Circa 1982, Who *Was* Fleetwood Mac?

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

...but Only Over You is the only song from her I truly despise. Sorry, Hillary.

It's okay because you're perfect in every other respect.

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by Dreammms

I was wondering where you were. Glad to see you back and I am sorry about all your computer problems.

Thanks. Eight days off-line was really hard! It had been about 4 years since my last reformat, so it was time anyway. The trojans all (afaik) came in emails, all labeled "eBay fraud". I'm now looking at all my emails on my server's site, deleting what I don't want, THEN downloading them. Damned viruses!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

No, you doubt my sincerity enough for the both of us whenever I partake in a conversation dealing with Nicks. I post a review that isn't flattering towards her material on one particular album and I'm accused of intentionally trying to slam her so that I can feign shock when my post is interpreted that way, and then scramble to profess my love & adoration for her just to be contrary.

But then you implied confession to the contrary and I accepted that

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

Thanks. Eight days off-line was really hard! It had been about 4 years since my last reformat, so it was time anyway. The trojans all (afaik) came in emails, all labeled "eBay fraud". I'm now looking at all my emails on my server's site, deleting what I don't want, THEN downloading them. Damned viruses!

Man, I really haven't been around here as much I have wanted to be so I hardly notice when someone is gone for eight days! I'm so sorry you had computer troubles. Damn, that's annoying. Glad that you're here.

[David]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

So, did I effectively argue that, objectively speaking, "Tusk" is better than something I would write?

No, that's still an opinion. That's not objective; it's subjective. "Better" & "worse" are judgments that come out of people's preferences & personalities & everything else that makes them people. Besides, my friend Brian Danks, who hates Fleetwood Mac, might think your music is a lot better than "Tusk." And there might be thousands of other people with the same opinion. No matter how many or how few think your songs are worse than Fleetwood Mac's songs, it's still opinion & it's still subjective.

Whether or not I or someone else loves my lame creation more than "Tusk," it's still inferior to "Tusk," right?

People can be of the opinion that it's inferior to "Tusk," but that's subjective. It can't be objectively demonstrated that your lame creation is inferior to "Tusk." There's no way to prove that in a laboratory; there's no litmus test to show that.

Imagine a piece of music with absolutely no composed sounds**: no notes, no musical notation indicating anything for any musician to actually play. Even that isn't "objectively" worse than "Tusk." It's my opinion (& probably yours, too) that it's worse than "Tusk" -- but that's subjective on our part to judge it worse than "Tusk." In other words, our judgment of it is relative to aspects of our own personalities & preferences -- "relative" in the sense that there's a relationship between what we think about it & something about us. All judgments about art are subjective; every judgment is relative (relationship) to something about the person passing that judgment. You can say objective things about music, too -- things like "This song is written in the key of C." That's objective because it isn't related to your tastes or preferences. Regardless of what you think about it, it is in the key of C. That's what makes the key an objective fact about the song.

(**By the way, there is such a piece of music: it's called 4'33" & it was "composed" by John Cage in 1952, & it has been performed all over the world.)

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

Man, I really haven't been around here as much I have wanted to be so I hardly notice when someone is gone for eight days! I'm so sorry you had computer troubles. Damn, that's annoying. Glad that you're here.

Thanks Hillary, I luv ya!

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by David

No, that's still an opinion. That's not objective; it's subjective. "Better" & "worse" are judgments that come out of people's preferences & personalities & everything else that makes them people. Besides, my friend Brian Danks, who hates Fleetwood Mac, might think your music is a lot better than "Tusk." And there might be thousands of other people with the same opinion. No matter how many or how few think your songs are worse than Fleetwood Mac's songs, it's still opinion & it's still subjective.
People can be of the opinion that it's inferior to "Tusk," but that's subjective. It can't be objectively demonstrated that your lame creation is inferior to "Tusk." There's no way to prove that in a laboratory; there's no litmus test to show that.

Imagine a piece of music with absolutely no composed sounds**: no notes, no musical notation indicating anything for any musician to actually play. Even that isn't "objectively" worse than "Tusk." It's my opinion (& probably yours, too) that it's worse than "Tusk" -- but that's subjective on our part to judge it worse than "Tusk." In other words, our judgment of it is relative to aspects of our own personalities & preferences -- "relative" in the sense that there's a relationship between what we think about it & something about us. All judgments about art are subjective; every judgment is relative (relationship) to something about the person passing that judgment. You can say objective things about music, too -- things like "This song is written in the key of C." That's objective because it isn't related to your tastes or preferences. Regardless of what you think about it, it is in the key of C. That's what makes the key an objective fact about the song.

(**By the way, there is such a piece of music: it's called 4'33" & it was "composed" by John Cage in 1952, & it has been performed all over the world.)

I'm still not clear on why something can't be superior from a purely musical standpoint. That doesn't mean that someone can't think it's crap. That would be a preference, obviously. Can't it be "better" or "worse" in that sense only, if nothing else?

I did learn about the Cage piece in my music appreciation course years ago, and I recall how all the students thought it was crappy just from a subjective standpoint, as you can imagine. But, just in the realm of musical complexity, wouldn't it be inferior to "Tusk"? Why is musical complexity not a criterion?

You went offline! I wasn't finished waxing philosophical!!!

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by ReFleetwoodMac

It must be added that 4'33'' also has seperate movements and designated page turns.

Oh yeah! I had forgotten that.

Are you implying that those really add something to the complexity of it? I can't help but see it as a joke.

[David]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

[COLOR=Navy]I'm still not clear on why something can't be superior from a purely musical standpoint.

I don't know what you mean by "purely musical standpoint." Do you mean objectively? No, there's no musical superiority in an objective sense. "Superiority" is a concept based on judgment, & if human beings are doing the judging, it's subjective. Notions of quality in art, in music, are relative to time & place. They aren't eternal objective truths that have no relation to tastes & preferences. To Mediaeval European composers, vocal music was considered more important than instrumental music. Later on, Baroque composers gave primary importance to instrumental music. The fashion changed; what composers considered great was reexamined & revised. Still later on, Romantic composers valued musical freedom above the constraints of form & expression in Baroque writing. The point of all this is the relative nature -- the subjectivity -- of our conceptions of quality in music.

I did learn about the Cage piece in my music appreciation course years ago, and I recall how all the students thought it was crappy just from a subjective standpoint, as you can imagine. But, just in the realm of musical complexity, wouldn't it be inferior to "Tusk"? Why is musical complexity not a criterion?

A criterion for what? I don't understand what you mean, Hillary.

You went offline! I wasn't finished waxing philosophical!!!

Keep waxing, but I need to work.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

It's okay because you're perfect in every other respect.

In the first line.....when she sings "I'm out of my mind" makes me hit the skip button.

[David]

Originally Posted by ReFleetwoodMac

It must be added that 4'33'' also has seperate movements and designated page turns.

I've never seen the score, but I assumed it had some form of direction on it. So I was careful to say that it had no notation that indicated anything for a musician to actually play (although I don't know for certain). It might have directions telling musicians how to sit or whether to cough or, as you say, when to turn the page.

[Dreammms]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

In the first line.....when she sings "I'm out of my mind" makes me hit the skip button.

that's so funny
that's the part that bothers me

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by David

No, that's still an opinion. That's not objective; it's subjective. "Better" & "worse" are judgments that come out of people's preferences & personalities & everything else that makes them people.

Not necessarily. You could say something like "Rumours did better on the album charts than Tusk" and the use of the word "better" wouldn't subjective.

[David]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Not necessarily. You could say something like "Rumours did better on the album charts than Tusk" and the use of the word "better" wouldn't subjective.

Oh, Steve, for chrissake. That's just a manner of speaking -- idiom. Saying "better" in that context doesn't indicate a judgment as to artistic merit. You're stating a fact that's demonstrable by empirical data; it's not subjective because its meaning doesn't rely on personal preference. Just the opposite: no matter what my "Rumours"-hating friends think about it, "Rumours" was No. 1 album on the Billboard charts. That fact is irrespective of their opinions.

When is your band playing?

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by David

I don't know what you mean by "purely musical standpoint." Do you mean objectively? No, there's no musical superiority in an objective sense. "Superiority" is a concept based on judgment, & if human beings are doing the judging, it's subjective. Notions of quality in art, in music, are relative to time & place. They aren't eternal objective truths that have no relation to tastes & preferences. To Mediaeval European composers, vocal music was considered more important than instrumental music. Later on, Baroque composers gave primary importance to instrumental music. The fashion changed; what composers considered great was reexamined & revised. Still later on, Romantic composers valued musical freedom above the constraints of form & expression in Baroque writing. The point of all this is the relative nature -- the subjectivity -- of our conceptions of quality in music.
A criterion for what? I don't understand what you mean, Hillary.
Keep waxing, but I need to work.

I bet there are eternal objective truths in music and art, you just haven't asked enough questions to identify them, Socrates.

To cite Medieval European composers and say that they valued vocal music over instrumental music doesn't seem applicable because I never pitted genres against each other. That seems obviously flawed.

I'll concede that there may not be an objective truth because of something you mentioned--the changing times. Because of the changing times, few things are constant, including art. But maybe it's possible to judge based on our time exclusively.

Ah, so you're working. I'm not because I'm trying to master the art of procrastination. I think I may qualify as a superior artist in that realm.