Best Singer of All Time is...

[JoeWhip]

Let’s have a group Zoom session so we can chill and return to peace, love and understanding!

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours ago, botrytis said:

Let's see if Britney can last this long

 

On the other hand, most people don't want to work at 74 years old. Brittney likely has more money than she'll ever need and can retire at any time. Her Vegas residency brings in tons of money and she doesn't even have to travel. Smart career choice.

[daverich4]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I actually suspect they wouldn't. 

 

Think about it, there are no criteria for creating art and no goals that all artists strive for when creating art. Thus, there can be no such thing as objectively better. 

There absolutely are criteria for judging art as a quick Google search for that term would show you. And yes, there are goals that artists strive for. Invoking a feeling and communicating an idea are just two that come to mind. 

[sphinxsix]

8 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

This makes no sense to me. If the artists were trying to create the same thing, based on a reference standard, then we could look at their versions and compare how close they came to the reference. 

 

Why would you compare harmonic and rhythmic complexity? You don't even know what the goal of each artist was at the time of song creation and which is better, more or less complex? 

 

You certainly aren't saying the most complex is the best right? The most complex is the most complex. That's it. 

 

I said we could start with comparing harmonic and rhythmic complexity of both pieces, it obviously doesn't have to be a decisive factor in evaluation of music but may be one of them.

As for Mozart's and Britney's goals connected with 'Ooops' and Requiem creation I somehow tend to think they were more than a little different..

C'mon Chris, this was you who actually had made me realized some time ago on 'Music in General' what contemporary pop is about and how mechanized the creative process usually is in this case.

Once again - comparing Britney Spears and Mozart for me is like comparing Space Shuffle Columbia and a cheap Fiat.. Both are necessary but their roles, constructional sophistication and complexity, historical meaning etc just can't be compared. Period.

I must say that if it gets too far off for me, it probably means that it really got far off here this time.. 

Let's stop here, ok?

I think I also might need some therapy session at this point..

@GregWormald have you ever worked with audiophile patients e.g. via Zoom.? How much would that eventually cost.? Does desktop speakers quality matter in such situation.? 

 

[gmgraves]

21 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi George, I definitely hear you on this one but I get heebie jeebies thinking about taste makers deciding which art is better. I’m willing to bet we all know some artists that are far better, in our opinions, than those who got popular, but these guys remained mostly unknown. 
 

Album tracks are often better than officially released tracks as well. 

It really doesn’t matter if we are comfortable with this “collective taste“ or not. These decisions are made for us, decisions about greatness, whether it’s art, artists or famous people are made by those who set themselves up as the arbiters of what’s good and what’s not. For instance, our school systems dry clean our national heroes for us almost to the point of canonization. We grow up in the US believing that, for instance, Thomas Edison and Henry Ford were gods. Now we find out that Edison was a tireless self-promoter, plagiarist, charlatan and all around unpleasant fellow who passed off the work of others (like Tesla) as his own. Then there’s the real Henry Ford who was a viscous anti-Semite who blamed the Jews for all the evil and trouble in the world and who hired thugs to keep the unions out of his company by any means at their disposal, including physical violence!
While there is no doubt that the “gods of classical music“ were geniuses, the fact that they are still remembered, still performed, hundreds of years after they are gone, is probably as much a product of the art establishment’s regard for these people, as it is of the quality of their bodies of work.

Now, I tend to agree with those who praise the work of the classical European composers (and their American counterparts), and I believe that they deserve their reputations, but I disagree with those who use the longevity of their bodies of work as proof of their superiority over contemporary artist/performers. We don’t (and can’t) know how future generations will view the music of the 20th and 21st centuries. For all we know, Snoop Dog or Micheal Jackson will be hailed, 200 years hence, as the Mozarts of their time (although, personally, I hope not)! But entropy is real and one can watch the decline in the quality of popular music over the last century. We went from the pop songs of Gershwin and Cole Porter and performers like Glenn Miller and Benny Goodman to rap and hip-hop which seem to dissect music down to it’s two basic elements, the lyrics (doggerel poetry) and a beat. While it’s certainly not my cup of tea (by any stretch of the imagination), many millions of the younger generation seem to like it a lot (otherwise it wouldn’t be “popular” by definition). The fact that people like me can’t and/or don’t appreciate it as art, is neither here nor there, and it has always been that way.

[sphinxsix]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Which is better? Both paintings and both pointillism.

 

 

 

I choose Seurat (bottom, most likely much higher price of the two) and also choose to sell it immediately cause I'm not a huge fan of his art. BTW IMO the pointillism of the upper one is a little suspicious..

 

 

[AudioDoctor]

4 hours ago, PYP said:

 

how about a group session?  seems we could use it.  

 

My Parents, who are also Psychiatrists, don't think group sessions are any good.

[AudioDoctor]

3 hours ago, JoeWhip said:

Let’s have a group Zoom session so we can chill and return to peace, love and understanding!

 

That would be hilarious!

 

BYOB

[AudioDoctor]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Which is better? Both paintings and both pointillism.

 

 

 

Completely unrelated, but its all I have art related...  I won 1st place in my HS art fair whatever for a pointillism I did of a squirrel.

[Mayfair]

48 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

I choose Seurat (bottom, most likely much higher price of the two) and also choose to sell it immediately cause I'm not a huge fan of his art. BTW IMO the pointillism of the upper one is a little suspicious..

 

 

I agree with your preference and also about your suspicion about whether the upper one is pointillist.  I don't think so, either.

 

https://collections.artsmia.org/art/1721/frank-chuck-close

 

although there are other works by this artist that are pointillist. 

 

(PS - sorry about the multiple image uploads and my following post which has another copy of the image - I was trying to delete the extra image and wound up duplicating it accidentally)

 

@computeraudiophile - if it's not too much trouble, could you please delete the extra and my following accidental post)?

 

 

[Mayfair]

[The Computer Audiophile]

58 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

There absolutely are criteria for judging art as a quick Google search for that term would show you. And yes, there are goals that artists strive for. Invoking a feeling and communicating an idea are just two that come to mind. 

I’m an artist and don’t strive for those goals. I mustn’t be as good as those who conform. 
 

Plus, invoke a feeling in who and communicate an idea to who, the judges? Pearl Jam music did this to me in the 90s but certainly didn’t do either to most people on planet Earth. 
 

It’s all preposterous. 
 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, sphinxsix said:

C'mon Chris, this was you who actually had made me realized some time ago on 'Music in General' what contemporary pop is about and how mechanized the creative process usually is in this case.

It’s still the case and I’m arguing the other side on this one because nobody else seems willing to admit that aren’t can’t be judged with a straight face and in good conscience. 
 

The bottom line for me is that no art is better than other art. Some has more cultural impact, longer staying power, is more copied, etc... but that doesn’t make it better. Better in your eyes is fine, but that doesn’t make it better objectively.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, sphinxsix said:

 

I choose Seurat (bottom, most likely much higher price of the two) and also choose to sell it immediately cause I'm not a huge fan of his art. BTW IMO the pointillism of the upper one is a little suspicious..

 

 

Frank is a cool piece. I’ve seen it here in Minneapolis. Getting really close to it is amazing. I’d say it’s pointillism. 

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Completely unrelated, but its all I have art related...  I won 1st place in my HS art fair whatever for a pointillism I did of a squirrel.

Have you seen the piece at Minneapolis Institute of Art? 
 

Rembrandt’s Lucretia is there as well. Really cool. 

[AudioDoctor]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Have you seen the piece at Minneapolis Institute of Art? 
 

Rembrandt’s Lucretia is there as well. Really cool. 

 

I have not, perhaps I will take a field trip with the family to go see it, and everything else.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 hours ago, JoeWhip said:

You mean a concept sort of like this?

 

 

One of my many failed London Tube photos as it was taken hand held ( i got chucked out for using a tripod).I wanted to get the blurred train with surroundings in focus. I think the sign-board was interesting tho.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I guess my bottom line is this, if art can be objectively judged, then of the two paintings I posted, one must be better. Not “one is my favorite” “one is your favorite” “one has more cultural impact” “one is more famous.” One truly has to be better. 
 

I don’t buy into that view of art, whether on canvas or magnetic tape. 

[ray-dude]

Sigh...this is what happens to the male psyche when locked in the house with no football

 

[JoeWhip]

The Premier League starts in two weeks. Oh, you mean that other form of football? That starts in two weeks too. Go Iggles!

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

27 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It’s still the case and I’m arguing the other side on this one because nobody else seems willing to admit that aren’t can’t be judged with a straight face and in good conscience. 
 

The bottom line for me is that no art is better than other art. Some has more cultural impact, longer staying power, is more copied, etc... but that doesn’t make it better. Better in your eyes is fine, but that doesn’t make it better objectively.  

 

16 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I guess my bottom line is this, if art can be objectively judged, then of the two paintings I posted, one must be better. Not “one is my favorite” “one is your favorite” “one has more cultural impact” “one is more famous.” One truly has to be better. 
 

I don’t buy into that view of art, whether on canvas or magnetic tape. 

 

Okay, I knew it was a vexatious question when I posed it. I don't think I can reconcile the opposing views even in my own head but I do have difficulty with the concept that art cannot be judged, and by judged one considered better based on certain objective criteria.

 

My philosophical post earlier on subjectivity was not entirely tongue-in-cheek. All sensory experience is subjective and it is only by comparing notes with peers that we establish some kind of agreed reality (as opposed to hallucination). That is still sounding obtuse but I will come back to it. There is of course the philosophy that reality exists objectively and outside our experience, irrespective of our perception of it. But as humans we can only sample it and feel we get close to knowing it by comparing with others.

 

So strictly speaking, like so many other things, there cannot be art that is objectively better than other art. Objectively art is just an object and to know the object (as better or not) you have to perceive it which is inherently subjective. You compare your perceptions to those of others. If you take measurements it is an easier comparison. If no quantifiable metric exists I would still argue that there are objective criteria that can be shared among peers.

 

I can't readily accept that my dog walking over a canvas with paint on the paws can be equated with art from Picasso. Sometimes it will turn out to be an impossible comparison and where taste and preference rules but I don't think difficulty in some instances makes it impossible in all instances. Maybe?

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I can't readily accept that my dog walking over a canvas with paint on the paws can be equated with art from Picasso. Sometimes it will turn out to be an impossible comparison and where taste and preference rules but I don't think difficulty in some instances makes it impossible in all instances. Maybe?

I love this paragraph. It really describes the continuum on which art lies. Right next to your dog I'd put anything from Yoko Ono. Not saying which side of your dog on the continuum, but right next to it. I just can't get onboard with specifying a certain brain capacity or IQ in order to create art that is "better" than other art. In order to be better, there must be a common thing for which art strives. That just can't exist.

 

Is the Sistine Chapel better than Dark Side of the Moon? Sounds ridiculous to even consider the question. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I love this paragraph. It really describes the continuum on which art lies. Right next to your dog I'd put anything from Yoko Ono. Not saying which side of your dog on the continuum, but right next to it. I just can't get onboard with specifying a certain brain capacity or IQ in order to create art that is "better" than other art. In order to be better, there must be a common thing for which art strives. That just can't exist.

 

Is the Sistine Chapel better than Dark Side of the Moon? Sounds ridiculous to even consider the question. 

Like I said, sometimes it will be impossible to judge. It will come down to what objective criteria you use and how many of your peers "see it" like you.  "better" can be seen as a relative term agreed upon by peers and not necessarily an absolute objective reality. If it is an objective fact that 90% of art enthusiasts prefer Picasso to Yoko Ono, based on whatever objective criteria, it makes Picasso "better" for practical purposes and as defined in that way.

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

If it is an objective fact that 90% of art enthusiasts prefer Picasso to Yoko Ono

That makes it a preference of the majority of art enthusiasts. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That makes it a preference of the majority of art enthusiasts. 

 

I guess I would call it a choice if the consensus was based on objective criteria and not taste alone. (Legal) Judges can "prefer" some evidence over other evidence if they find it more compelling or of merit, especially if it fits in with some model like a legal precedent. I agree there is no absolute here. It is perception relative to one's peers and perhaps agreed-upon experts, an abstraction by agreement. Some say mathematics is an abstraction. If you prefer/choose the art of Yoko Ono over Picasso then for the sake of argument it might be said that you are out of step with >90% of your peers.

 

All that can really be said is that such agreement is a relative truth not an absolute truth.

[audiobomber]

IMO, Picasso's work was a joke perpetrated on the art world. They still haven't gotten it, but in the future I believe it will be revealed as a hoax. 😶