 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)big ...and 521 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614087 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No, it only seems to you that I am doing that because you are inferring the totality from an aspect. The thing is that people have some kind of cowardly attitude towards actually discussing taste, and much social psychology research hints at taste not being some not-intersubjective mystical property pertaining only to one single individual. Both cultural specific and cross cultural preferences have been identified, and even though current theories as to why these "matters of taste" are the same across many people are currently incomplete and utterly void of regard for the phenomenological aspect (naturally, as most of social psychology is inherently non-phenomenological), that doesn't alter the fact - that taste is not only shared, but predictable, making it open to discussion. Just because there's some romantic notion that music is "art" and not "craft," and thus not susceptible to being classified as being of good or bad quality, that doesn't mean that it is so. It's interesting how all arguments to this effect limit themselves to variations of "it's a matter of taste," never going beyond and explaining why or how it is possible for something to be "only a matter of taste." I am afraid that this is mostly due to people not actually knowing why. When it comes to the criteria themselves, so far, I would prefer a normative approach instead of a quantitative approach; a quantitative study of revealed preferences would yield tons and tons of "ready-made" music with little to no consideration for anything but making money. Some sort of panel of seasoned musicians, sound technicians, producers, sound researchers and probably some more people would possibly be able to do the job properly. The problem would be selecting those that are actually fit to do the job. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Pirsig's concept of quality differs from mine, though. His is closer in meaning to the qualia aspect of any experience. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
don't you think if we are to value something that something would require certain rules by which it can be evaluated? and i can see that work in classical music which requires certain rules, but certanly not in terms of popular music..i don't think taste is predictable really..except with an average listener not open to anything different/new |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So until you convene your panel of experts to tell you what to like and why, you have no way of evaluating the quality of a piece of music? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I thought this topic was going to be about the field near to my house. However I will listen to the music and make my mind up. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
this has insired me to create a new word wankunt |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*2 words |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm sorry, you've missed my point. instead of attempting to clarify, i recommend reading slipdrinkmats strategy for music analysis again. the music and your ideas about the music and quality are in your head, nowhere else. imhfo... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"A good quality banana would probably not be brown, undernourished or full of worms, for instance." - Drunken Mastah That's criteria. If quality is judged by taste, then quality is preferential. It wouldn't matter how many experts who would be involved in evaluating the (preferred) quality of a piece of music, since that would only be a preference (matter of taste) made up by a larger group. Would you buy food only because it appeals to your tastes (even though it might be posionous), or because it is healthy food (not poisonous)? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
my thoughts exactly |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Isn't the quality of a thing (be it music, or not) determined by its function? The quality of a car is measured according to its functionality, healthy food has quality because it is healthy, and so on... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
We're talking about quality. It doesn't necessarily affect what you like, but it probably has some sort of relevance; if I just randomly threw some shit together for a four minute wankfest, the fact that the work wouldn't be of good quality would probably also be a good predictor for whether people like it or not. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"i don't think taste is predictable really" Well there's lots of research that indicates that it is. Just look at the psychological research of landscape preferences. I could probably cite articles, but I don't believe it would help. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
resident evil you alive...i thought you'd gone away |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You made no point. To be able to make a point, you have to make an argument. What you have done is just regurgitate some "fact" (or, rather, in your case, allude to it) that has been reiterated so many times that people take it for granted instead of actually making sure it's true. Also, doggy's "argument" is nothing but a straw man, so referring to that isn't helping you. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes, if quality was a matter of taste, but that's a conditional, so the first part has to be true for the argument to be sound. Quality can't really be measured as a form of fulfilling a function either. That's more of a way to determine what a thing is. A good quality thing may do a better job at it, but for a thing to be the thing it is, even a low quality thing will have to be able to fulfil the function it should, if even for only a short amount of time. Quality is a different kind of.. well.. quality. Now, the other thing you say is interesting: Why should music not be subject to the same kind of standards as any other thing when it comes to quality? I'm saying it isn't, you're all saying it is, but you're still not able to say why music should have some sort of superior position. What sets it apart? We determine the quality of carpentry, why should we be unable to determine the quality of music? Why is the carpenter inferior to the musician? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Music is good if you like it. If you like it, that means there is some quality to the music that you like. Whether or not something is "quality" depends on the person doing the listening. Any arguements to the contrary are wrong! End of story, I've won this arguement!! I won teh interwebz!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Nevertheless, finding a banana that is brown to have less quality than a banana that doesn't, is a matter of taste. If the banana is qualified according to its appearance (brownness, undernourishment, etc), it is preferential. A monkey may not be very picky with the bananas browness, for instance. To what ends? Ultimately the function of whatever you're supposed to be doing with the banana, is what determines whether or not it has a good quality (set to the specific task), no? Mashed bananas, making a banana shell to pull a prank on a friend, giving it to a monkey, throwing it at the wall, etc... The quality of a carpet is determined by its function as well. Its size, fabric, texture, placement, etc, ...all determined by its function. Function determines quality, the quality of an object is determined by its function. I believe we can qualify music as long as it's determined by its function. An 808-drum machine doesn't sound as a 909, which is not its purpose, or function, hence qualifiying the 909 as a bad 808 is getting the premises wrong. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The 808-analogy is an example, only. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No, a good quality banana is one that has been properly grown or something, but that doesn't mean you can't like bad quality bananas, or that it's some kind of deadly sin to like it (it is, however, as I said, probably not entirely unrelated). The appearance is usually an indicator of something else (a brown banana is one that is starting to decay), and, as such, is only a sign pointing to the banana being of poor quality. And once again, no, the function is important only in regards to the thing being the thing it is while the quality is more likely to be related to other things of that kind. You're mistaking quality for essence. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You're pretty good at enumerating the criteria for high quality bananas. For music, not so good. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if I just randomly threw some shit together for a four minute wankfest, Horseshit. A good musician can make up something off the top of his head that will blow you away, and a bad musician can work on a tune for a year and it will still suck. Time spent on music is no indicator of quality. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"while the quality is more likely to be related to other things of that kind." why do people listen to music? isn't it to evoke some emotions in them? let's say that a group of selected music experts would determine all sorts of highly positive things about certain piece that would imply quality but it would still completly lack the emotional component. what sort of quality is that if it fails to deliver the essential purpose of music? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
let's say that a group of selected music experts would determine all sorts of highly positive things about certain piece that would imply quality but it would still completly lack the emotional component. what sort of quality is that if it fails to deliver the essential purpose of music? This is, in fact, the exact situation we're confronting with The Field drawing consensus praise from music critics - a council of DM's musical philosopher kings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This has turned into semantric bollocks. I know, you know, when you hear good music. That's it. But...... I really know good music. The best bits, everyone else is clueless.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, they're obviously the wrong group of experts if their opinion doesn't match drunken mastah's opinion on quality. innit |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ha, you were 19 before you made quality music, Drunken Mastiff made it at 14, 5 years before, LOOSER!!!1! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah. The emphasis should be on "randomly," "shit" and "wankfest." Four minutes was supposed to be the track length, but still irrelevant. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, if they were indeed like Plato's philosopher kings, ideally, they wouldn't make that mistake, but is it just me who's bad at it, or doesn't anyone speak English any more? Have I not stated explicitly the relationship between quality and taste/liking something? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Once again, the problem seems to be with the English language. Did I say I made quality music when 14, or was the whole point not that what I made at 14 (and probably also now) was utter shit? I still enjoyed making it, though, but aside from not actually wanting to do it for a living, even if I wanted to, I'd make sure I actually made quality before even attempting to do something with it; there's so much wank around, and sometimes you just have to wonder if the world really needs "another [insert whatever]," and if this group of imbeciles being lucky enough to make it because they hit the market at the right time couldn't have actually contributed to something slightly more useful than another fucking indie love song? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Once again, a mix up with good and quality. Not the same thing, and not reducible to each other, but probably interrelated in some way. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
in that case why do we determine quality at all? what does it tell us? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i mean if it doesn't determine whether something is good or not, then it is pretty much a pointless term.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What, is the world black and white now? Quality alone doesn't determine anything. It's not some either/or thing. It's and. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah, I'm still here. I think I'll always be here, I just lurk a lot. :] |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
why can't you just explain the meaning of quality? i mean that would solve this whole issue.. that banana example shows that people came up with term 'quality' only for marketing purposes..to sell something of 'quality' by higher price. dunno how this relates to music though..and neither do you it seems |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it relates perfectly to music, just look at the quality music people are buying these days. life is great. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Quality pertains to the craft part of the thing or trade in question. It is often (but not always) attained by being meticulous, by being well trained or proficient in the trade and a few other things of the same nature. The list is probably very long, and many subtle variations exist because it would depend on what sort of thing we are to determine the quality of, but you should be able to catch the drift from that explanation. It has indeed been used as a marketing tool, but that's a perverted use in which the concept has lost all significant meaning. You also got back to the point (the quality discussion is actually quite irrelevant). I asked earlier what sets music apart from other things, and why we shouldn't be able to determine its quality as we would with that of carpentry, but no-one seems able to answer. I was kind of hoping to find someone to prove me wrong, which wouldn't be too hard (as I agree with you), but no-one seems to have actually given this any thought; you're all just regurgitating the unsubstantiated belief that music is something special while actually giving credence to the claim is no difficult task (although not accomplished by any of the arguments put forth thus far). Instead of going on, I'll just wait for someone to spend a single joule of energy on giving it some thought. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i still don't know why we need to establish the quality of something if what you say in the first paragraph is true. i mean, i can understand what you're saying there but that means 'quality' is a completly pointless term. but im sure there are people who enjoy things only because they were made by someone well trained..eventhough the final product will be completly useless and it won't give them any satisfaction at all. the thing that sets carpentry and music appart is the carpentry products may have a practical value while that doesn't apply to musical product. and if there's a practical value to things it's easier to establish their quality i guess..as it is much more likely to find a consensus. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
btw, can you explain a difference between a good quality chair and a bad quality chair? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, if they were indeed like Plato's philosopher kings, ideally, they wouldn't make that mistake, Sure they would. Plato was full of shit. State sponsored art / music is always shit and people who try to dictate taste are . I asked earlier what sets music apart from other things, and why we shouldn't be able to determine its quality as we would with that of carpentry, but no-one seems able to answer. Velvet Underground is music of high quality even though the musicians could barely play or sing and only knew rudimentary music theory. A structure built by a carpenter of equal skill would collapse and kill its occupants. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i know a response you will get; "you confuse good with quality". classical music can be of good quality though as it is carefuly crafted. i guess. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What DM is calling "quality" is for shit if the music isn't also good. Failure to recognize a distinction between art and craft is endemic to electronic music fandom. I don't care for The Field much but at least he isn't trying to be the Yngvie Malmsteen of the laptop. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
let's have a vote: do you like the field? 1) yes 2) no 3) it's like a banana |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
right..term quality has a lot of different meanings and we haven't even determined which one are we discussing here. obviously dm is thinking of one definition and everyone else of another. i mean quality in its most basic meaning means "a degree or grade of excellence or worth" and to establish that you need to know the purpose of the thing to be avaluated. either that or the term is so very bastract everyone can have their own understanding of quality. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's not a pointless term. Quality is a good tool for deciding, for instance, on what carpenter to select for fixing your house, on what food to buy, etc, etc. You rely on some concept of quality each day, and most of them aren't even, as you seem to claim, subjective preferential criteria, but intersubjectively constituted criteria, being as good as it gets when it comes to being objective. Also, again you keep to the black/white thing where quality for some absurd reason seems to stand alone, and in opposition to preferences and taste. Your distinction between carpentry and music is, again, just a more elaborate way of regurgitating the same shit. You have to actually think about it, you have to actually make an argument. Also, is there no practical value to music, and is there no aesthetic value to carpentry? Again: What sets them apart (or, more generally, what separates music from all other things?). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah... I have a friend who's a professional chef. He went to chef's school and learned how to do things really well that were the criteria for passing, like cutting vegetables into exactly the same size pieces for garnish. But he's a terrible chef and you wouldn't want to eat his bland, boring meals. I prefer the cooking at a cheap Chinese cafe where the vegetables are all in different size chunks but the food tastes awesome. If you ask me which one is better quality I'd have to really step outside myself and stretch to see the bland consistently sized vegetables as better quality. The thing about art vs. craft is that art is primarily dishonest and craft is primarily honest. You go to a play or a movie wanting to escape into the illusion. With craft, if the "quality" is illusory, like gold plating on a cheap piece of jewelry, you feel cheated. That's why Velvet Underground is so good artistically and lots of music where the musicians play really, really well technically speaking, like Bela Fleck, is horrible artistically / aesthetically... you don't necessarily want a gold standard of craftsmanship. You want something that creates a particular impression. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Sure they would." Not really. They're ideal, which, by definition, means they would do a pretty good job at what they were supposed to do. It's like arguing with a christian that god isn't almighty because it's inconcieveable to us that he could create a rock big enough for himself not to be able to lift it - and then lift it; to the christian, god would, by definition, be able to do this without contradiction. When it comes to velvet underground and carpenters, your example doesn't really illustrate anything. The relevant features to be considered to see if something is quality wouldn't be the same across all kinds of things because not all things are one and the same thing or kind of thing. It should be noted, however, that this does not automatically imply that certain things are so special that it would be impossible to subject them to the concept of quality. Quality, in its most general form, is a structural concept. It shouldn't be so hard to disprove me, as it isn't hard to convince someone who agrees with you, but even then you all seem unable to do so. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Failure to actually know why art and craft are different (and why they're not) is endemic to almost all of society, IDMer or not. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
holy shit shut up. lets talk about the field. from here we go sublime is a fantastic album. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
