “is”. But you’re essentially saying is that there is NO God BECAUSE there has to be PROOF of it. Well, that’s pretty bold. You ARE really saying that with this argument. And you are also saying all that other stuff…Ashlee Simpson’s music IS just as good as Jimi Hendrix’s (because there REALLY is no difference there), Hitler IS just as good and “just” a person as Mother Theresa (because there REALLY is no difference there), etc…And again, you ARE saying this…there’s no way you couldn’t be according to your argument.
BUT, if there IS a difference as I claim there is, then there would HAVE to also be a standard to prove a difference…(and again, not so it can point out what the differences are…but just something that would prove a difference).
There is an ideal standard of music that exists. And the point of this standard itself isn’t to determine the REASONS Ashlee Simpson’s music is crap and Jimi Hendrix’s isn’t…it’s simply to show the difference that’s there. But some people will say there is no difference there…therefore, no crap music.
…..
So…I have shown the differences regarding opinion in music…I have shown how when it comes to informed opinion there is an overwhelming agreement on the reasons why certain music is LARGELY considered crap…I have shown why these reasons themselves are best determined by those with informed opinions…and I have taken all this stuff about opinions/standard of music/determining crap and on-crap, and showed how it applies when there is a difference of opinion regarding other things (due to standards being argued for there as well). A difference is being said to exist…but admitted it can’t be proven (not without an actual standard existing). So either a standard doesn’t exist and there’s no real difference between Ashlee Simpson and Jimi Hendrix/Hitler and Mother Theresa/etc (due to no proof), or there ARE these differences.
THAT’S what I have to argue why a standard MUST exist and that music CAN be crap. And what you have is…“there’s no proof, so there’s nothing to that”….kinda like there’s no proof of God so therefore he DOES NOT exist…(which as I said earlier maybe he doesn’t…but not with reasoning).
Maybe read that bit again so it’s crystal clear.
Now, if someone was to choose between these two things, (barring they’re not omnipotent, know the answer to all things, have perfect logic, reasoning, and knowledge)…what they would have to look at is the one side that has an enormous amount of reasons why Ashlee Simpson’s music is crap, and them other side that says there’s no facts so she isn’t crap.
...(and I'm just guessing that a certain someone in particular is gonna use every sneaky tactic and make every rude comment he can think of to try and show people he's right all the time as he usually does...so...here's hopin' it's a good discussion...meaning, tone it down.)
Thanks
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Apr 27th, 2007 at 06:14 AM
Saying something doesn't exist because there isn't proof, is like saying God DOES NOT exist becasue there isn't proof. Maybe he doesn't...but no with THAT reasoning.
Crap music exists, even if there isn't proof.
So...I think I'll stay out of it until everyone has said their piece
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Apr 27th, 2007 at 06:41 AM
I only read the first few sentences before I realised that no matter what you've typed, I disagree with it because you make me cringe like no other man or woman could.
Holy shit, I want to saw my finger-nails off.
__________________ Full fathom five thy father lies;
Of his bones are coral made;
Those are pearls that were his eyes:
Nothing of him that doth fade
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.
I don't even have to read all that just to say this:
Does music have to be top quality to like it? This is like trying to tell people they have guilty pleasures all over again. People are going to have opinions, educated or not. Some will hold water, some won't. Either way, they won't tarnish an artists legacy, change anyone's personal basis for their opinion or make a huge impact in any regard.
Let people think how they want and move on. Stop trying to figure people's thought processes out. It's a waste of time.
Last edited by Cory Chaos on Apr 27th, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Undoubtedly people will probably vote for you and against you because you did post all that, not me.
Well, I read everything you've had to say and admittedly I do find it a feat that you went to the effort to type all that, but I feel sorry for you also, because quite simply; Nothing has changed.
Your argument revolves around you believing one man is factually and truthfully wrong for liking Ashlee Simpson's music, and saying it's good, and the answer is; He's not.
I agree on the point above, actually. I am agnostic, I don't say God doesn't exist because I don't have the proof to make such a statement, I don't say he does because of the same reasons, which you are effectively doing. You're not saying "There might be an objective standard that we can't prove.", you're saying "There is, and you're all wrong for disagreeing.", which places YOU on the unfortunate end of the argument, the wrong side.
What YOU are doing is basing your entire argument around a "higher power" or something like that having the ability to judge music. Crap music only exists as far as the person's ability to think it's crap. You said yourself, your belief that there is an objective standard comes from the idea of a higher power making the call. The belief in such a power ITSELF is subjective, let alone the call it would be making. Do you not see that?
If someone thinks Ashlee Simpson is good, no matter how many of us agree on the fact that we think she's shit (Because that's all it mean, that we agree that we think she's shit.), it doesn't make him wrong.
You have the inability to consider the fact that, despite posting all of that, you are still debating from the factually incorrect point.
You posted so much, then summarised your argument, and it's still wrong.
The fact that I can type what I am, with proof, as we all have, proves my point. You keep ending lines with "That's how I see it.", and we're aware, but just like Ashlee Simpson saying her music is good doesn't make it factually so, YOU saying that you see it a certain way, because you somehow believe you are on par with Plato, does not mean that's how it is.
There is no objective standard of quality in music, and putting a video next to another video is just propaganda. EVERYONE will say Jimi over Ashlee, everyone, almost. That does not prove your point, and it's a misleading, sly tactic. The MUSIC is not factually or truthfully, or objectively (Whichever word you wanna use.) in either case.
You need to accept the fact that you can't tell people "Accept what you like is crap, even though you like it.", and it's just a ridiculously non-sensical argument. If you like something, you do not think it's crap, and the reason YOU, EPIIIBITES, say these things is simple; You want to beat people to the punch. You want to be respected and feel as if you say that, we'll all go "Oh well at least he thinks she's crap.", well you're wrong.
You like whatever you like, and liking something doesn't make it objectively good, it makes it subjectively so, which is all there is. So when all is said and done, you posted a mammoth argument and it's nothing but an exercise in futility, because there will never be objectively good music, it will always be down to taste.
I've read what you've wrote, and it should be said, to lesser readers, the fact that he wrote a lot does not make him right.
So where will we go from here? Back to; "No, you don't get it.", "Yes we do, *Proof you're wrong*.", "Still don't understand."? You're wrong, Ep. That's one thing that's NOT subjective, you are wrong.
For all your posting (Which I did read.), you still gave us your OWN quick version, YOUR OWN, and in both cases, you provide a sorely and fatally weak argument void of any proof, but full of floppy explanations, for someone who's trying to proof a non-existent undeniable truth.
If people do agree with you, the chances are because they haven't thought about it, and I've proven that twice here. Anyone taking it into account will not be so ridiculous, because you're on the wrong end of the stick. I see what you're trying to say, but it's wrong.
You're precisely right when you say our logic is why we disagree, because it's illogical and very stupid to suggest anything otherwise. Don't get me wrong, I CAN see why people, without thinking, would agree with you. Jimi Vs Ashlee? Psh, right? But no. Because if you actually get into it, as we have all proven, it's totally subjective, not matter how CLOSE to a fact it appears to be, it never is. Ever.
Also, when you inevitably reply rehashing the same thing again, please have the decency to reply to all of what we've said, or nothing at all, because if you expect people to fully read what you've posted, you owe it to afford attention to every part of a reply, not quote and reply to that which you like.
The essential problem is that you use lack of proof of a negative, and Plato's forms argument as your main backing. One is worthless, the other is just an idea.
You apply them to the idea of music; namely that there is an ideal form of music. That is a silly idea, and Plato's version of it is just as improbable.
Music is an art. Art is completely based upon critical reaction. Those critical reactions are often largely congruous, but that comes down to political, social, educational and cultural factors. Nothing factual. Agreement by shared experience, not by magically pointing at a Platonic form of music.
Have you ever seen Dadaist art? If not, you should think about the following point[s] you made in relation to it:
The dynamics of art involve the consumer, and as such it can never be objectively good or bad, because there is no ideal consumer. There are only tides of consensus.
__________________
Last edited by Victor Von Doom on Apr 27th, 2007 at 01:49 PM
This point is one that I wanted to particularly address when going back over your posts.
That's not what anybody is saying and you're proving that ironically, YOU do not understand.
Nobody is saying anybody is factually as good as anybody else, that is the point. Nobody is trying to match your claims and say Ashlee Simpson is factually as good as Hendrix.
What's being argued is that it is entirely up to the listener to decide if they think it's good music or crap music, for themselves. You said that OUTSIDE OF TASTE there is an objective standard, there isn't. Nobody is saying what you suggested, you got it all twisted.
I'd never saying Ashlee Simpson's music is as good as Hendrix's, but someone might, and they aren't wrong, nor are they right. It's all opinion, which YOU seem to think we're saying just to be nice, but that's not true either, it's just the way things go.
It's all to easy to see the name "Hendrix", being compared with "Ashlee Simpson" and instantly knee-jerk and go "Oh well it's a fact that...", no, it's not. The man is a factually more talented musician, that does not mean Foxy Lady is factually better than La La to every listener.
As for the poll, it doesn't prove anything. It didn't prove anything when I created it, it proves nothing now. The fact that people might click "Agree." doesn't mean anything to the debate, because the one and only CRUCIAL, ESSENTIAL truth here, is that you are in the wrong, EP. I commend you for trying, but really now...
__________________ Full fathom five thy father lies;
Of his bones are coral made;
Those are pearls that were his eyes:
Nothing of him that doth fade
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.
KMC Community Forums
Apr 27th, 2007 05:51 AM
