the "I don't get it" thread

Knox in Box said:
Back to free jazz here.

I don't see where anyone " needs" to have a starting point to get into some type of music. It's always like "well, you know,...you really should start off with this,.... this was accessible, before you get to this. Otherwise it sounds like trash..."

Why does musical "enjoyment" have to be some sort of aural Stockholm Syndrome?

Count me happily out.

I was going to state that there is no comfort zone in ignorance for me to another comment here, but I realised that at least in music there is.

And Dexter won the interwebs for his comment on Wilco/Radiohead :)
Click to expand...

Music is the quintessential artform where people value their own kneejerk opinions above the enormous critical consensus.

If you said the same thing about about the literature of Joyce, Proust, Beckett, etc. ... I mean, there's nothing wrong about ignorant about literature, but people would instantly recognize that you're ignorant about literature if you said that admiration for Moby-Dick is example of the Emperor's New Clothes. If your kid complains about having to read Middlemarch in school, do you go to the principle and say that if books don't offer instant rewards and pleasures, then what's the point?

Context is everything. You can't walk into a major art museum and have any kind of opinion whatsoever without an education. Manet? What's so interesting about this? Another naked chick reclining.

How about ballet? If someone threw you in the audience to watch Sara Mearns perform a Balanchine solo, would you be confident in asserting that your opinion is as valid as the next?

What's so different about music?

Fear of being thought ignorant breeds ignorance, simply put.

Paraphrasing, Cecil Taylor said "I prepare for the performance; the audience should prepare as well." He's within his rights to say that. He's an artist.
 
Fair point indeed, my wish for music to have a certain aesthetic pleasure factor is still my prerogative. I enjoy visual stimulus of all kinds and enjoy and understand much art.

I will never appreciate shit in a can as art, will never see how someone creating"art" from giving himself paint enemas and shitting it onto a canvas can be desireable. So much for "art" .

I have no "fear of being thought ignorant" if I wilfully remain ignorant of genres of music I find shitty, and state so in public forum.
 
Knox in Box said:
Fair point indeed, my wish for music to have a certain aesthetic pleasure factor is still my prerogative. I enjoy visual stimulus of all kinds and enjoy and understand much art.

I will never appreciate shit in a can as art, will never see how someone creating"art" from giving himself paint enemas and shitting it onto a canvas can be desireable. So much for "art" .

I have no "fear of being thought ignorant" if I wilfully remain ignorant of genres of music I find shitty, and state so in public forum.
Click to expand...

That's a false dichotomy.

There's a lot of stuff that's being skipped over if you go straight from Impressionism to enemas in a can.

Virtually none of the music discussed in this thread is comparable to that.
 
Flamencology said:
That's a false dichotomy.

There's a lot of stuff that's being skipped over if you go straight from Impressionism to enemas in a can.

Virtually none of the music discussed in this thread is comparable to that.
Click to expand...
Good for you. I may never know since I'm not afraid of my ignorance.

Gotta go now and return some beer benches while jamming to Foreigner.
 
Flamencology said:
Music is the quintessential artform where people value their own kneejerk opinions above the enormous critical consensus.

If you said the same thing about about the literature of Joyce, Proust, Beckett, etc. ... I mean, there's nothing wrong about ignorant about literature, but people would instantly recognize that you're ignorant about literature if you said that admiration for Moby-Dick is example of the Emperor's New Clothes. If your kid complains about having to read Middlemarch in school, do you go to the principle and say that if books don't offer instant rewards and pleasures, then what's the point?

Context is everything. You can't walk into a major art museum and have any kind of opinion whatsoever without an education. Manet? What's so interesting about this? Another naked chick reclining.

How about ballet? If someone threw you in the audience to watch Sara Mearns perform a Balanchine solo, would you be confident in asserting that your opinion is as valid as the next?

What's so different about music?

Fear of being thought ignorant breeds ignorance, simply put.

Paraphrasing, Cecil Taylor said "I prepare for the performance; the audience should prepare as well." He's within his rights to say that. He's an artist.
Click to expand...

Definitely well stated, but it should not be forgotten that art does not require being particularly or specifically educated about the genre, topic, style, content, etc. to be consumed.

As such it is not entirely uncommon for someone seemingly ignorant about a given form of expression to make astute observations about a work or assessments of works, in much the same way someone needn't be trained in a given art (writing, acting, music, painting, etc.) to produce wonderful and amazing works. Sometimes that ignorance about the technical aspect of an art can be a catalyst for creating an inspiring work (or many works).

In the long term the artist is likely to acquire many of skills they may have initially skipped, but they may come upon them through trial and error and not do them "correctly" based on any academic/professional notion of how a thing is to be done. However, should they remain ignorant of skills widely used among their inspirations, peers, or their proteges, it doesn't represent any important qualifier for their work.

In the end, more of the people that partake of an given work of art or likely to be in the realm of ignorant. Their appreciation or disdain is based on a visceral reaction to a piece. That could be based on language, colors, tones (sound-based), instrumentation, medium, cultural aesthetic norms, or countless other things.

And now I'll stop because I should be working. :thu:
 
Knox in Box said:
While I find the humour, I never referred to Foreigner as "art".
Click to expand...

Not all art is even good let alone great.

But there are people that absolutely and unapologetically love Foreigner...so for them it would almost be high art.

I mean 50 Shades of Grey is classified as literature. To be fair though, I haven't read this book, so it might actually be brilliant.
 
Knox in Box said:
Technically. I wouldn't call it high art. Just something to listen to that I enjoy some of and mostly only interjected into my statement to combat(weakly) the condescending tone around here. Good night now.
Click to expand...

Not technically, actually. And though it may be folk art, that doesn't make it any less valid than "high art". Even if it does suck. :tongue:
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
You're missing "In A Silent Way" and "Jack Johnson". While "Bitches Brew" was released between them, the others are more accessible as "electric free jazz". It's kinda like listening to Captain Beefheart's "Trout Mask Replica" without hearing anything he did with Zappa or "Safe as Milk" first. Without context, and a desire to get weirder, it's a grating experience.
Click to expand...

re-visited "Jack Johnson" today.

now this is a fusion record. could almost be contemporary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top