Jump to content
IGNORED

Article: Easily My Album Of The Year


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, hopkins said:

As for the lyrics, I find them very "banal" as well:

 

I'm lost and lookin' for my baby

Cry for my baby, cryin' all alone
Callin' for you, come home, come home

 

I remember Our first affair 
All the pain

 

Yawn. Count me out 😝

 

lol

Darn near all pop music is written on such feelings. It's not what you sing but how you sing it. The authenticity is what makes the music worthwhile. Del Shannon is a past master imo - but that's just mo.

You don't see verbatim Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Keats, Yates put to music very often!

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, hopkins said:

That's more like it! 

I'll bet that in 50 years time no one will be listening to Cecil McLoren Salvent's contortions but that Johnny Cash will still be appreciated.

 

Not just because Cash's version is better or more musical (opinion), but because "John Henry" is deep Americana. It's folk. It was written in an acoustic mould. It's been sung by many all over the world. It is known culturally in this way. That is more likely to be its trajectory. You can't separate art from culture. Culture carries art. Culture carries much more besides. This is what makes things "appropriate", and nations invest in the Arts accordingly. None of this subtracts from the first principle that appreciation is subjective, and nothing is right or wrong - in the dimension of music anyway. Nobody legislates this. Not even the Taliban. Governments may try. But Governments never last long enough to colour grass roots anything other than green.

Link to comment

This business about and emotion and authenticity vs. technical prowess and performance. I find it a Genre thing as much as anything else.

 

Take “I’d Rather Go Blind” – first released by Etta James in 1967.

 

Obviously a powerful idea in itself. “I’d rather be deprived permanently of my eyesight than to see you with another guy/gal.” You’d hardly dare to jinx such misfortune on yourself unless, at one time at least, you had felt truly, truly desperate – desperate enough to *actually wish it* - as one who has experienced such agony as tragic personal reality/emotional displacement.

 

Now you have or you haven’t. Probably some people do and some people don’t.

 

If you haven’t – you cannot deliver this song authentically. You can deliver it technically. You may be fantastically gifted. Fantastically expert and adept. You may know great sound engineers. You may be able to construct the mother of all audiophile recordings. But in the end you are delivering nothing more than a performance.

 

Someone who has the T-shirt can do better. They can deliver a *vicarious emotional and biographic experience*. The technical credentials of that delivery may be high or low. But the fruit is something qualitatively different. Of course, a gifted person with a blazing T-shirt has most to offer.

 

What are we audio buffs doing when we listen to music? What do we spend our money on? How do we dispose of our precious remaining days?

 

Horses for courses. I am in the “vicarious experience “ camp. I can puff myself up and say I listen for authenticity. Which is true. But I am a “vicarious” monkey because of my human weakness too. People stronger than me are better musicians, better performers – even better listeners for all I know.

 

I can only share what I experience.

 

When I listen to Etta’s studio recording of “I’d Rather Go Blind”, I do not hear agony. By all accounts Etta has a co-writing credit, and she was a heroin addict. Of themselves, those facts are convincing enough. But the performance is not. To my ears, her delivery sounds theoretical. Etta is an accomplished Jazz artist.

 

The opening bars of Chicken Shack’s (1969) version (voc. Christine Perfect) draw me in immediately. Fascinating - you don’t even need human voice to be convinced by music with an attendant idea. I’d rather listen to Christine than Etta. I don’t hear agony in Christine’s voice particularly either. But she does sound more “human” to me. Here we are firmly in the Blues tradition.

 

Rod Stewart’s 1972 version is pretty good. I like it. I expect Rod has had his share of heartbreaks. I’d give this version a pass. Rod has a soaring, growling voice anyway. Maybe it’s just not difficult for him to pull passion out of his boots. And he always has great musicians around him. But in the end – it’s just a Pop song.

 

On a human level I find that Ruby Turner’s Soul vocal from 1986 is more convincing than any of the foregoing. But the octane rating of the whole is not high enough for my personal Jukebox.

 

Here’s Etta Live. No year. But we can assume much water under the bridge since 1967. I don’t think I’d argue with her after this delivery. By this time - listen to her own intro - she’s calling it a “Country & Western” song.

 

 

I confess I don’t listen to much of it – but I don’t think Modern and Contemporary Jazz are “tuned” to agony. They are trying to do something else. Nothing wrong with that. I guess.

Link to comment

Horse's mouth: "Jazz died in 1959."

 

https://www.nola.com/entertainment_life/music/article_1c84dc11-b152-5d72-b2ab-cb53b4a391ca.html

 

"People have no real basis or philosophy that connects jazz to their everyday life," Batiste said. "Jazz has become too much of an intellectual art form that has taken all the visceral and social elements out of the music, therefore taking it philosophically out of the culture."

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, hopkins said:

think of Marcel Duchamp's urinal

 

Eeew. Point taken. Damien Hirst too. Some of DH's sculptures are great. But he has a bad attitude. I have a story about that. Anyway ... musical dead ends. Rockabilly is of its time. 1954-1962 let's just say. You can do Rockabilly now but it's not the same. Partly to do with instruments. That's why people like LP Goldtops for 50s/60s/70s vibe. That's it. It's a vibe. You can produce the vibe only for so long. Then the *culture* has moved on. *But the legacy remains.*

 

My point would be - some genres are lasting in their *influence*. The *evolutionary tree* of music. So the question here is: Will this kind of Contemporary Jazz (and atonal Classical to boot) *evolve* ...

 

... or - as you surmise - dead end themselves.

 

If I were bent to give an answer, I'd go back to the roots idea. You can't change the colour of roots. Folk will survive. Probably longer even than Classical per se. I'd back Country & Western too ;-)

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This Rothko sold for $86.9 million. Art is all subjective. Rothko is no better than any other artist. Many people like Rothko's work and are willing to pay for it, but that has nothing to do with being better or worse. 

 

orange-red-yellow_mark_rothko.jpg

 

Will you admit that you posted that example exactly because you knew that many/most of us would find it preposterous? [not or questionable Art / not worth $87m]

 

... in which case we are leaning towards (but haven't arrived at) objectivity?

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

No, I posted it as illustrative of my point that art is 100% subjective. Some person(s) believe that piece if art is worth that much money. It could be an investment based on historical increases in the price of art, it could the person thinks Rothko is a great painter, it could be endless …

 

I do understand what you're driving at. And in the end you can't argue with the subjective (or with a sick mind as Joe Walsh would say - musical reference not a personal one!)

 

But objective can and probably does mean a common reference point for humans - not an idiosyncratic one.

 

I think you invited a common reference by posting that particular example.

 

And by doing it yourself - defending the subjective position - I thought it even more worth pointing out!

 

No?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Iving said:

I do understand what you're driving at. And in the end you can't argue with the subjective (or with a sick mind as Joe Walsh would say - musical reference not a personal one!)

 

But objective can and probably does mean a common reference point for humans - not an idiosyncratic one.

 

I think you invited a common reference by posting that particular example.

 

And by doing it yourself - defending the subjective position - I thought it even more worth pointing out!

 

No?

 

13 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said:

Honestly, no offense intended, really...but this is a very Western/intellectual position.
 

I have no axe to grind with either group, or with the estate of Mr. Rothko, but would it be a reach to think it would be easy to find "humans" from various cultures and backgrounds that wouldn't think any particular piece of art (including music here since we're in this thread) was...artful, beautiful, exciting, etc.? 
 

Art and culture and intelligence and emotion are a real jumble to decipher.

 

Perhaps you misread me. I answer since you quoted me.

 

1. When I say "objective can and probably does mean a common reference point for humans", I am stating something ordinary. Neither Eastern nor Western nor anything in between. The dictionary would do just as well. It would be different if I were cleaving to an objective (or subjective) position. I am not.

 

2. My post in response to the first Rothko post was to politely point to an anomaly. Well - a double one actually I think - as I made clear. I am not cleaving to an objective or subjective position.

 

It's just conversation.

 

@The Computer Audiophile is holding the fort on "Art is all subjective." If anything is a very strong (philosophical) position, that is!

Link to comment

We can see only the first page here, and unfortunately I don't have the full article. We can get the gist readily enough. What I find interesting is Best's position as stated:

 

image.png.d746c6de27a200db7e19f6a2f129bf4e.png

 

Now we have a fascinating crossover of the present conversation and our hackneyed Subjective-Objective tension - in which Art-Subjectivism and [ASR-style] Scientism are on the same side of the road. Now there's a conundrum!

 

Best is saying (I take what I hope are inconsequential liberties):

a)   Scientific methods are the only route to objectivity = False

b)   Art subjective appreciation cannot be be proven scientifically = True

c)   It follows from b) that Art appreciation cannot be objective = False

and intends to depict Art-Subjectivism and Scientism [Science as religion] as linked distortions.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Good morning guys, so we're all in agreement that all art is 100% subjective. Great to hear. 

 

Only kidding.

 

Sure :-) We know ;-)

 

OK - I'll play / kick off today!

For the sake of pax, let's set aside what seems bleeding obvious to many (you may say, "prove it" - which is both fair and possible - but come on - tedious too) ... That is - there is widespread and spontaneous agreement abroad in the world about what makes good Art. I keep my remarks which follow to Fine Art for now. I'll give at least one reason why I think Fine Art and Music are not equivalent in this respect.

A polished version of these notes would take until at least tomorrow! Perhaps this is like an essay outline. (I used to be good at that sort of thing.)

INTRO
Objectivity lurks in relational aspects of human experience. There are both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of relating.

PHENOMENON
Subjective - a unique or idiosyncratic viewpoint. Experienced alone. No triangulation.
Objective - shared or common viewpoint. Experienced in relation. Has effects.
[cf. quantum matters (sic) such as state/behaviour dependent on observed/not observed. Speculative but truly interesting nonetheless. All Creation is the product of the Unwitnesed Observer. I could go on. Don't worry, I shan't. Unless you insist. Even then.]

MODE and EFFECT
No man is an island. It is more "natural" to experience "together" than "alone".
Role, significance, importance of human language. Language is the medium for shared experience. For all we know, human language, in species-specific ways, is bound up inevitably with aesthetics, beauty, subjective experience of pain etc.
Leverage effect on personal narrative, personal meaning, and personal mental condition the result of sharing. This Forum refers. Any you like. But let's say esp. Album of the Evening and Music Theme Threads. We are not alone. I listen differently - in a more enriched way - when I have shared. That's what I get out of it - whether I get strokes for my posts or not.

We share in our imaginations too. Psychologists have different expressions for this. e.g. Parent Ego State (TA).

LIMITATIONS
No less than truth is available seeking objectivity. What gets in the way is fear, inhibition, ego, pride.
And self-interest.

Think honesty as having the reverse effect.
These things are amongst those that speak to the qualitative dimension.
The quantitative dimension is a proportionate one. The more vicarious the experience, the more the objectivity (already lurking as potential) is manifest - subjectively if you like. Happiness and satisfaction await! We tend to listen to music alone - so we may think our appreciation is highly subjective. Somewhat true for Fine Art. Probably less so because of our awareness of existing cultural understandings and consensus. Also explains Beatles. I never listen to Beatles - already know it all in my head.

CONCLUSION
"Art is all subjective"? "all art is equal in an of itself"? Nah
We might think it is - in vain - but little if any of our Art-experience is entirely subjective. All Art is not equal in our minds.

"judging art based on what other people think is a bit preposterous" rofl

"Well of course there *is* nothing objective about art" lolol

 

The holes in my argument are lack of padding - not lack of substance.

image.png.f7bcefa25583c4f7c350799a739219d4.png

 

You heard it first here folks!

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I love it, great post.

 

Thank you. I think maybe there is a little more in it than you at first realise :-)

 

11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but how do you define good in this sense? Visually appealing? Worth money? X number of people are interested? Came from an artist popularized by the press with a neat history?

 

I think my major hold up is that in order for something or someone to be better at something than another, both must be attempting the exact same thing. For example, if two artists are asked to paint the Eiffel Tower on a 24x36 canvas and make it look as realistic as possible, using the exact same materials and tools. Then, we may find out who is better at painting the Eiffel Tower on a 24x36 canvas and making it look as realistic as possible, using the exact same materials and tools. 

 

Artists aren't attempting to do the same thing, thus it's impossible to objectively say one is better than the other.

 

OK - well I did say it would be tedious to conduct a trawl of evidence for objective references in art appreciation. But come on - there are plenty. I think maybe you are asking "which one is right?" - which I understand  - but if you began to understand my "essay" (and much else I waffle on about on this Forum) you might appreciate that "being right" is about the least relevant and most harmartic phenomenon on the planet.

 

We had a similar conversation on another thread about absolute references for SQ. I tried to explain > once how humans "hunt" truth without such references.

 

I also declared somewhere else that "the only truth [aside Revelation] is between your ears and it will die with you". iow - human objectivity is not about absolutes and strict references. It's about common or shared understandings. As distinct from unique or idiosyncratic ones.

Link to comment

OK

 

Perception -

solo event - one person gazing at canvas - debate - which is reality - painting - 1st person view - onlooker's?

depicts stereotypical subjectivity - i see why you chose "perception" - perception of the painting = a reality? debate can centre on 1st person only - it's not my concern for present purposes

 

Common or shared understandings -

exist anyway in our imagination (lots of ways - we all have rich mental representations of "powerful" others - parents, teachers, lovers, best friends, mentors)

mental dialogues go on all the time - less of these is good!

sharing what we care about reinforces our understandings - if we are honest then for the better - it changes our mental structure - we enrich shared or common understandings about things progressively over time - our brains our incomprehensibly replete with inter-related "data" - shared and common understandings lie in the domain of objectivity not subjectivity

 

The gravity / whale thing - do we still need it

 

I hope I'm not diluting what I want to say with flying vernacular ...

Link to comment

btw - I know very little about Britney Spears, but I do think she is an incredibly good-looking woman. My brain's "reputation node" demands I more extol Nina's virtues, whether looks or otherwise - musical credentials being much more convenient. I think the truths are:

1. I have probably played "Born To Make You Happy" about the same number of times as [fav. version of] "Ain't Got No .. I Got Life".

2. If I could take only one of these to a Desert Island, it would be "Ain't Got No". But not because I'd still be pre-occupied with my reputation, but because that song and Christie's "Yellow River" I played over and over during a short catastrophic episode in my life. The main product of listening would be gratitude.

Also - when I listen to Britney, I can't stop thinking about Chris Connaker because he loves her too. Thus at least part of my appreciation is objective.

Less so with "Ain't Got No" ... that's very personal. But Nina per se - well she's among "most often mentioned" on this Forum - and I'd probably experience many happy associations listening to her other tracks.

Is this ALL subjective?
Of course it's not.
And we don't need absolute yardsticks to understand that.
My "subjective" perspectives on Britney and Nina were not constructed, nor do they continue to be moulded, in a one-person vacuum.
Everything is relational.
Everything is imbued with shared and common understandings.

image.png.22b9e3cb679d868da43504a70a45a50e.png

Link to comment

I don't have the notes/citations to hand; all the same, I recall from my undergraduate days (decades ago) lectures in Social Psychology on topics popular even earlier, that interpersonal attraction - based on empirical studies using photographs as stimuli - could be just as much a process of elimination as selection. Thus the @rando choice of that particular still of Britney was at least biased if not ruthless!

 

The most recent image of Britney in my mind's eye was this one:

image.png.d1f38cd9068b5dbe34f280ed4ec3601d.png

 

and I chose my words carefully when I said "good-looking". I might have said "handsome" and I would have meant it generously. I find her interesting. If I'd been asked to proffer an instance of "beautiful" or "world class beauty" or “pretty” or even “sexy”, I'd have suggested something else. I wouldn't date Britney (but this wouldn’t have to do with her looks – I am too old for drama in that sphere of my existence).

 

Perhaps the appeal of people in photographs / the media / even real life is different for men and women, and might in turn depend on your "eye" if gay, trans, whatever.

 

But all this is a dreadful distraction! I wasn't intending that we should travel from Music to Fine Art to the attractiveness or otherwise of people! Quoting "Britney ... good-looking" from my last post is focusing on its least important aspects! I was interested in expanding on the existing subjective-objective theme - but harnessing the context [Britney/Nina] introduced recently by others.

 

Turning full circle somewhat ... Chris posted an Album of the Year which happens to be recognisable as Contemporary Jazz with a particular vibe. This type of music is popular here and features often on the thread Album of the Evening. [Do I see posters influenced by Album Covers as much as by the merits of the music.] The most interesting aspect of this conversation to me is the question what this Album of the Year, and of that ilk, broadcast in the way of common or shared understandings. I wrote about this already focusing on Genres. In Blues it is struggle/despondency. In Boogie Woogie and Rockabilly rhythm and dance. You get the picture. So what does this Album broadcast. What does it provoke in the way of common or shared understandings. I can't answer the question. Well - I could - but my answer would not be popular. I am not tuned in to it. My loss. I guess.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...