How come most "Innovative and groundbreaking" albums sound like shit? Is there one where it's actually pleasant to the fucking ears.
The people making it didn't care about sounding pleasant/listenable
>>66115379
Define "sounds like shit".
Also, white light/white heat is outright accessible.
You can't make something groundbreaking that requires attention of the ear and also make it easy listening
Two opposite goals
>>66115379
>considers good music to be "pleasant to the ears"
you should take your trip's advice
>>66115414
I could tell
>>66115434
>Define "sounds like shit".
Well. to put it in my basic terms. not pleasant for my ears. Also.
Define "accessible" if you think 9 minutes of boring poetry and 17 minutes of noise is "accessible"
>>66115438
You can if you have the talents for it. If these bands have the "talent".
>>66115379
If you don't like them you don't understand why they're groundbreaking aka you're a pleb.
>>66115582
Then post an example of such a band because I've never heard anybody do it
Those two concepts are almost fundamental opposites almost
>>66115379
TMR is a load of nonsense and Faust is just a bunch of drugged up German hippies making cheesy carnival music. The sooner you realize this and get on with your life, the better.
>>66115379
FUCK OFF TO YOUR RADIOHEAD AND DEATH GRIPS THREAD
>>66115637
This, faust is garbage.
>TMR is a load of nonsense
While that's true, it is a very unique and enjoyable record in it's own right.
and WLWH is dog shit
>>66115637
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada
>>66115625
just to reiterate
>Is there one where it's actually pleasant to the fucking ears.
>>66115438
>>66115625
Unironically Kid A fits this decription
>>66115582
>the gift
>boring poetry
>>66115625
>>66115438
The Beatles
[
Radiohead
Mozart
Beethoven
Velvet Underground
Miles Davis
Kanye West
Beach Boys
Literally kill yourself you uneducated pretentious faggot
>>66115379
But those are all great albums
>>66115667
>WLWH is dog shit
Ok autismo, the record that singlehandedly invented punk rock is shit. let's see you throw out better lyricism than the Gift if it's so bad.
Once this board became post contrarian and started worshipping the Beatles and hating any album Italian pedophile man likes the average intelligence of the user plummeted.
>>66115689
Ahahaha you do not understand what groundbreaking means at all do you
>>66115712
I have to disagree. What about Kid A is "groundbreaking". The concepts on that album and even Amnesiac were executed before Thom Yorke ever started playing around with bleep bloops
>>66115689
kek
>>66115728
>invented punk rock
HAHAHHAH
Good one for thinking VU, much less WLWH invented punk music.
>>66115754
whoops mixed up those replies but point still stands. Radiohead and Kanye West are groundbreaking for popular music maybe but not the kind of groundbreaking as in OP
>>66115712
Only good artist there is Miles Davis, and he isn't even that good.
>>66115379
It's not supposed to be pleasant to the ears, but to be intellectualy rewarding.
>>66115754
Not him but perhaps it's the fact that Radiohead was already a very popular band with mainstream appeal then started getting all weird bleep bloop
I agree that the content of Kid A itself is nothing new.
>>66115785
>he thinks groundbreaking means noise and harsh sounding music
Fucking kill yourself faggot. You have no clue about music theory and harmony do you?
>>66115806
This is either b8 or pure retardation
>>66115823
I didn't indicate that anywhere in my post but if you consider any of those mainstream pop/rock bands groundbreaking you need to listen to more music child
>>66115728
The Monkees self titled came out before WLWH.
>>66115712
>Mozart
>groundbreaking
He's awesome but no.
>>66115379
Tbph I sing along to all of the three you take as examples and I play several tracks of them with my friends. What's your point?
>>66115841
How so?
>>66115856
big woop
>>66115843
You seriously need to commit suicide if you think that The Beatles, Beach Boys, or Miles Davis weren't groundbreaking.
And that's basically what you implied. Because you clearly do not understand harmony
All 3 of those artists are much better and more innovative than what's in ops pic.
>>66115871
because youre a retard.
>>66115823
No it's just that hip hop existed 20 years before Kanye and he's not really doing anything that hadn't been done before.
>>66115882
>The Beatles and Beach Boys are more innovative and groundbreaking than TMR
nice b8
>>66115841
I'd find a better place than 4chan to learn English. Retarded does not mean 'disagrees with me'.
>>66115890
808's was pretty much entirely new and paved the way for artists like Drake. Really changed the landscape of hip hop artists and how they could now be viewed as "emotional"
>>66115875
If I can sing along to something, it defintively doesn't sound like shit. It just takes a little effort and passion in what you are hearing. And as someone above said, the point of those three records wasn't surely to be immediately accesible. Otherwise, stick to poptimism
>>66115920
But that's not bait you child. It's an objective fact. The harmonies and chord progressions that the Beatles came up with was far more innovative than TMR. You must be new here.
>>66115930
You must mean the landscape of hip pop.
>>66115953
Then explain how using your vast knowledge of music theory
Really anon enlighten me
>>66115953
You mean the harmonies and chord progressions that they stole from niggers from the 40s?
>>66115882
I'd agree with you that those artists were fundamental to some of the successive currents of music. However, the ones you hate are too.
>>66115953
>calling chord progressions innovative after Schoenberg destroyed tonality around 1910
Anon
>>66115953
I can tell you have no clue what you're talking about and are pulling shit out of your ass now but please as >>66115996 said enlighten us
Why are you guys fighting ;(
>>66116002
>However, the ones you hate are too
I don't hate any of the artists in the OP. It's just a delusional claim that they were more groundbreaking and influental just because they are relatively "inaccessable" and noisy.
>>66116000
you do realize TMR was heavily influenced by blues and jazz right?
>>66115996
>spoonfeed me I'm a clueless retard
>>66116077
>>66116043
>>66116000
>>66115996
Scaruffi Please
>>66116086
Ah you truly had me there for a while. I actually thought you might know something about music theory
>>66116102
>>66116077
Here you go
https://2akordi.net/znanje/teorija/beatles.html
Read up retards
>>66115712
>Making huge conclusion on revolutionary music that can be dismissed by a Scaruffi copy pasta on a 60s boy band
>mfw I share a board with this person
>>66116129
Eyyyy miss you.
>>66116110
>>66116086
>>66115953
>You guys are idiot children the beatles is WAY more innovative dummies THE HARMONIES
>IM NOT GONNA EXPLAIN MYSELF NO SPOONFEEDING
I give you a 8/10 because I replied for so long
>>66116129
>Scaruffi
Ah yes, the "why can't I marry a 12 year old" man. And he gave Korn albums a 7.5 and 7/10 a 7/10. Which is basically a masterpiece in his eyes.
>>66116153
>IM NOT GONNA EXPLAIN MYSELF NO SPOONFEEDING
?
I literally gave you an extensive link explaining the complexity of their songs, if you're too musically illiterate to understand that link then that's on you bud.
>>66116086
The difference is that the Beatles took those influences and packaged it up nice and neat for mindless consumers, and Captain Beefheart took those influences and created something nobody had heard before. You're going to try and dispute this.
>>66116165
>Which is basically a masterpiece in his eyes.
>>66116165
Where do you think radio rock would be today had Korn not existed?
>>66116183
>I gave you a link
Something can be enjoyable without being immediately soothing to the ears. I don't want to listen to saccharine melodies 24/7.
>>66116191
My sweet summer child, you clearly have no harmonic understanding of music. You seem to think that dissonance and and noisiness = better music. Listen to the compositions and harmonies on TMR again, and compare it to A Hard Day's Night please.
>>66116227
>>66116196
>posted_it.jpg
>>66116183
>I GAVE YOU A LINK I AINT GOTTA EXPLAIN SHIT
kek
>>66116244
musictheory.okkid
>>66116247
Everything that I could possibly explain to you is right there in that link. Not my fault you're too stupid to understand it.
the fag four were all circlejerk faggots, the one direction of their time. radiohead just wrote whiny coldplay ballads combined with electronic music.
>>66116165
All the more reason you should be embarrassed then.
>>66116268
I wish I could have a music theory degree by posting google links
Is that how I get to be as smart as you?
>>66115379
easy
because the pioneers find new methodologies and modes which other people can later figure out how to work into pop structures, and both parties deserve praise for figuring something out
>>66116243
I knew it. And you're not even doing a good job of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsiDDtX6cdU
Notice how the bassist is playing a mode, allowing the guitars to stay on the same chord without droning. Could your Beatles do that?
>>66116165
>>Ah yes, the "why can't I marry a 12 year old" man.
This is not a legitimate argument against a music critic.
>>66116351
Anybody can.
>>66116351
Wow so he's just ripping off Miles Davis. So innovative.
>>66116388
Yeah but did Miles Davis ever have his guitars playing at that jagged rhythm over a staggering drum beat to signal the approach of this barbaric woman? Did he even write songs about things?
I hope when people say Faust they only reference their debut. IV is accessible as fuck.
>>66116351
>posts the most basic and accessible track off TMR to prove his point
The guitar work isn't that notable.
Here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9Kpk6kEexk
Notice how the beginning starts in a different key. Though as we'll see, this is not at all immediately clear to one's ears as it unfolds in real time. Not surprisingly, given such a tonally disorienting opening, the rest of the song stays very closely rooted to the home key without the slightest hint of a modulation.
Can Beefheart do that?
>>66116473
>slightly noticeable change of key
yes he can
>>66116473
key modulation, how pish posh. You know that stuff was around in classical music since polyphony, right? You'd have gotten biffed for playing your instrument like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNStKhavmOs
The Beatles can't even make their spoken word interludes interesting, let alone make their instruments cry like bush animals.
>>66116528
No we mean on purpose, not accidentally
>>66116528
Ebm
If I fell in love with you
D
Would you promise to be true
Db Bbm
And help me understand
Ebm
'Cause I've been in love before
D
And found that love is more
Em A
Than just holding hands
D Em F#m Em
If I give my heart to you
A D Em F#m
I must be sure from the very start
Em A D Em A
That you would love me more than her
D Em F#m
If I trust in you
Em A
Oh please, don't run and hide
D Em F#m
If I love you too
Em A D9
Oh please, don't hurt my pride like her
G
Cause I couldn't stand the pain
Gm D A7
And I would be sad if our new love was in vain
D Em F#m
So I hope you'll see
Em A
That I would love to love you
D Em F#m Em
And that she will cry
A D
When she learns we are two
Gm C D
If I fell in love with you
Now analyze a beefheart song
>>66116589
The thing about "If I Fell" that sets it apart isn't particularly the modulation, though, but the chromaticism. Just to clarify, since there seems to be some confusion as to what I believe.
>>66116589
You first, music man.
>>66116641
Why would he do your work for you?
>>66116589
you didn't "analyze" anything with that post
Stop pretending you know more than the most basic of music theory
>>66116671
Dude. i'll fuck you up. So shut the fuck up pussy bitch.
>>66116641
You also realize Can and Faust were influenced by the Beatles? I can't for sure say Beefheart, but I'm sure he picked up a couple things from them.
>>66116671
Of course I didn't fully analyze, I just posted the chords and progressions down on face level. It's pretty complex stuff.
Beefheart fags BTFO, Zappa was better anyways
>>66116694
I'm sure he did when he had enough of being avant-garde and polished his tone for a consumer market.
>>66116737
The difference between Zappa and Beefheart is between classical and jazz. You can't make affirmations like that without revealing your criteria.
most of them dont sound like anything else so its more challenging.
>>66116738
>avant-garde means it's automatically good
>interesting harmony, melody, modulation, chromaticism, and chord progressions mean nothing.
>>66116768
Zappa was a better artist, it's that simple.
Lumpy Gravy is far ahead of any Beefheart's works
>>66116694
>I can't for sure say Beefheart, but I'm sure he picked up a couple things from them.
lol
White Light/White Heat isn't that difficult,it was literally my favorite album when I was 13
if you want to see the same idea being ACTUALLY inaccessible listen to '77 live by Les Rallizes dénudés
>>66116809
All those things existed for hundreds of years in classical music. Why don't you just listen to that? You have no reason to be defending a pop group.
>>66116834
What exactly is "lol"? The Beatles are objectively the most influental band of all time.
>>66116830
That's not criteria. That's opinion.
>>66116853
Of course classical is easily the best type of music. I very much enjoy it. That does not mean I can't enjoy the Beatles on a harmonically intellectual level.
>>66116854
>The Beatles are objectively the most influental band of all time.
How so?
>>66116882
>How so?
They influenced the most artists and genres
>>66116843
>inaccessible
It's not.
>>66116903
How so?
>>66116881
Sure you can enjoy cartoons for their execution of tropes established in classical cinema, but surely that intellect would be better spent elsewhere like understanding the modern arthouse without dismissing every film in the scene as weird shit.
>>66115930
You're wrong.
>>66116363
OK then what instrument does he play?
>>66117227
"The general public"
>>66117227
This, too, is not a good argument against a music critic.
>>66117280
>not being knowledgeable in his field?
>yeah that's OK
One perspective is that to try something for the first time is to have not perfected the craft yet. It's relative in the realm of music but one way to look at it is that the first attempt at something is a prototype model, and it may take others to contribute new things to the foundation that someone else built first. Most inventions start ineffectual at first, but they have to start somewhere.
>>66116843
>'77 live by Les Rallizes dénudés
This is pretty accessible.
When can people stop labeling things they like as "inaccessible" to look cool.
>>66117303
his field isn't playing music you moron
>>66116110
Nothing in this link is even remotely groundbreaking. I don't understand why people turn to rock music for interesting harmony.
>>66117372
He discusses music. Shouldn't he be knowledgeable in it?
>>66117376
Looks like you didn't read the link
>>66117372
That's like saying a movie critic shouldn't be aware of various recording techniques and the technical difficulty surrounding some shots
>>66117417
This is honestly nothing new compared to Hindemith and contemporaries.
>>66117438
They never are. They don't need to be. Their specialty is telling stupid people what to think.
>>66115379
>good music is pleasant to the ears
you're what's wrong with musicians post 90s
>>66117521
>They never are
False
>They don't need to be
False
Siskel and Ebert were pretty knowlegable. Much more so in their respective fields than Scaruffi is.
>>66117396
You don't have to know how to cook to know if your food tastes good
>>66117502
>compared to
Don't break your back shifting goalposts anon!
>>66117601
Yet one who does, would be better at expressing ideas about taste, which is what critics do.
Nice try though.
>>66117601
Then all reviews would either be "it sounds good" or "it sounds bad". Which isn't the case with music or film.
A chef can also pick out several nuances within the dish that someone who doesn't cook wouldn't be able to.
Either way your argument is flawed.
>>66117625
I said in my original post "I don't understand why people turn to rock music for interesting harmony"
I laid my goalposts right there.
>>66117625
>Yet one who does, would be better at expressing ideas about taste
I don't see how that's true at all. Does knowing how to saute a piece of meat properly somehow give you better vocabulary for explaining the taste of said meat?
>>66117643
>Then all reviews would either be "it sounds good" or "it sounds bad"
No?
"I didn't like this fish; it tasted a bit burnt and was too salty. The sauce didn't match the flavor of the fish, it was too tangy."
Please explain why I would need to know how to cook the dish myself to make this statement?
>A chef can also pick out several nuances within the dish that someone who doesn't cook wouldn't be able to.
How? Does learning how to cook somehow give you more sensitive taste buds?
>>66117180
Yes, you're wrong.
>>66117704
That post doesn't contain any information which answers my question.
>>66117737
>"I didn't like this fish; it tasted a bit burnt and was too salty. The sauce didn't match the flavor of the fish, it was too tangy."
"I like this album the guitar sounds good; I don't like this album, the guitar sucks"
"I like this movie, it's funny/ I don't like it, it's boring"
Obviously having a background in music and film would help you better explain it.
>How? Does learning how to cook somehow give you more sensitive taste buds?
No it gives you the ability to pick up on the spices and methods of cooking used, which can help you critique the dish and add on how to improve it.
>>66117673
>is having a knowledgeable opinion good?
Yes?
>>66117737
>Please explain why I would need to know how to cook the dish myself to make this statement?
The statement is poor criticism anyways.
>>66117835
It would be more like
"I like this album. The guitar sounds great - it's got a full, thick tone and a heavy thump that brings real weight to the songs."
or
"I don't like this album. The guitar is too shrill and almost hurts the ears on the higher notes, and it sounds like it's coming at you through a cardboard tube"
>it gives you the ability to pick up on the spices and methods of cooking used
I still don't see how this makes sense. Are there flavors that can't be tasted unless one knows how to cook? I don't see how that's possible. And how does knowledge the method of cooking used alter the taste of the dish?
>>66117911
How so? I offered my opinion and gave reasons that any layman (the people who criticisms are written for, mind) can understand at a glance.
Do you think criticism should not be accessible to the common man? What good does it do to explain over a layperson's head when they are the target audience for popular criticism?
>>66117982
"I like this politician. I don't know what he's talking about, but he says it with such passion that it must be true!"
>>66115379
I agree
>>66118072
And OP's argument is thrown out entirely.
At this point are you just using your identity as a weapon like KKK members who publicly endorse Republicans?
>>66118057
Again, it would be more like
"I like this politician. I agree with his views on social issues like welfare and abortion, and while I don't love his foreign policy, I think his fiscal plan is excellent."
Please stop building strawmen. If you can't be intellectually honest here, there's no point in discussing this with you further.
>>66118008
Not him, but good criticism, to me, goes beyond surface evaluations and into an understanding of the methods used by the artists. Someone critiquing a dish, for instance, shouldn't just say, "it's too dense," but say "they obviously did this stupid-ass thing and this is how you should do it so it doesn't end up like this." Perhaps this doesn't apply as much to music, but I've never liked those fucking food analogies.
>>66118131
No, I've aways been saying that TMR is overrated trash even though it was groundbreaking.
I like Faust and WLWH though
>>66118232
>TMR is overrated trash
KYS pleb
>>66118196
You cannot critique a fiscal plan if you don't know a thing about finance. Now can you at least learn what a strawman is?
>>66118232
Your stance is an oxymoron. If you haven't listened to it enough times to understand why it's groundbreaking, can you quit pretending you do?
Eh, the Velvet Underground & Nico is more accessible and more groundbreaking than white light white heat. I always thought European son was just white light with the fat trimmed off
>>66118300
>European son
Is the worst song on that album.
>>66118214
Why is "it's too dense" a poor critique? It's straightforward and communicates exactly what's wrong with the dish.
Why would a critic be giving tips on how to cook or how not to screw up when cooking? The critique is for the benefit of those who might taste the dish; how does a warning of how not to cook it help them?
>>66118240
It is.
>>66118273
I've listened to WL/WH like 15 times. TVU is groundbreaking because it opened so many doors open for other genres like art punk, proto punk, and experimental rock music in general.
I could make the case that TMR is not influential becuase I cant name one artist who outwardly was influenced by TMR.
>>66115689
>ripping off warp's catalogue is groundbreaking
>>66118245
>if you don't know a thing about finance
Where are you getting this assumption? In the context of the original claim (critics must know how to do what they're critiquing), do I have to know how to run a bank or an entire economy to have enough knowledge of how finances work to communicate why I like or dislike a given fiscal policy?
Why do you assume it's impossible for a layperson to have enough knowledge to communicate their preferences and give justification for them?
>>66115728
>Once this board became post contrarian and started worshipping the Beatles and hating any album Italian pedophile man likes the average intelligence of the user plummeted
I don't agree with everything in this post, but yeah this board was better when it was elitist
>>66118368
Beefheart influenced bands I can think of: the raincoats, the slits, the pop group, pere ubu, electric eels, sonic youth
Too bad those bands suck ass
>>66118418
>Kid A sounds anything like Warp's catalogue
put down the crack pipe and get some sleep, dude
>>66118456
Minutemen were also really into Beefheart, and none of the artists you name suck
>>66118347
Well I'd see it as much more useful at the very least, especially in the case of food, as there are much more objective standards in, say, baking, than in music, so being able to point out flaws in someone's baking should be an extremely simple task I would think. Critics are supposed to help people understand what's wrong and elaborate as to WHY it's wrong, thus helping people to better understand the art. Like I said, music isn't nearly as objective, so I'm not sure how possible this is, but a knowledge of music should be at least recommended I would think. Because frankly anyone can say, "oh I don't like this, it's much too ___," and I can't imagine it would be easy to make that interesting. I don't read music critics much though so it's hard to comment I guess.
>>66118456
also Tom Waits
Also, being groundbreaking doesn't neccissarily make an album or band better. Most groundbreaking albums are pretentious and overblown. That's why I love the VU, they talk about real shit and not artsy postmodern ironic surrealist psychedelic imagery that makes me fell nothing
>>66118474
Yeah, Thom wishes his music was half as interesting as Autechre's
>>66118433
You can't criticize a fiscal policy if your idea of an investment is buying a lottery ticket, just like you can't criticize an work of music if your major criterion is the shrillness of the guitars.
>>66118508
>most groundbreaking albums are 2deep4me
>>66118456
Are any of those groups relevant to mainstream music though?
>>66118534
I thought I asked you to stop building strawmen?
There's no point in continuing this discussion if you're going to continue to willfully misrepresent my position like this.
>>66118534
He's an idiot who can't grasp the most basic of concepts, let it be.
>>66118368
What is post-punk
>>66118542
It's not ridiculous to expect some kind of intent or emotionality in a piece of music, that's the point of it for me
>>66118574
Sure, but I could argue that TVU influenced post-punk more than TMR Ever did
>>66118549
Can are. Do you think they pulled the idea to mix jazzy sounds with their rock out of their ass? Also there's the swathes of bands in the new wave scene who screech their saxophones over a repetitive bass line and angular guitars.
>>66118592
Well even if something makes you "fell nothing" that doesn't mean it's the same for everybody else, it's pretty hard to say "we'll this clearly has no emotional content behind it" about most music for me, even if I don't like it.
>>66118565
He's an idiot who can't grasp the most basic of concepts, let it be.
>>66118245
you dont need to be a politician to critique another politician, you just need to know a little about politics
you dont need to be a musician to critique another musician, you just need to know a litlle about music
just when i think youve said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talking
>>66118605
The VU were also the first to do rock + free jazz
Beefheart's music is a creative dead end. He did what he did and there's really not much to it beyond that. Angularity and atonality at a certain point cease to be interesting concepts in and of themselves, it's like that upside down urinal. It works well as a statement, but I don't learn anything from seeing a fucking urinal at an art gallery
>>66118605
But before weren't you saying it Never did?
>>66118681
Lol y'all niggas still arguing
>>66118728
nah
>>66118690
I agree with you. VU is miles ahead of CB in terms of influence.
>>66118719
No. If I was a I was memeing. I don't like TVU&N, but I fucking dig WL/WH
>>66118681
At this point you're relying on the >>66117982 being a legitimate criticism of music. However you're not even addressing the music at all, only the production. Of course you know about production. Find me an idiot who given two weeks and Fruity Loops couldn't make a potential hit song. Give that same person a sheet of staff paper, and ask him to do the same thing. Chances are the results will be completely different, and telling.
>>66117673
Jesus Christ this argument is so played out and ignorant.
Yes.
It does.
A papered and apprenticed chef is absolutely a better authority on selecting and preparing food. A "food critic" for a newspaper who cooks at home is not as knowledgeable.
The expert has more accurate opinions because he knows what the fuck he's talking about through practice and cultivated experience.
>>66118860
>moving the goalposts
It's like "how not to argue 101" in here
>>66115379
This thread gave me HIV
>>66118641
Songs like Sunday Morning, Femme Fatale, I'm Waiting for my Man, Heroin, All Tommorow's Parties, they have emotional, human force.
Beefheart just screams boring neo-surrealist poetry
>>66118902
I'm moving them back from where you compared noticing a bass thump to understanding how a president's tax plan would affect the economy.
>>66118899
>Yes. It does.
How so?
Does learning how to cook grant a person more sensitive taste buds? When are these extra abilities conferred? How much does someone have to know about cooking in order to taste these secret for-papered-and-apprenticed-chefs-only flavors?
>>66118899
Holy fuck my quad-dubs.
Fuck all you punk ass p4k reading bitches, I'm out.
>>66118956
>oh no I got called out for changing the terms of the debate shit shit shit
>wait I know I'll pretend the other side did it first yeah that should work now I just have to hope they buy it
nah
>>66118972
No don't go
we love u
>>66118964
It certainly does expand your ability to define the flavors beyond so sauce much tangy very zest wow
>>66118990
So you're defending your improper use of 'moving the goalposts' as well as your lack of understanding of politics? If I were you I would have left the minute you revealed your own lack of ability to critique music.
>>66118918
Well I don't know what to tell you because my opinion is practically the opposite. I feel much more emotion from Beefheart's music than have from TVU.
>>66118964
A person who has spent a lot of time working with food will naturally have a better understanding of what is expected in any given dish, whereas someone who has little experience with say, indian food, will simply not know what is generally considered proper for the dish between one chef's and another's, and thus he will simply have to rely on which he, as an outsider, finds more palatable, but someone who has lived around this food might come to a different judgment.
>>66115806
>Only good artist there is Miles Davis, and he isn't even that good.
Miles Davis is the best musician outside of the western canon ya dingus.
His only fault is he didn't embrace free jazz and avant garde soon enough.
>>66115582
Can sounds pretty good desu
>>66118964
Okay you monumental idiot, let me use a simple example.
I cook a 10 oz. aged NY strip-loin perfectly to a temp of 145 degrees.
It is seasoned beautifully with a finish of clarified butter. I do this with care and skill and send it to a customer.
The customer says the steak is cooked wrong because it's too pink. He is OBJECTIVELY WRONG. Yet I, with the patience of Job, will set another steak, because that dumbass will not change his mind, because he is an ignorant motherfucker.
>>66119019
You haven't explained how this occurs. Is there a point in culinary education where the tongue somehow grows extra taste buds? Does learning the right temperature for searing a steak cause descriptive language to spontaneously blossom in the mind?
You keep insisting that what you say is the case but you keep failing to explain why or how it is so. At this point, I doubt you have any such explanation.
>>66118918
You don't listen to much music that came before the Velvet Underground, do you?
>>66119077
holy fuck who cares
you win
>>66119077
>maybe if I pretend they don't understand anything it will distract everyone from how poor my argument is and how many logical fallacies I've committed
I have some bad news for you, anon
>>66118008
>Do you think criticism should not be accessible to the common man? What good does it do to explain over a layperson's head when they are the target audience for popular criticism?
Oh, like music?
>>66119119
Also.
>>66119123
I take it you yourself don't know how to cook. When you learn which spices to pick and a specific method to blend them, you naturally understand which taste it begets. By the time a layman figures it out, he might as well be cooking himself.
>>66119091
Eh, I don't blame him. At it's worst, free jazz is over acedemic and pretentious. Albert Ayler will always be one of the greats, he has soul. Unlike, say, Anthony Braxton
>>66119145
Are these greentext lines generated by an algorithm or something? You could start by defining these logical fallacies and how they fit your definition. But you won't do that, will you? You'll just bitch some more and hope I leave.
>>66119119
It's objectively wrong to dislike rare steak? How can an opinion be objectively wrong?
I don't think you understand what the word "objective" means, anon.
>>66119088
>Well I don't know what to tell you because my opinion is practically the opposite. I feel much more emotion from Beefheart's music than have from TVU.
How tho, I'm genuinely curious
>>66119195
That has to be bait but..
>
>>66119184
>Anthony Braxton
AB has a lot of great records. He's definitely better in collaborations but still. Familie is one of the best free jazz records out all time.
>>66119153
So it's knowing which spices are in a dish that somehow grant heightened abilities to taste things? How is this so? How does abstract knowledge of what went into the dish affect the physiology of the tongue and the olfactory bulb?
>>66119281
How is "I liked this" an effective criticism?
>>66119235
A medium rare steak by definition is prepared a specific way. It is a hard and fast rule. If you order a medium rare steak, you will get medium rare steak, my point is that the professional will know what that is more than an average Joe.
>>66119195
>shit shit shit they didn't fall for it, fuck what do i do shitfuck what do I do?
>oh wait I've got it! I'll just bitch some more and hope he leaves
>>66119281
If you cannot make a steak better than me, your opinion of my cooking is irrelevant. It is the attempt to best what came before you that sparks innovation in a field, not some prematurely bald person commenting on the quality of your beats.
>>66119305
When did I ever say anything of the sort? Why are you building a strawman? Are you out of arguments but incapable of conceding with grace?
>>66119317
Maybe if I speak your language.
01000010 01100101 00100000 01100111 01101111 01101110 01100101 00101100 00100000 01110000 01101100 01100101 01100010 01100101 01101001 01100001 01101110 00101110 00100000
>>66119315
How does the professional knowing how to cook medium rare steak make it objectively wrong to dislike medium rare steak?
You're really not making any sense, anon.
>>66119358
That's a question better aimed at yourself.
>>66119281
What the fuck can I possibly say to you?
Classical composers studied music for years, played and practiced until technical skill was no longer a boundary, and then created the most brilliant music of all human history.
It did not happen by chance.
The main reason it's not widely appreciated today is that people cannot grasp the intricate nature of it. They lack the knowledge to understand the sheer scope of it.
>>66119346
Roger Ebert's opinions on film are irrelevant?
>>66119235
It is not the job of the critic to simply make boring subjective observations based on his perception, but to also bring in facts and objectivity. Even if I ultimately don't care for something, if the composition was impressive objectively it would be important to point that out.
>>66119400
Have his opinions on film shaped the way they are created today?
>>66119383
So because you can't formulate an argument without willfully misrepresenting my position, you think it means I'm out of arguments?
Your mind works in very strange ways, anon. I don't believe you know very much about debate.
>>66119400
Did Roger Ebert not work in film as well as being a critic?
>>66119419
Critics are required to shape the direction of the medium they critique?
Where are you getting these wild claims?
>>66119400
Not him, but in effect, yes. What the fuck did he contribute to the field?
He's a bellwether for people who wanted to know if a movie was worth 8 bucks.
There's no real literary value to what he produced, no one looked at a review of Saving Private Ryan and went, "damn, he really made me appreciate the movie more."
>>66119375
Even if you don't like medium rare steak you must know an objectively good one when you see it, idiot. If you are to comment on its quality, that is.
>>66119432
Do you yourself even know what your position is? This thread was started by a person who believes that because he doesn't understand why an album is groundbreaking that means it is bad, and all you have are incessant questions about steaks.
>>66119432
No we're saying you have stuffed cotton in your ears and are saying you can't hear us.
>>66115414
If music is nothing more to you than an artistic tap dance routine meant to pander to your whim, you're just a selfish retard, plain and simple. The artist doesn't need to suck your micropenis to obtain validity.
>>66119505
>objectively
There's that word again. Why do you think there is a such thing as an objectively correct opinion?
>>66119358
You imply it in dismissing the necessity of critics to be musically trained, thus leaving criticism to boil down to "I like this".
>>66119507
Why are you commenting on the discussion if you haven't read the thread?
>>66119526
So because several posters have willfully misrepresented my position rather than argue against it on its own merits, that means I have metaphorical cotton in my ears? What?
I understand that it's frustrating to lose a debate, but you lot are getting rather ridiculous. Maybe it's time for some of you to stop posting for a while and cool down.
>>66119473
They are only required to do what whoever pays them wants them to do, but you were asking if their opinions were relevant.
>>66119572
Why are you still building strawmen? Do you think it somehow strengthens your position to make things up and pretend I said or implied them?
>>66119583
Now that's a nice strawman. If your argument is so ambiguous that people keep misrepresenting it, can you really say it exists?
>>66119612
So critics have to define the entire direction of the medium they critique to be relevant?
I don't think you understand the purpose of popular media criticism, anon.
>>66119603
>no my position isn't stupid everyone is just misrepresenting it la la la I can't hear you
>>66119630
Why are you pretending you've read this thread?
>>66119626
PS you also said it.
>>66119664
Why are you pretending I haven't?
>>66119567
Because in the world of cooking there exists such a concept. There is a way medium rare steaks are meant to be, and you can't be surprised when they bring it to you and it's pink in the middle. That's what you all get for bringing food analogies into this, because good cooking is generally objective. Whether you'd like to say that about music, however
>>66119651
Refusing to accept willful misrepresentation of my position means I've got my fingers in my ears?
Are you apt to continue debating without comment when someone willfully misrepresents your position?
>>66119725
>Refusing to accept willful misrepresentation of my position means I've got my fingers in my ears?
What is your position? State it directly.
>>66119666
Why are you trying to tell me that I said something that I know for a fact I did not say?
>>66119725
Please explain what else anybody could possibly extrapolate as a logical conclusion to your position in which you completely dismiss the value of knowledge and experience
>>66119672
If you've read this thread, why are you so confused as to its contents?
>>66119725
>willful misrepresentation of my position
You keep saying that without proving how your positions are being misrepresented, let alone willfully, or even defining your positions. What is it going to take for you to go away?
>>66119705
Why are you still pretending that there is such a thing as an objectively correct opinion?
I don't think you understand what the word "objective" means, anon.
lmao plebeian listen and lurk moar all three of those are god tier
>>66119747
You said it here >>66118008
Jesus fucking christ you autists will argue forever about fucking anything
>>66115379
Pet Sounds
>>66119819
People with schizophrenia should not be allowed to use the internet.
>>66119817
Where in that post do you see me saying that "I liked this" is an effective criticism, as you claimed I did in >>66119386?
>>66119785
Because making a steak is a very simple procedure and somebody not liking steak itself doesn't mean that the steak wasn't good by established steak standards as far as this analogy is concerned. Because there are standards. You can't say "this dish is shit because it has onions in it and I don't like onions." You must offer up an evaluation as to whether or not it holds up for what it is.
>>66119817
Why did you delete the post of yours that I reference in >>66119871? Are you that afraid of being proven wrong?
>>66119766
We can't read minds. If your position isn't as absurd as you've made it sound, why don't you clear the fog?
