>Scaruffi updated his Bowie page
Blackstar review by Scruffles SOON
I predict a 7 - 7..5.
>>61860122
lel 6 at best maybe 5
nobody cares about your shitty website scaruffi
>>61860131
I'm not Scaruffi; despite that, with all my travellings, there's zero chance I'd post on this japanese tsunami memorial.
>>61860122
>Bowie remains a second-rate vocalist singing second-rate pop for a second-rate audience.
>>61860154
Jokes on him, I like Faust and MBV as much as Bowie
>>61860154
Truer words have never been spoken.
Will be a 6.5, screencap this
im guessing 6, maybe 6.5
>>61860154
meanwhile, scaruffi is a third rate critic for people who think they're first rate, when really, they're second rate in denial
Holy shit this guy needs to actually off himself.
David Bowie (1967) , 3/10
Space Oddity/Man of Words (1969) , 4/10
Man Who Sold the World (1970) , 5/10
Hunky Dory (1971) , 6/10
Rise & Fall of Ziggy Stardust (1972) , 6.5/10
Aladdin Sane (1973) , 6.5/10
Pin-Ups (1973) , 3/10
Diamond Dogs (1974) , 4/10
Young Americans (1975) , 4/10
Station to Station (1976) , 6/10
Low (1977) , 7/10
Heroes (1977) , 7.5/10
Lodger (1979) , 5.5/10
Scary Monsters (1980) , 5/10
Let's Dance (1983) , 4.5/10
Tonight (1984) , 4/10
Never Let Me Down (1987) , 4/10
Tin Machine (1989) , 4/10
Tin Machine II (1991) , 3/10
Black Tie White Noise (1993) , 5/10
Buddha Of Suburbia (1993) , 6/10
Outside (1995), 6/10
Earthling (1997) , 6.5/10
Hours (1999) , 3/10
Heathen (2002), 3/10
Reality (2003), 3/10
Next Day (2013), 4/10
>>61860122
>Second rate vocalist
Nah
>Second rate pop
Haha no
>Second rate audience
What does that even mean?
>>61860206
He's saying that people like you are mediocre.
>>61860154
better than being a fucking critic
>>61860122
>didn't even bother spellchecking the update
3/10 posthumous BTFO incoming
>>61860122 (OP)
>Bowie remains a second-rate vocalist singing second-rate pop for a second-rate audience.
t. a 3rd-grade critic and a 4th grade human being
Name one actual innovation that Bowie made in music. Something he did that was completely original musically, at any point in his career. I'll wait.
>>61860864
innovation =/= good or great
Nah, posibly a 5.5 or 6
Honestly: he wasn't that great of a singer.
Scaruffi is a talentless hack
Scaruffi is the original attention whore contrarian edgelord.
Him and Christgau.
>>61861059
>Christgau
>contrarian
>>61861181
Read his Lil Wayne reviews. "This is clearly an A and you're all retarded for not noticing it"
Meanwhile he gives classis B's and C's. That's contrarian as fuck desu
>>61860148
>zero chance I'd post
>>61860262
There's nothing bad about being a critic
>>61861181
Christgau is the biggest hack in the fucking industry man. He gets away with being a contrarian asshole and no one notices it.
>>61860944
Not him, but originality (which is closely linked to innovation) is what makes music good.
How would you argue otherwise?
>>61860864
He invented folk rock, psychadelia, glam rock, and I don't even know what Low is supposed to be!
>>61861437
LMAO
>>61861402
>>61860262
But the critic is the real artist
>>61861422
Popular music critics and popular music fans alike have latched onto novelty (or as they usually refer to it, innovation) as the most important element and the element most deserving of attention during evaluation. This is because popular music fans and critics, by and large, do not possess the vocabulary or knowledge which would be needed to assess music on the basis of its craftsmanship instead. It is far easier to expound on an album's connections to the media-constructed narrative and/or to the current media-facilitated trends/fashions than it is to quantifiably describe two tracks and explain what distinguishes one from the other and why one's approach is superior in effect.
>>61860944
True, but that's what Scaruffi bases his reviews on. There's no way he'll give Bowie a good score.
>>61860864
No music is "completely original", but Low and "Heroes" set the precedent for a good deal of later post-punk and New Wave.
>>61861422
>How would you argue otherwise?
The burden of proof is on you to explain how originality is inherently a good thing, and why it's more important than any other musical element.
>>61861412
I'm not saying he's a great critic (although he is a great writer) but he is not a contrarian. He's the definition of a poptimist.
>>61861632
and he rated those pretty good (Low 7, Heroes 7.5)
i think his ratings for bowie are pretty fair to be honest. I personally would rate many albums higher, but i can respect his opinions.
>>61861181
>ITCOTCK
>D+
He should stay away from music
>>61861604
blablabla
>quantifiably describe two tracks and explain what distinguishes one from the other and why one's approach is superior in effect.
Wouldn't the track with the most original elements be considered a better? Keep in mind a combination of elements is an element itself, just like the element in the context of it's track.
>>61861651
The burden of proof is on this guy, actually >>61860944
>>61861779
>The burden of proof is on this guy, actually >>61860944
All you have to do to prove this point right is look in a dictionary.
>>61861422
>originality (which is closely linked to innovation) is what makes music good.
Not if one doesn't like originality.
>>61861779
>Wouldn't the track with the most original elements be considered a better?
Why would it be?
>>61861807
Yeah, if you like taking things out of context
>>61861815
We are talking about what good music is, not what music people like. I don't like the atomic bomb, but it was a good invention (not to society, but to technology and science).
>>61861827
If it's not originality, we would be praising other elements. Which elements would be those?
Also, originality is a good thing because it diversifies our musical ideas.
>>61861244
Wow, it's almost as if that was intentional and referencing something else.
Get the fuck out of here, newfag.
>>61861879
>We are talking about what good music is, not what music people like
But good music is just simply what one likes.
Furthermore, what about folk music? Originality is not the endgame for the entire umbrella of music.
More like a 4.5
>>61861879
>Yeah, if you like taking things out of context
?
>>61861879
>If it's not originality, we would be praising other elements. Which elements would be those?
Any and all other elements of music, of course. Do you really need me to list them all?
>it diversifies our musical ideas
Why is this a good thing?
>>61861935
>But good music is just simply what one likes.
Then good and bad music doesn't exist because you can have two true statements about some music (is bad, is good), which makes that definition of good music inconsistent.
>Furthermore, what about folk music?
It's original too, you know?
>Originality is not the endgame for the entire umbrella of music.
What else is then? I would argue that's all there is to it.
>>61861957
>Then good and bad music doesn't exist because you can have two true statements about some music (is bad, is good), which makes that definition of good music inconsistent.
It's called subjectivity you blithering retard. Literally learn some fucking high school-level philosophy.
>>61861957
>Then good and bad music doesn't exist
>the definition of good music inconsistent.
Yes, that is correct
>It's original too, you know?
How so?
>What else is then?
Tradition.
Also, pop music, in a general scene, in many levels shuns originality and harbors familiarity and current fads.
>>61861954
>Any and all other elements of music, of course. Do you really need me to list them all?
Just one would suffice
>Why is this a good thing?
More possibilities to express yourself in any way you want to.
>>61861973
Wow! I didn't know that!
There's a difference between what music people like (subjective), and what music is according to a certain context (objective). In this case, the context is originality.
That definition for classifying music as good or bad on anything other than an individual context is flawed.
>Scaruffi on deathbed
>"deariest piero your finances and will are in order, your website is in safe hands, is there one last thing you want to be done? "
>"yes, award Blackstar a 10."
>>61860195
Scaruffi takes a massive dump on Bowie in his review then proceeds to give Heroes 7 and a half
What the fuck?
>>61861990
>How so?
Genres evolve in other parts of the world, and their musical ideas too. Meaning there was a process of originality involved.
>Tradition.
Yes, but the problem is to evaluate what kind of traditions are to be considered good, and what method do you use to consider the music that fits those traditions to be considered good or bad.
>Also, pop music, in a general scene, in many levels shuns originality and harbors familiarity and current fads.
Pop music is constantly going through original moments (according to it's own context). But even if it wasn't, what has that to do with the argument?
>>61862033
Read more carefully, I guess
>>61862033
probably thinks Eno did all the work
what the penis is going on in this thread
>>61862074
savantmath is what's going on
>>61862046
>dumb tripfag gives me "advice"
>>61862090
awesome
how are you dealing with this intense cold anon
>>61860252
MEDIOCRE
>>61862116
blankets
i got three going on here
>>61862046
>Genres evolve in other parts of the world
No we're talking about folk music.
>but the problem is to evaluate what kind of traditions are to be considered good
Why? Don't you know what tradition is?
>Pop music is constantly going through original moments (according to it's own context)
As a general trend, no, not really.
>But even if it wasn't, what has that to do with the argument?
Often used chord sequences such as I–V–vi–IV would be an example of the avoidance of originality, in order to make a song more familiar and thus more marketable, is used in pop music.
>>61862135
i got one blanket atm but im prolly gonna look around the house for more
can't even go out for a cig cuz it's fucking freezing
good incentive to quit tbf
>>61862046
Hi there!
You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!
>>61862161
how cold is it where you are
it's like -10 c here but thats normal
>>61862156
>No we're talking about folk music.
Can you link me to some folk music? Or you talking about american folk music or traditional music from all over the world?
>Why? Don't you know what tradition is?
You forgot to reply to the second part of this post
>Yes, but the problem is to evaluate what kind of traditions are to be considered good, and what method do you use to consider the music that fits those traditions to be considered good or bad.
>As a general trend, no, not really.
Agree. It's more of an exception, but pop music is still constantly evolving.
>Often used chord sequences such as I–V–vi–IV would be an example of the avoidance of originality, in order to make a song more familiar and thus more marketable, is used in pop music.
I wouldn't consider that to be good music then (unless there where other elements to make the music more original)
>>61862161
Don't smoke :c
![fdf5d79569[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/k3aN05U.png "fdf5d79569[1].png")
>>61862187
>>61862203
thats not even cold do you live in florida or something
>>61862003
>Just one would suffice
Pathos? Beauty? Complexity? The list goes on...
>More possibilities to express yourself in any way you want to.
Why is this a good thing?
>There's a difference between what music people like (subjective), and what music is according to a certain context (objective). In this case, the context is originality.
I'm not sure exactly what this has to do with what I wrote in my previous post.
>That definition for classifying music as good or bad on anything other than an individual context is flawed.
Classifying music as good or bad on any individual context is flawed because there's no way to objectively determine what that context should be.
>>61862213
no i'm in new york
it's the wind chill dude
>>61862090
>savantmath
That's pretty funny, but I don't really like that as a nickname because it implies he's gifted in some area or another, when in actuality he's just a painfully autistic moron.
>>61862193
>Can you link me to some folk music?
for instance the folk dances of the American Indian Dakota Tribe.
>You forgot to reply to the second part of this post
I didn't think it was needed since we already covered that.
>Agree. It's more of an exception, but pop music is still constantly evolving.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-music-idUSBRE86P0R820120726
>I wouldn't consider that to be good music then
There are even more people who would consider it good though. Are they all wrong and you are right?
>>61862213
it's in fahrenheit, you goober
>>61862244
How about Autist-Math God of Mu?
>>61862223
>Pathos?
If there are conflicting pathos, how do we choose between which one is actually good?
>Beauty?
Yes, this one makes sense. But does all good music have to be reduced to what is beautiful?
>Complexity?
What is complexity? Is Black Midi complex, for example?
>Why is this a good thing?
It offers us more tools to achieve goals like beauty and complexity.
>I'm not sure exactly what this has to do with what I wrote in my previous post.
I think I quoted the wrong person then. Whatever.
>Classifying music as good or bad on any individual context is flawed because
Individually is not flawed, because you can choose that good music is whatever I like, and that would be true.
>there's no way to objectively determine what that context should be
Yes, that's true for every time we want to classify something as good or bad, not just music. It's more correct to say that determining it's context is arbitrary though.
>>61862254
no shit it's still not cold
>>61862245
>for instance the folk dances of the American Indian Dakota Tribe
Weren't those dances original at some point? They didn't just appear out of nothing, right?
>I didn't think it was needed since we already covered that.
We didn't.
>http://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-music-idUSBRE86P0R820120726
Pop music has evolved in the last years. Pop music from this decade doesn't sound that much to the decade that anticipated it, and even less the one that anticipated the other one. Meaning that there was a process of originality in between.
>There are even more people who would consider it good though. Are they all wrong and you are right?
Depends on their definition on what music is. f their definition is "this is good because I like it", then their definition is inconsistent if they want to use it with other people. But my definition is that good music is music that has original elements. It's a more consistent definition than the other one. Now, one could have other definitions on what good and bad music is that aren't necessarily the one I'm saying now.
>>61862321
nuh uh its BRRRRRRR
>>61860195
I appreciate Scaruffi more and more everyday.
>>61862367
>We didn't.
Of course we did, see >>61861935
>But my definition is that good music is music that has original elements.
But what music doesn't have original moments?
>>61861907
Take it easy Piero, not everybody has to agree with you
>>61862423
What kind of traditions are to be considered good, and what method do you use to consider the music that fits those traditions to be considered good or bad?
>But what music doesn't have original moments?
Bad music. Also, it's a relative scale, not absolute. Meaning some music is more original than other, but claims such as this is original and this is not would only make sense with a specific frame of reference.
>>61862461
>What kind of traditions are to be considered good
See >>61861935
>Bad music
No I mean specifically.
>>61862390
anything between 10 and 30 degrees feels the same
being said, i don't have heat in my apartment and it went down to 19 last night
>>61862479
>See >>61861935
Good traditions are the ones people like, and good music inside said traditions are what people like? That's what you mean?
>No I mean specifically
A generic bandcamp band.
Nostalgic Orange if you want a name (I like it though)
>>61862301
>conflicting pathos
What do you mean by this?
>But does all good music have to be reduced to what is beautiful?
No more than all good music has to be reduced to what is original.
>What is complexity?
I don't see why that matters. I'm just giving examples of what could be considered standards for judging musical quality.
>It offers us more tools to achieve goals like beauty and complexity.
Why is this a good thing?
>>61862301
>Individually is not flawed, because you can choose that good music is whatever I like, and that would be true.
>Yes, that's true for every time we want to classify something as good or bad, not just music.
Aren't you agreeing with me here? I'm no longer sure exactly where this is going.
>>61860131
i do
>>61862515
>Nostalgic Orange
It's unoriginal? Can you show me an example of them replicating the exact same chord sequence, melody, lyric and instrumentation in another artist?
Do you think you are right and everyone else is wrong?
>>61862533
>What do you mean by this?
Nevermind. Changed my mind about it.
>No more than all good music has to be reduced to what is original.
Is there such a thing as beautiful music that isn't original?
>I don't see why that matters.
Because it could be argued that complexity is originality.
>Why is this a good thing?
Because it's the goal to better achieve other goals.
>Aren't you agreeing with me here? I'm no longer sure exactly where this is going.
I'm talking about defining good music in a consistent way. Music that I like being good is inconsistent, so we are looking for an alternative; in this case, originality.
>>61862602
>Music that I like being good is inconsistent, so we are looking for an alternative
>we are looking for an alternative
>we
You mean "you".
>>61862571
>It's unoriginal? Can you show me an example of them replicating the exact same chord sequence, melody, lyric and instrumentation in another artist?
https://nostalgicorange.bandcamp.com/releases
Grey Matter, they literally copy a part from Rush's Tom Sawyer
Even, origianlity is measured with "positives", not "negatives". One shouldn't argue that X is not original, but that Y is more original than X instead.
>Do you think you are right and everyone else is wrong?
Of course not. If I were, I wouldn't be testing some of my ideas on here.
>>61862624
We, because you are helping me to look for an alternative, even if you didn't wanted to.
>>61862673
>We, because you are helping me to look for an alternative, even if you didn't wanted to
You won't though. You will continue to believe what you believe. I have already pointed out the flaw in your view, and you just ignored it.
>Grey Matter, they literally copy a part from Rush's Tom Sawyer
I am not hearing the lyrics to Tom Sayer, so no, it is not. It is an original work
>Even, origianlity is measured with "positives", not "negatives"
Says who?
>>61862721
>You won't though.
Why would I be posting about it then?
>You will continue to believe what you believe.
No, that's exactly what I want to change. I want to change my views on this subject to a more consistent one.
>I have already pointed out the flaw in your view, and you just ignored it.
What flaw? I seriously don't know which one you are talking about.
>I am not hearing the lyrics to Tom Sayer, so no, it is not. It is an original work
It features "a part" of Tom Sawyer (the synths around 1 minute and a half). The work itself is still original, but less original than Rush's.
>Says who?
You can only prove originality using two elements (X and Y). One of them would be necessarily more or less original.
Please, don't assume I want to be right to make my own self-esteem higher or whatever else you are thinking. I'm genuinely interested in this subject, and I have changed my views on it several times before thanks to discussions like these.
>>61862789
>Why would I be posting about it then?
To perpetuate your agenda of disinformation.
>No, that's exactly what I want to change
Wrong. I have had this conversation with you again and again. All you do is alter your own "theory" to address the holes I've shot in it. But you never ever change your mind.
>What flaw? I seriously don't know which one you are talking about.
That "originality" is not the desired ethos of many types of music. Thus you can not use that as a rubric for all music.
>You can only prove originality using two elements (X and Y). One of them would be necessarily more or less original.
Says who?
>don't assume I want to be right to make my own self-esteem higher or whatever else you are thinking
See above. I am 100% you are. You constantly misdirect and give unrelated anecdotal evidence when pressed.
>>61862033
Contrary to /mu/'s memery Scaruffi isn't that much of a savage rater. He gives like 90% of artists at least one 7/10. That Beatles pasta makes its rounds but he Sgt. Pepper got a 7.5 which is far from a pan.
>>61862853
>To perpetuate your agenda of disinformation.
Please assume good faith
>Wrong. I have had this conversation with you again and again. All you do is alter your own "theory" to address the holes I've shot in it. But you never ever change your mind.
I have. I used to argue before that only complex music was good, for example.
Now, I'm not saying my system is the only good one. Another good way to classify good and bad music would be trough mass rating (like rym or music polls). That's another consistent way to do it (but it has it's flaws, just like my own method).
>That "originality" is not the desired ethos of many types of music. Thus you can not use that as a rubric for all music.
That's why I asked you what makes traditional music good. It's possible to be original inside certain traditions, you know?
>Says who?
Logic
To compare elements you necessary need two.
>You constantly misdirect and give unrelated anecdotal evidence when pressed.
For example?
>>61862912
>Please assume good faith
Your actions show otherwise
>Now, I'm not saying my system is the only good one
That's the problem: you are. You speak matter-of-factually and make it appear to be a scientific method to find the greatest artist. But in doing so you fail to mention it's YOUR OWN OPINION and ACCORDING TO YOU. If you think that it should just be assumed to be, your posting language and tone suggest otherwise. You are not very conversation. You post scientifically, almost robotically.
>It's possible to be original inside certain traditions, you know?
What do you even know about traditional music? How much of it have you listened to? or is this a case just like you wanted to discuss The Velvet Underground's influence on 60s music, but you admitted to only listening to one VU album and not much 60s music in general?
>Logic
Says who?
>For example?
>I don't like the atomic bomb, but it was a good invention (not to society, but to technology and science).
Tell that to the people in Hiroshima. .
I prefer a contrarian with the capacity for original thinking and cohesive views to any majoritatian any day.
Bowie is very overrated in light of his oeuvre.
>>61862602
>Is there such a thing as beautiful music that isn't original?
There is no such thing as music that isn't original. You said it yourself, originality is relative, not absolute.
That being said, I see no reason why the originality of a piece of music should affect its beauty. If I released an album that was literally Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band repackaged and credited entirely to me, it would be almost entirely unoriginal, but would it cease to be beautiful? What if you heard it somewhere and didn't know if it was The Beatles' album or mine? (If you don't think Sgt. Pepper is beautiful, replace it with an album you think is)
>Because it could be argued that complexity is originality.
Again, I don't see how.
>Because it's the goal to better achieve other goals.
I see what you're getting at here, but that still doesn't make originality inherently good. Useful, maybe, but not good.
>I'm talking about defining good music in a consistent way. Music that I like being good is inconsistent, so we are looking for an alternative; in this case, originality.
Again, I can see what you're saying but you're making a logical leap. Just because your way of measuring musical quality is more consistent or more objective doesn't make it the best or the only way to judge music.
Also, using originality as a context is still inconsistent, because you can only judge the originality of a piece of music by comparing it to music you've heard previously. All humans have different ideas of originality because they've all heard a different selection of music in their life up to that point, and it's impossible to have listened to all music ever released in a human lifetime. I'd also argue that what constitutes originality is extremely hard to determine and quite possibly subjective in and of itself.
>>61862983
>Your actions show otherwise
That's the way you interpret them, not the way they actually are then.
>That's the problem: you are.
I'm testing what works and what doesn't when discussing about it. I already sa an alternative that also works well (rating polls). I'm not claiming that my method is the only way to do it, but that it is the most consistent (yet not perfect). Another thing that bothers me is that other than the rating polls, I haven't seen any other satisfying alternatives (what I like being good is not a good alternative).
>You speak matter-of-factually and make it appear to be a scientific method to find the greatest artist.
>But in doing so you fail to mention it's YOUR OWN OPINION and ACCORDING TO YOU.
The definition is arbitrary. Once the definition is set, it's possible to set opinions aside. Keep in mind it's impossible to set up a definition from an objective point of view. Would you say the scientific method is an objectively good way to represent the world for example? Even more, it's not possible to prove the validity of the scientific method. But we just assume that it's the best way to do it when it comes to sciences, right? A similar thing COULD happen here (could, because I'm not saying it's the only and the definitive way to do it, it's just an idea of what could be).
>If you think that it should just be assumed to be, your posting language and tone suggest otherwise. You are not very conversation. You post scientifically, almost robotically.
My tone is always neutral on /mu/ when discussing about music. I don't see how this implies that everything I said is taken for certain by me. It's more about the possibilities.
>What do you even know about traditional music? How much of it have you listened to?
At least one recording of traditional music from Indonesia, India, Japan, China, South America, Great Britain, and West African Music
>or is this a case just like you wanted to discuss The Velvet Underground's influence on 60s music, but you admitted to only listening to one VU album and not much 60s music in general?
I have already listened to it's three album, I only said I was very familiar with the first one, and I consider myself to be relatively knowledgable about 60s music. I don't know where you got all of that from.
>Tell that to the people in Hiroshima. .
See
>it was a good invention (not to society, but to technology and science).
>retards think that Scaruffi will give Blackstar a 7 or even higher
i'm thinking like a 5.5
>>61863158
>That's the way you interpret them, not the way they actually are then.
Except you never asked me my opinion. You just wanted to post yours and imply it's fact.
>I'm not claiming that my method is the only way to do it, but that it is the most consistent (yet not perfect)
Are you trying to perfect it?
If so, that implies you are progressing to be the only one correct.
>The definition is arbitrary. Once the definition is set, it's possible to set opinions aside.
But THIS IS ALL YOUR OPINION.
>Would you say the scientific method is an objectively good way to represent the world for example?
To the scientific community and spheres. NOT art.
>But we just assume
See >>61862624
>A similar thing COULD happen here (could, because I'm not saying it's the only and the definitive way to do it, it's just an idea of what could be).
But if that's ALL you ever post about, the implication is it's the only way. Hence you are just simply perpetuating your disinformation about art.
>It's more about the possibilities.
You mean the one possibility you want to promote.
>At least one recording of traditional music from Indonesia, India, Japan, China, South America, Great Britain, and West African Music
What do you know about it though?
>>61863173
>I have already listened to it's three album
Now. At the time you didn't.
remember when I refereed you to American Bandstand to understand how musical acts were promoted in the 60s and 70s, and you thought that was a band?
That was funny.
>>61863017
>There is no such thing as music that isn't original. You said it yourself, originality is relative, not absolute.
Yeah, you are right.
>That being said, I see no reason why the originality of a piece of music should affect its beauty.
Just to test a few ideas. I'm not saying it necessarily has to be.
>If I released an album that was literally Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band repackaged and credited entirely to me, it would be almost entirely unoriginal, but would it cease to be beautiful?
I would say it is actually beautiful, but for that to be the case, beauty would need to be defined.
>Again, I don't see how.
That's why I told you to define it.
>I see what you're getting at here, but that still doesn't make originality inherently good. Useful, maybe, but not good.
What's the ultimate goal then?
Now, I would still argue that originality is the ultimate goal (see below)
>Again, I can see what you're saying but you're making a logical leap. Just because your way of measuring musical quality is more consistent or more objective doesn't make it the best or the only way to judge music.
Correct. But what do you think about this?
>The way we perceive good and bad music is based on our previous experience of music, personal taste, and perceived originality. By that logic, we have what we call subjectively good and bad music.
>When it comes to "objectively good" music, personal taste is irrelevant (we consider every form of taste to be equally worthy), our experience on music should be virtually unlimited (by combining the experience of various listeners), and finally, the perceived originality, which should be translated to actual objective originality, which can be measured through a consensus of knowledgeable people, but even when we will probably never be 100% certain of our choices, we can still try to approach it.
It's just an idea btw
>>61863017
>Also, using originality as a context is still inconsistent, because you can only judge the originality of a piece of music by comparing it to music you've heard previously. All humans have different ideas of originality because they've all heard a different selection of music in their life up to that point, and it's impossible to have listened to all music ever released in a human lifetime.
Of course, it would be difficult, but the originality is there, independently of people having heard or not such music. Also, we are humans, we can communicate ideas, we could reach a consensus of what music is more or less original if we share our ideas about it.
>>61863305
>It's just an idea btw
Not that this anon reiterated the same thing I told you last year. Clearly you didn't listen and continued to perpetuate this disinformation. That suggests you are not here to learn or discover any sort of "truth". In a week you will discard this exchange and continue to claim that not only is originality the only measure for good music, but that it is somehow measurable.
>>61863334
>we could reach a consensus of what music is more or less original if we share our ideas about it.
We haven't yet.
Why? Because we
1) all perceive art differently
2) have different values in art
>>61861422
Because there are two kinds of worthwhile artists, the innovators and the masters. The innovators discover a new form, and the masters ape that form extremely well, sometimes surpassing it in actual quality without being as innovative. Innovation isn't an inherent quality, and even defining what is and isn't innovative isn't as easy as it first seems.
>>61863300
>Except you never asked me my opinion. You just wanted to post yours and imply it's fact.
Except I did
See
>If it's not originality, we would be praising other elements. Which elements would be those?
Or are you talking about something else?
>Are you trying to perfect it?
Well, that would be nice. But I'm trying more to see what's the best way to classify music more than to think what makes this method the best.
>If so, that implies you are progressing to be the only one correct.
It's not. For example, when I asked you about what other qualities could be worthy of praise. That destroys my actual idea and replaced it with something else.
>But THIS IS ALL YOUR OPINION.
Yes, never implied otherwise. Every way to consider music good or bad is an opinion. I think that was implied since the beginning.
>To the scientific community and spheres. NOT art.
You missed the point there. That they choose the scientific method to be an objective representation of the universe is an opinion too.
>See >>61862624
Not me, we (or them), because I'm talking about the scientific community.
>But if that's ALL you ever post a[...]ply perpetuating your disinformation about art.
Because I haven't found any other alternatives other than the ones I already told you (personal preference and rating polls).
>You mean the one possibility you want to promote.
Yes, but also about the possibilities that could be mentioned during these discussions that could replace or be combined with my actual ideas.
>What do you know about it though?
Some historical context, some music theory, and how they sound like. I'm not an expert my any means on any of those regions though. I'm just saying that I know some small stuff about it.
>Now. At the time you didn't.
I probably did at the time. I listened to their second album a few months after their first one. I just said I wasn't very familiar with it because I couldn't remember a lot of it's details.
>>61863300
>remember when I refereed you to American Bandstand to understand how musical acts were promoted in the 60s and 70s, and you thought that was a band?
Yes, I don't see anything funny about it. I said I had never heard of them, and I'm not american, so it makes sense that I had never heard of them.
>>61860131
>>>/v/
this is the type of "marketer" delusion autisim thats only allowed on that cesspool board
>>61863342
Well, do you know of any other alternatives to measure the quality of art?
>>61863355
>all perceive art differently
>have different values in art
We are only talking about originality here. It's possible, and we have done it from time to time on threads before.
>>61863417
>the masters ape that form extremely well, sometimes surpassing it in actual quality without being as innovative
I would argue that those masters are innovators too. Yes (the band), for example. They style wasn't very original, but their melodies were. Would you call them masters or innovators?
>Innovation isn't an inherent quality, and even defining what is and isn't innovative isn't as easy as it first seems.
Originality is a better way.
>>61860195
>Earthling (1997)
>6.5/10
>Heathen (2002),
>Reality (2003),
>3/10
What a fucking moron.
>>61863483
>Or are you talking about something else?
No you are asking to retort your own theory, not my own opinion.
>For example, when I asked you about what other qualities could be worthy of praise.
If I did, you would attempt to refute them and insist your theory is correct, no? You are looking for an argument, not enlightenment
>never implied otherwise
>I think that was implied since the beginning.
You tone and posting behavior does imply otherwise. You intentionally didn't state it because you wanted an argument.
>You missed the point there. That they choose the scientific method to be an objective representation of the universe is an opinion too.
You missed the point too: that that is folly, since not art is not science.
>Because I haven't found any other alternatives
You receive them every time you post. Possibly you don't want to hear them? Am I talking to a wall?
>Some historical context, some music theory, and how they sound like.
Explain it.
>I just said I wasn't very familiar with it because I couldn't remember a lot of it's details.
But that didn't stop you from commenting about it, as if you were familiar with it. That's pretty disingenuous, wouldn't you say?
>>61863505
>Yes, I don't see anything funny about it.
Well, let's see:
>I said I had never heard of them
lol
>and I'm not american
What are you?
>so it makes sense that I had never heard of them.
If you want to create an accurate theory about music, don't you think you should be knowledgeable about it?
>>61863566
I do! Thanks for asking (finally)
You can ONLY judge art by two criteria:
1) What was the artist intending
2) Did he succeed
>We are only talking about originality here
That's the problem. Originality is relative.
>>61863566
When I call someone an innovator I'm talking about form instead of content. With music this is a lot harder to suss out than with say, poetry, but the concept is very similar. Entroducing, for example, is important because of how far DJ Shadow pushed what could be done with samples in hip-hop, and his sample manipulation pushed forward the form of the genre. That has absolutely nothing to do with why I like the album, but it's what makes it innovative.
Yes, would fall under the category of masters, as would most prog-rock giants. A lot of them weren't doing a whole fuck of a lot that was very new and advanced rock/prog, but they brought their own content and had excellent execution, making them worthwhile artists.
Originality is important, undoubtedly so. To completely deny it is to have the entire art-form stagnate, which no one on this board would want. I'm just saying that figuring out what is and isn't original isn't easy, and we shouldn't place such a great weight on the importance of originality that people feel the need to make silly, gimmicky bullshit for 15 seconds of fame and/or notoriety.
>>61863566
(cont)
>It's possible, and we have done it from time to time on threads before.
This is assuming every post is genuine and representative of the whole of the human experience. But the fact is that since 1) we are posting anonymously and 2) we are only one subdemographic, then no, we will only conclude to a "truth" that assumes we are being honest and is created from the values of our community (whihc one could argue has no values to begin with).
>>61863677
Yes, we have similar ideas about it, the difference being that when I talk abut originality (or innovation), I talk about form AND content.
>and had excellent execution
You mean that they were original in their content, right?
>I'm just saying that figuring out what is and isn't original isn't easy
Of course, but it's possible
>and we shouldn't place such a great weight on the importance of originality that people feel the need to make silly, gimmicky bullshit for 15 seconds of fame and/or notoriety.
Well, those 15 seconds of gimmicky wouldn't be very original, would they?
>>61863716
Content is pretty much inherently original unless someone directly rips off an artists melodies or riffs or what have you. They were original in their content by virtue of making music without lifting anyone else's songs and taking credit for themselves. This doesn't really mean that they're all that original though, just another band doing it's thing.
It's certainly possible to an extent, but I would question the importance of the exercise. From my standpoint originality doesn't matter much, I only really listen to music for its aesthetic properties and not much else.
They would be original, the problem is that they would already reach their full potential with whatever innovation they had very early, as most gimmicky avant-garde artists do. The problem is that there are many who would hail this kind of thing as innovation when it's just a gimmick.
>>61863659
>If I did, you [..] king for an argument, not enlightenment
Oh, I thought I was talking to only one anon.
See this >>61862301
I didn't do what your predicted.
I'm looking for making the most consistent theory possible to make a a ranking of music possible.
>You tone and posting behavior does imply otherwise.
We are discussing this with words, not the way we write. it's your fault if you interpret my tone that way.
>You intentionally didn't state it because you wanted an argument.
I'm pretty sure I implied that a few times when discussing this. But well, now you know.
>You missed the point too: that that is folly, since not art is not science.
Doesn't follow.
I'm just saying that whatever way of determining what is and isn't real (or objective, or good, or whatever) is an opinion. Mathematical axioms are opinions, the scientific method is an opinion, my theory of good music is an opinion. That's why I say telling me that my theory is an opinion is redundante since it's implied since the beginning.
>You receive them every time you post.
As much as I would like to, not that much. Of the time it's about discussing my own theory. I should ask for alternatives more often though.
>Explain it
Well, how is this related to this argument on the first place?
>But that didn't stop you from commenting about it [...] That's pretty disingenuous, wouldn't you say?
I never implied I was familiar with them. You might want to re-read what I originally said.
I literally say "I haven't listened to it" (I just assumed they were music because we were talking about music). Nothing disingenuous about it.
>What are you?
South-American (I said American as in person from the USA, just in case).
>If you want to create an accurate theory about music, don't you think you should be knowledgeable about it?
Of course, but I can't know everything. That's why I proposed teh best way to do it is with a group of people sharing their ideas, just like you are doing now.
>>61860195
>Earthling 6.5
>Hunky dory 6
Hahahaha there are people who take this guy seriously. Shame on you people.
>>61863659
>You can ONLY judge art by two criteria:
In your opinion, right? That tone seems to be like you are saying that as if it was the absolute truth.
>1) What was the artist intending
>2) Did he succeed
Yes, that's another way of doing it. However, it has some flaws, like comparing music. This only talks about the music in relation to itself, and what I want to do is a theory to determine what artists are better or worse.
I'm not saying your theory is bad, just that it's not useful for certain circumstances.
>That's the problem. Originality is relative.
Relative as in, more or less? Because if that's so, I don't see the problem.
>1) we are posting anonymously
I don't see how this is a problem
>2) we are only one subdemographic
This could be a problem. The only demographic we should choose is the one that has listened to the most diversity of music.
>then no, we will only conclude to a "truth" that assumes we are being honest and is created from the values of our community (whihc one could argue has no values to begin with).
Well, the value is already defined (originality), and I don't see why they would be dishonest. I wouldn't, at least.
>>61860195
>>61860122
My extrapolation based on a system of weighted averages predicts a 3
>>61863798
>Content is pretty much inherently original unless someone directly rips off an artists melodies or riffs or what have you.
Depends. Some melodies or harmonies can be more original than others (I IV V being the least original of them all, for example).
>From my standpoint originality doesn't matter much, I only really listen to music for its aesthetic properties and not much else.
You listen to music with a specific set of properties, but once those properties are met, you are looking for originality.
>The problem is that there are many who would hail this kind of thing as innovation when it's just a gimmick.
Yes, but they can be proven wrong.
>>61863935
>See this >>61862301
Yeah I see it. You are picking a part his suggestions and continuing to perpetuate your own. That's an argument, not a search for enlightenment.
>I'm looking for making the most consistent theory possible to make a a ranking of music possible.
For YOU or for all of mankind?
>We are discussing this with words, not the way we write
lol
>it's your fault if you interpret my tone that way.
Communication is a two-way street. If you want others to understand your ideas, you need to present them in the manner for which they will be understood. That's how it works.
>I'm just saying that whatever way of determining what is and isn't real (or objective, or good, or whatever) is an opinion. Mathematical axioms are opinions, the scientific method is an opinion
Oh this again? Ugh. You just have an infantile understanding of the Scientific Method.
>how is this related to this argument on the first place?
Originality is not the ethos for all music
An example is Folk music
If you don';t understand this, you don't understand Folk music. Hence, I am asking what you know, how you arrived to a conclusion that is contradictory to the ethos of the umbrella.
>That's why I proposed the best way to do it is with a group of people sharing their ideas, just like you are doing now.
If you are not open to others' ideas, why bother?
>>61863980
Ratings are NOT chosen based on relativity to other albums. Also 6 is a decent score on Scruffy's scale, since he actually uses 1-10 instead of just 5-10 like any other review site. He's probably the most fair and balanced of any critique.
>>61864024
>In your opinion, right?
No, according to the Intentist Art Movement and other literary theories of authorial intent.
>However, it has some flaws, like comparing music. This only talks about the music in relation to itself, and what I want to do is a theory to determine what artists are better or worse.
Again, there is no better or worse. Only what you like/dislike. It just simply doesn't exist because 1) we perceive art differently and 2) we all have different expectations/values of art itself. If you want to find a mathematical formula to determine if Death Grips is better than neutral Milk Hotel, it won't work because you are using your subjective criteria based on your subjective perception, rooted in subjective value of art.
>Relative as in, more or less?
No as in (see above). You already admitted
>Of course, but I can't know everything
1) Thus it is not possible to determine what is original or not.
And then, as I pointed out long ago, 2) everything is thus original because it is a unique combination of chord sequence, melody, lyric, arrangement and production.
>but, you can use a comparative point system!
See #1 above.
>I don't see how this is a problem
The lack of identity relieves the user of responsibility of the accuracy of their claims. Do you think everything stated on 4chan is the truth?
>The only demographic we should choose is the one that has listened to the most diversity of music.
Query: what is more important, the diversity of music, or how intently one listens to it and how knowledgeable they are in it?
>Well, the value is already defined (originality)
As already stated, that cannot be THE value, since
1) large umbrellas of music do not inherently value originality (see: commercial music, folk music).
2) Originality itself cannot be measured properly because it's subjective
>>61864083
They can be, but they often aren't.
I listen for specific set of aethstetic properties, and I listen to avant-garde music on occasion to see if that set can be expanded. If I was looking for originality after a certain point I wouldn't consider shoegaze one of my favorite genres. I mean, it's quite frankly the most derivative genre out there, for the past twenty years people have simply been making loveless 2.0, but I still like it because of its aesthetics, even though nearly every artist in the genre I've heard that isn't MBV doesn't have an original bone in their body.
I'm not saying critiquing something on the basis of originality is a bad thing, but I think that we've come to a point where the sheer novelty of something outweighs other very important virtues of good art. I don't think you're wrong in valuing originality, I'm just saying the dichotomy between what is and isn't original isn't as simple as people like Scaruffi make it out to be.
>>61864186
>Ratings are NOT chosen based on relativity to other albums.
And that's why no one should take Scaruffi's scores seriously. His scores are literally 100% arbitrary because they're not measured against anything at all.
I'd still like him if his opinions were legitimate, but he mostly spews pseudo intellectual bullshit.
>>61864186
He doesn't use 1-10. He uses 4-7 and very occasionally throws in something higher or lower.
>>61864566
>very occasionally throws in something higher or lower.
Then it's a 1-10, not a 4-7
>>61864159
>Yeah I see it. You are picking a part his suggestions and continuing to perpetuate your own.
That's simply not true. I did consider those aspects, I'm not invalidating those, I just want a better understanding on why they can be useful for this purpose. That's why I'm questioning it, to have a better understanding, and not to dismiss them.
Please, don't assume that I want to be right all the time or stuff like this. I really, really don't and it only makes these kinds of discussion more difficult.
>For YOU or for all of mankind?
For everybody. That's the idea. I'm not saying my actual theory is correct, just that it's the one that convinces me the most (more than beauty, artists intent, rating polls, personal preference, etc). I'm no saying those ways are invalid, they are all right (save for personal preference if it involves more than one person), but they all have it's flaws (just like mine too).
>That's how it works.
Okay.
>Oh this again? Ugh. You just have an infantile understanding of the Scientific Method.
Please tell me how I'm wrong, otherwise I will keep having an infantile way of seeing the sci-method.
>Originality is not the ethos for all music
Oh, of course! Never implied otherwise. Most people who make original music never intended to make original music.
>An example is Folk music
Folk music, at one point or another, was original.
>If you don';t understand this, you don't understand Folk music.
I understand perfectly well what folk music is. I would argue that Traditional Music is a better way of calling it to avoid confusion with American Folk Music though.
>Hence, I am asking what you []ed to a conclusion that is contradictory to the ethos of the umbrella.
I never arrived at such a conclusion. See above
>If you are not open to others' ideas, why bother?
I am. Your ideas are being considered, even if it doesn't appear to be.
If not, well, why would I be bothering wasting my time writing all this stuff? It's because I genuinely care.
>>61864605
He's literally never given a 10, how is that a 1 to 10
>>61864625
He literally says on his website 10=best ever,
It's a fucking 10 scale.
>>61864667
His number 1 album of all time is a 9.5
>>61864613
>That's simply not true. I did consider those aspects, I'm not invalidating those, I just want a better understanding on why they can be useful for this purpose. That's why I'm questioning it, to have a better understanding, and not to dismiss them.
>Please, don't assume that I want to be right all the time or stuff like this. I really, really don't and it only makes these kinds of discussion more difficult.
Note that this assessment of you has been ongoing for like two years now, I think. It isn't just based off of this thread. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
>For everybody.
Then you can't strictly use your own terms/criteria/values. You are saying originality is the only true measure? Maybe for you, but not everyone else.
>but they all have it's flaws
Well, maybe because the attempt to find "the best/worst" or even what's good/bad is folly and impossible?
>Please tell me how I'm wrong
Pic related
>Never implied otherwise.
But you are using it as a sole criteria. Isn't that what the implication is? Otherwise, you are creating a disadvantage for the genres not interested in originality.
>Folk music, at one point or another, was original.
Anecdotal evidence is really not useful.
>why would I be bothering wasting my time writing all this stuff?
Because you want an argument, not enlightenment.
>It's because I genuinely care.
Can we really know if anyone is genuine on 4chan?
>>61864625
He just has higher standards than you or I.
>>61864303
>No, according to the Intentist Art Movement and other literary theories of authorial intent.
According to their opinion, right?
>Again, there is no better or worse.
Unless you define a context (which is always arbitrary)
>Only what you like/dislike.
That's a context.
>It just simply doesn't exist because 1) we perceive art differently and 2) we all have different expectations/values of art itself.
1) Yes, but we can share our perceptions on music to achieve a better understanding as a group of people
2) Yes, but this is only about originality so far. All other values aren't considered unless they make the work more original.
>If you want to find a mathematical formula to determine if Death Grips is better than neutral Milk Hotel, it won't work because
>you are using your subjective criteria
Originality? I would argue it's objective.
>based on your subjective perception
Correct. But that doesn't mean my perception can't be shared with others.
>rooted in subjective value of art
Originality isn't subjective.
>>Of course, but I can't know everything
>1) Thus it is not possible to determine what is original or not.
One scientist can't know everything, therefore the whole scientific knowledge is obsolete?
We can share experiences for a better understanding and achieve a closer truth.
>2) everything is thus original because it is a unique combination of chord sequence, melody, lyric, arrangement and production.
Yes, but some things are more original than others. AN identical work has no originality. An identical work save a chord progression has some, etc
>The lack of identity relieves the user of responsibility of the accuracy of their claims.
Well, let's just use tripcodes and we are done then.
>Query: what is more important, the diversity of music, or how intently one listens to it and how knowledgeable they are in it?
Diversity implies the knowledge, the other way around not so much
>>61864688
If a class is given a test and the highest grade on it is an 88, that doesn't make it a 1-88 scale.
>>61864303
>1) large umbrellas of music do not inherently value originality (see: commercial music, folk music).
But they do value it. They just don't value it to a bigger scope. A pop song with an original melodic twist is more likely to sell than one that is almost identical to a pop song from last year (as long as it remains accessible and fits under the trends of the era)
>2) Originality itself cannot be measured properly because it's subjective
I disagree with this. There have already been studies about the originality of art even, meaning that originality was measured.
>>61864445
Yes, but which one of those shoegaze artists you like the most?
First it has to meet your own preferences, then the originality part comes in.
>other very important virtues of good art.
Like what?
>I'm just saying the dichotomy between what is and isn't original isn't as simple as people like Scaruffi make it out to be.
Oh, of course it's not simple, but it's possible.
>>61861745
1st song is only good song mate
>>61864792
That's a retarded comparison. The guy's listened to tens of thousands of albums, there isn't one he thinks is a 10?
The only thing stopping him from giving albums 10s is so he can maintain his self perceived superiority
>>61864787
>According to their opinion, right?
Is this a loaded question?
>Unless you define a context (which is always arbitrary)
If context is always arbitrary, can it really be defined?
>That's a context.
Which doesn't apply for all mankind, as you claim to be working towards.
>2) Yes, but this is only about originality so far.
That's also the problem. You don't want to stop discussing this.
>Originality isn't subjective.
I already explained how it is subjective. Do you need to reread it?
>One scientist can't know everything, therefore the whole scientific knowledge is obsolete?
See: Scientific Method
>Yes, but some things are more original than others
You cannot know that because you haven't listened to all music.
>Diversity implies the knowledge, the other way around not so much
Not at all. You've been on /mu/ for a while now. it's pretty diverse, but most criticism boils down to "I like this!" or "I don't like this". Why? because it's a bunch of laymen and casuals listening to many things, without understanding what they are listening to. I'd say it's a fault with millennials such as yourself, who have the whole world of information at their fingertips, without the knowledge of 1) how to use it or 2) the context in which the information was created.
>Well, let's just use tripcodes and we are done then.
You are preaching to the choir, I used to have a trip.
>>61864809
>A pop song with an original melodic twist
There isn't one.
>There have already been studies about the originality of art even
[citation needed]
>>61864774
My idea of original=good is around one year or six months old.
>Then you can't strictly use your own terms/criteria/values.
>You are saying originality is the only true measure? Maybe for you, but not everyone else.
Did you read the post where I said why originality is the way to consider all tastes as equal making in the best for everyone? That explains why it's a better way for everybody (according to what I know so far).
>Well, maybe because the attempt to find "the best/worst" or even what's good/bad is folly and impossible?
It's difficult, but we can try to be as close to the truth as possible.
We will never know how much is the mass of the Earth, but we know it's between an x and an y value. A similar thing can be said about originality. We know it's originality is between x and y, even if we might never know the exact value z.
>Pic related
Tell me how pic related is not an opinion when it comes to thinking it's a good way of determining when a theory is useful or not.
>Anecdotal evidence is really not useful.
It had to be original at some point, otherwise it means the style of music was born out of nowhere.
>Because you want an argument, not enlightenment.
No. Please, stop assuming that kind of things from me.
>Can we really know if anyone is genuine on 4chan?
Not just 4chan, but anyone anywhere and whenever. Can we even know they have feeling or thoughts? We will never know. As far as I know, I might be the only human who can think while everybody else is a robot.
>>61864913
I think the post you are quoting hit the nail on the head.
>The only thing stopping him from giving albums 10s is so he can maintain his self perceived superiority
I wish people would stop demonizing anyone with whom they disagree.
Even then, I think he have some classical albums a 10/10 score, but they are not rated anymore.
>>61864997
His comparison made no sense. If a teacher graded thousands of tests, he'd give out plenty of 100s. If he didn't give any, that teacher would be a massive d bag
>>61864973
>Did you read the post where I said why originality is the way to consider all tastes as equal making in the best for everyone?
Did you read the post where I said originality is not valued by all music? Hence it is not equal and the best for everyone.
>That explains why it's a better way for everybody (according to what I know so far).
Ah! YOUR way is the best for EVERYONE! I see.
>here let me continue to compare science to art
Please stop
>Tell me how pic related is not an opinion when it comes to thinking it's a good way of determining when a theory is useful or not
Shifting goalposts
>No. Please, stop assuming that kind of things from me.
OK but if you shift goalposts one more time, or continue to reiterate a point I've already discredited, you obviously just want an argument.
>>61864953
>Is this a loaded question?
It's literally what it says.
Every way of measuring what is good or bad (or true) according to a context is an opinion.
>If context is always arbitrary, can it really be defined?
Yes, of course it can be defined. That's literally what it does.
>Which doesn't apply for all mankind, as you claim to be working towards.
It's an attempt to. Every other alternative makes less sense to me if we want to apply to all mankind (except for rating polls)
>That's also the problem. You don't want to stop discussing this.
Well, what else do you want me to discuss then?
>See: Scientific Method
That doesn't stop us from making a SM equivalent to measure originality.
>You cannot know that because you haven't listened to all music.
Unless we have a method to determine it as a group of people.
>Not at all. You've been on /mu/ for a while now. it's pretty diverse, but most criticism boils down to "I like this!" or "I don't like this". Why? because it's a bunch of laymen and casuals listening to many things, without understanding what they are listening to.
I wouldn't call them to be knowledgeable about much diversity of music.
>I'd say it's a fault with millennials such as yourself, who have the whole world of information at their fingertips, without the knowledge of 1) how to use it or 2) the context in which the information was created.
I don't know why you mention me there.
>You are preaching to the choir, I used to have a trip.
Not really. It's just a way to identify ourselves. We could make a general thread for ranking albums based on originality where posting with a tripcode is oligatory.
And out of pure curiosity, may I know which one?
>There isn't one.
Wannabe sounds like one to me.
>[citation needed]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3126302/Move-art-critics-Computer-algorithm-reveals-original-masterpieces-time.html
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.00711v1.pdf
>>61865101
>Did you read the post where I said originality is not valued by all music? Hence it is not equal and the best for everyone.
Yes. And did you read where I said that originality is valued when the requisites to follow those traditions are met?
>Ah! YOUR way is the best for EVERYONE! I see.
According to what I know
>>here let me continue to compare science to art
>Please stop
Doesn't invalidate my point. You actually missed it. Read it again, please. It's about any measure of good and bad or truth is based on opinions.
>Shifting goalposts
No, you were the one who kept claiming that my views were just opinions and therefore invalid. If my views are invalid for being opinions, then so are mathematics and science (because their roots are based on opinins like the SM and Axioms).
>>61865166
>Every way of measuring what is good or bad (or true) according to a context is an opinion
Science doesn't measure good or bad though. You keep confusing objective observations (the ice 0 degrees) with subjective observations (the ice feels cold).
>Yes, of course it can be defined. That's literally what it does.
How?
>It's an attempt to
I'm glad that you, someone who never bothered listening to half of The Beatles catalog, will tell us how to rate what is good or bad for all mankind!
>Well, what else do you want me to discuss then?
Artistic Intent.
>That doesn't stop us from making a SM equivalent to measure originality.
True, but it shouldn't say that it is good or bad.
>Unless we have a method to determine it as a group of people.
Like poll ratings?
>I don't know why you mention me there.
Aren't you 19?
>And out of pure curiosity, may I know which one?
If you can guess correctly, I'll put it back on.
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3126302/
Hmmm, that is interesting. I will reassess my point of view about originality being measured
>>61865242
>originality is valued when the requisites to follow those traditions are met?
Prove it. Show evidence of this.
>Doesn't invalidate my point
Of course it does. Read above if you are confused.
>you were the one who kept claiming that my views were just opinions and therefore invalid.
Quote me where I said that.
Do you need me to show you where you shifted goalposts, or can you figure it out yourself?
>>61864953
Surely most criticism boils down to "I like this" or "I don't not like this".
>>61865410
Only from poor critics.
>>61865435
Okay can I have an example of a review where the criticism doesn't boil down to "I like this" or "I don't like this"?
Genuinely interested. Maybe I haven't given enough thought to the subject but I can't think of a review that can't be summed up like that.
>>61865408
>Science doesn't measure good or bad though. You keep confusing objective observations (the ice 0 degrees) with subjective observations (the ice feels cold).
That's not what I'm saying.
I'm only saying that all truth that comes from the scientific method comes from a single opinion (the scientific method is accurate). What I'm proposing is that everything that is good music comes from a single opinion (all original music is good).
This theory can be perfected, replaced, etc, but you get the idea.
>How?
Define X makes Object good.
Object has X
Object is good
>I'm glad that you, someone who never bothered listening to half of The Beatles catalog, will tell us how to rate what is good or bad for all mankind!
It's a method of ranking music. Also, I have already listened to all their studio albums save for their pre-rubber soul that isnt AHDN.
>Artistic Intent.
Yes, that's a good way of determining good and bad music. But what do you do when you want to compare two artists? Who was better, Beatles or Sachiko M?
>True, but it shouldn't say that it is good or bad.
Of course, SM doesn't, but my theory does.
>Like poll ratings?
Yes, especially if there is a discussion before the poll where we all share our ideas and vote for the ones that make the most sense to us, eventually leading us to a closer (but maybe never absolute) truth.
>Aren't you 19?
Yes, I was talking about the second part of that post.
>If you can guess correctly, I'll put it back on.
I'm between three. Could you give me a hint?
If not, I vote for hampus.
>Hmmm, that is interesting. I will reassess my point of view about originality being measured
How nice
>Prove it. Show evidence of this.
No proof for it yet. Sorry
>>61865529
>Okay can I have an example of a review where the criticism doesn't boil down to "I like this" or "I don't like this"?
Note that most posts here don't "boil down", they are simply stated. Sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it. Or rather, how you can more eloquently defend your position and analyze the specific musical functions and how you've come to the contusion.
>>61862869
Well, Sgt. Pepper's is a very overrated album.
I say this as a huge Beatles fan. They have at least 5 better albums.
The White Album, Revolver, Rubber Soul, Abbey Road, Magical Mystery Tour are all better.
>>61865583
>That's not what I'm saying.
If you are claiming that the more original work is better, then you are. I will concede that originality is measurable, but that article didn't state what was good or bad. YOU are the one making the logical leap that is connecting originality to quality.
>but you get the idea.
I don't. You are arguing in circles and shifting goalposts left and right. I am now confused about what you are talking about.
>Define X makes Object good.
>Object has X
>Object is good
But you can't define X because it's relative to the listener. Remember? We just discussed this.
>It's a method of ranking music
...According to you.
>that's a good way of determining good and bad music.
No, I'm not saying that. It's just the way to look at music in general. There is no good/bad music objectively/universally (unless you define good music is if the artist succeeds in his intent, and bad music is if he didn't succeed).
>but my theory does.
Then it's not scientific, and it is disingenuous for you to characterize it as such.
>Yes, I was talking about the second part of that post.
Which part?
>I'm between three. Could you give me a hint?
No hints
>If not, I vote for hampus.
I'm not hampus.
>No proof for it yet. Sorry
Then you should not have stated it as fact.
>>61865594
I completely agree with that. The way in which arguments take place here aren't fantastic. Especially through the way they defend their points and discuss.
But my issue is that the anon said that our opinions boil down to either "I like this" or "I don't like this" and said that the reason for that is because we are laymen and casuals. But surely regardless of background and knowledge on the topic your opinion can be boiled down to either of those two statements. I dunno, I feel like I missed something.
>>61865838
>But my issue is that the anon said that our opinions boil down to either "I like this" or "I don't like this" and said that the reason for that is because we are laymen and casuals.
The truth hurts I guess. learn2music theory and art criticism if you don't want to look like a joke or a typical memer
>>61865928
Okay I accept I am typical memer and pleb and made joke of myself. But I am genuinely interested in seeing some review where it can't be boiled down to that. Plz educate anon.
>>61864033
underrated
>>61865985
http://2akordi.net/znanje/teorija/beatles.html
Well, this discussion wasn't particularly original in neither form or content, especially not for you, Savant-chan. If i were to give a numerical rating, 4/10
>>61860195
He got the scores for Hunky Dory, Aladdin Sane, Low, and "Heroes " right. Everything else should be lower or about the same.
>>61866007
No time to read it all now, but I'll take your word for it anon. Tnx.
>>61865792
I'm posting from my phone now, so I can't write a lot.
At the end, our disagreement boils down to "you can't conclude original music is inherently good"?
If I were able to demonstrate this, we would be done with this discussion?
>>61866024
Oh, I was so close from guessing!
>savant-chan
There was someone who used to call me like that before (obviously replacing the savant part) and who always reminded me a lot to you. How funny.
Well, I had a good time trying to discuss this. I hope you felt the same way about it.
>>61866334
>I'm posting from my phone now, so I can't write a lot.
>At the end, our disagreement boils down to "you can't conclude original music is inherently good"?
>If I were able to demonstrate this, we would be done with this discussion?
Sure.
Also >>61866024 wasn't me. It's CLT's old trip, #ismokeweed
I'm not CLT if that's your guess.
>>61866395
Oh, in that case, if you are not gene, I have no idea on who you are.
This is probably the best thread I've seen on /mu/ in a full year.
I guess I'm shitposting, but wow... Good job /mu/.
>>61860864
has this become a copypasta?
>>61867411
nothing out of the ordinary
>>61867472
I'm just so used to wave after wave of memeposting. I honestly didn't know genuine discussion happened on this board any more.
Granted, I hardly come here anymore
>>61868387
It's up to you to make a difference.
>>61865789
>Magical Mystery Tour
no
>Rubber Soul
lol now you're trying too hard
>>61861244
wow
>>61864913
To him, a 10 would be the best album in existence.
So until that comes, he won't give it
I wish Tripfags would stop blogging
>>61865789
>They have at least 5 better albums.
Wrong opinion
>>61861604
>>61861651
>>61861815
>>61863417
>replying to amg
you lost
