Hi. My name is Adam. I’m 22, I speak three languages, and I don’t believe in god. When I was 15 I got my heart broken and fell into radio pop-punk, which put it back together again without even thinking twice. Since then, I’ve gradually fallen deeper and deeper into music; I discovered post-rock through God Is An Astronaut and dubstep through Burial, and as it grew more dizzying it got more important. I love music.
Is it so wrong to admit that? And yet, almost every professional music publication in the world denies the humanity behind both its writers and its readers by presenting itself as wholly impartial. Critique 101 reads as follows: “don’t refer to yourself in the first-person; it looks unprofessional.” Is that what “professionalism” means now – detachment? How can you expect people to take seriously any article whose author claims that what he’s written is not a reflection of himself? Why would you want to? People don’t listen to music in a state of disconnect; whatever’s playing right now, the chances are that it’s making you feel something. So why would you ever want to even pretend that the best way to talk about music is by taking five or ten steps back? Or even one?
There is simply no such thing as an objective stance on music. OK Computer is not better than “Friday” by Rebecca Black. Sorry. I wish beyond all limits that it were possible to say so, but there are definitely countless people who detest “Paranoid Android” but sing their hearts out whilst wondering which seat they should take. You can’t argue that majority rules, either, because then Adele is the best performer on the planet right now. And if you’re going to base your opinions around supposedly measurable things like technicality, you’re automatically excluding the most beautifully simple songs ever written – beautiful in my opinion, anyway.
And because there’s no such thing as an objective perspective, there’s no such thing as an objective review. Every write-up you ever read was written by a human being who cares about music in a specific way, someone who has favourite bands and favourite songs and is unequivocally biased in the sense that they like certain things and dislike others. Every review is penned from an angle, with the weight of someone’s mindset and life story on every word they say. The way you first heard a band or an album can change anything and everything; it’s like butterflies and hurricanes, chaos theory – the smallest thing can have the hugest impact. If you find yourself capable of removing yourself from the music, you don’t deserve for your opinions to be taken seriously.
Some people conclude from these points that music journalism should concern itself purely with the reporting of facts: Band X will be at Festival Y; Band Z has a new album out in June. But just because you can’t be officially right about something doesn’t mean you can’t write – and think – with all the conviction in the world. It’s the only honest way to go about it. As readers we find someone who writes in a way with which we identify, who sees things the way we do, and then, possibly, take their advice on what to check out every once in a while. We need that right now; there’s so much music, and so many ways to find it, that we need some way of cutting through the masses to the select few albums that can change people’s lives. To know which ones they are, it helps to listen to people they’ve already made an impression on.
So next time someone approaches you – be it in print or in person – and tells you a band is good, make sure that translates as “I love this band”. The way we talk about music should never be to tell people what to like, just what they might like; I write not because I think I’m right, but because I hope that I have enough in common with enough people for it to matter. There is no such thing as a professional opinion. However professionally something is written, it’s still an opinion, and I’m tired of pretending otherwise. I’m Adam, and I think Taylor Swift is brilliant. There’s a pretty good chance you don’t. Which is fine. Just as long as we know where we stand.
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
Even people who listen to the most generic bands in existence pick out a quality which they find to be unique, which I would mark as individuality. It may be a false fallback, but it's there.
"How does "effort" come into the equation anywhere?"
I think it's pretty easy to tell when a band doesn't give a shit. Read Gyromania's review of Nickelback's latest.
"but it's hardly "cohesive" as most people would understand the term."
The album has to flow at least partially at a logical level or it's a total disaster.
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
My reconciliation of the two antithetical ideas borrows a lot from nihilist ideas, in that to me (and me alone) Friday is objectively bad. I think once we acknowledge that our opinions are absolute, we're allowed to be absolute in our opinions. I can say "OK Computer is better than Friday objectively" 100% accurately, and a Rebecca Black fan can say "Friday is objectively better than OK Computer" and we can both paradoxically be right.
After all, that's why we rate albums, right? True, we have to acknowledge our opinions are just that, opinions, but if you asked us, "Is *insert album rated 5* better than *insert album rated 1*?" we could honestly say yes. Someone else might disagree, but that doesn't change the absoluteness of your own opinion.
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
My neighbor ate all junk food and took a shit.
They're both shit. We both enjoy the smell of our own shit. Would we like the smell of each others' shit? Or would be rub each others' noses in the different pile of shit just to force feed something we both know is shit?
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
but I agree. Fantastic, fantastic read sir knott
11.20.11
11.20.11
"There is no such thing as a professional opinion."
what about if someone gets paid to give opinions derived from their profession...???
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
And I mean, that's literally arguing over semantics lol.
11.20.11
http://images2.fanpop.com/images/quiz/154000/154144_1235878545934_500_281.jpg
11.20.11
11.20.11
i enjoyed writing this
so heh
11.20.11
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA
11.20.11
Yeah, it is. I just feel like looking at it from a grand scheme of things, it's subjective, but to every person, their ideas are objective. You're absolutely right that it's subjective, but I can't justify why I've concluded that my favorite albums are better than Rebecca Black without simply saying "This is my opinion and to me it's fact even though I acknowledge there are dissenting ideas."
It's a paradox but no one said the answer would be easy (and this is my interpretation)
11.20.11
Had to do a double-take on the (unfortunately aligned) 2 mentions of God in the intro though.
11.20.11
But there are objective ways to tell if one thing is better than another. You can try to account for personal taste and subjectivity, and all that nonsense but it just seems like throwing a band-aid at it. I mean, there is stuff you like and stuff you don't like, but within the realm of stuff "you don't like" you can still objectively saw....... FUCK I'm too tired for this, but I like some of the points and this and consider a rebuttal from moi sometime in the future (ie. mid-December)... it will involve the idea of parallax. Huzzah!
11.20.11
11.20.11
http://www.sputnikmusic.com/list.php?listid=70613
yea i didn't either FLOLOL
11.20.11
11.20.11
People should be more aware that when people review things it's always far more biased than a lot of writers would have you believe.
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
there was a link there somewhere Mordecai, i thought it was sort of clever :(
11.20.11
1. subjective opinion
2. objective assessment of a band/record 's end merit.
Reviews that include only one of the above two ingredients fail to hit the mark, imho.
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
"people alllllllways use words that give insight like "heartfelt" or "energetic" or "dramatic" and all of those things are clearly opinions, not facts, and they're also the only useful parts of most reviews."
And you're right, those things wouldn't apply if you were attempting to simply be objective and state nothing but facts as opposed to feelings. But what you address n the second paragraph, to me, is more directed at people who when writing reviews tie the album into a personal experience of theirs (like, Jane Doe reminds me of the first time I had my heart broken etc). And I think that is a rather poor way to go about enticing readers, because you run the risk of alienating them by doing so
I don't think the people who abide by the "don’t refer to yourself in the first-person; it looks unprofessional." rule are merely stating that it's rather sloppy when you introduce yourself like an actual character within your review, whereas remaining as a faceless narrator merely commenting on the album and what you take from it as being perfectly acceptable
11.20.11
Hawks review 101.
11.20.11
11.20.11
I have no idea who that's directed to, it's just general.
11.20.11
11.20.11
I love reading personal reviews, but I'm not good in putting too much personal feelings in descriptions I write myself.
11.20.11
11.20.11
parasitic idiots like to make it about genres and originality and ratings and effort and musical talent and egos and comparisons and assumptions but at the end of the day someone's making noises and you'll be happiest when your minds not hostile to them
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
oh shit Adam if you don't impress the all-powerful and important ROSAPARKS with your next post he's going to have you demoted. SHIT MAN!
11.20.11
i agree completely, there is no such thing as good music or bad music. just music you like and dislike. you can't measure the quality of something that is based entirely on individual perception
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.20.11
11.21.11
11.21.11
Finally, someone else who realizes this
11.21.11
11.21.11
It kinda confounds me that this was something that even needed to be pointed out
11.21.11
11.21.11
11.21.11
11.21.11
11.21.11
11.21.11
11.21.11
If Owl City gets your heart beating faster than a Beethoven symphony, than you shouldn't feel bad for listening to that over Beethoven. You're simply listening to what you like for the exact same reasons that some who loves Beethoven will listen to the 5th Symphony.
But, at the same time, Owl City and Beethoven are not equal. Music has varying levels of complexity and depth. Some music takes more knowledge to appreciate... like an understanding of sonata-allegro form or different music theory principles. Also just going beyond that, some people listen to music more than others and are able to appreciate minor nuances or depth simply based on this listening experience, which has nothing to do with music theory knowledge at all. For someone on that level, I don't really think it would be wrong to look at Owl City as juvenile (as long as you aren't condescending about it).
I think my point is probably more clear with an analogy. Take books for example. Let's say there's two teenagers.. one that loves reading Goosebumps and one that loves "The Library" by Jorge Luis Borges. Even if they both get the exact same enjoyment out of reading their respective books, the one reading Borges obviously has a literary appreciation that reaches far beyond the Goosebumps reader. He can look at the Goosebumps book and totally understand it, but be bored by it because it lacks the nuance and depth of Borges. I don't think it would be wrong of that person to surround himself with Borges' work and disregard things like Goosebumps for not being on the same level.
11.22.11
here you're putting the value on a person's knowledge... i think the value really belongs in the happiness one draws from any music or book for any reason, literary or musical experience factored into it but irrelevant when it comes to valuing it, thus the arguement that "elitism has no foundation" when you view art with the right attitude (not as the occasion to show off one's cleverness)
11.22.11
of course they aren't on the same level in the same way pizza hut pizza is on a different level then my aunt's cheeseburgers but it's not a level of good art bad art it's more of a context thing and different expressions, neither objectively more or less meaningful or valuable
people like to act like one is better when they're "in the know" or they can claim to be "experts" on something
it's just a type of megalomania
11.22.11
The example I use when this topic comes up is Tchaikovsky's 6th Symphony compared to somebody who makes a 20 minute sound recording in a public toilet (yes this has been done). It's absurd to even suggest that there is no objectivity in the comparison. Regardless, someone may prefer the toilet recording over Pathetique, and that's fine.
And then you may ask how do you determine what is good objectively, and I can't really answer that. My example uses two extremes to highlight the point that music (or art in general) is not purely subjective, and in many cases it's extremely difficult to make a distinction. Regardless, I think it's wrong to suggest any art form is purely subjective. That's simply mixing up objective/subjective perspectives with preference (which is something else entirely).
11.22.11
11.22.11
11.22.11
11.22.11
11.22.11
That's actually not what I'm saying though. I'm saying one is objectively better than the other based on this difference in depth, which can be directly correlated with the fact that not everyone can understand it. The understanding itself is secondary to my point.. I'm basically using it as tangible evidence that music can exist on objectively different levels, some of which not everyone is fully capable of appreciating.
11.22.11
AHA1
Kubrik, there i was just saying what can motivate people to view music stupid ways, i wasn't trying to relabel your arguement
"That's actually not what I'm saying though. I'm saying one is objectively better than the other based on this difference in depth, which can be directly correlated with the fact that not everyone can understand it."
but again your appraising the value of music by the depth of knowledge necessary to "appreciate" it instead of valuing its effect on a listener which is not grounded in objectivity
11.23.11
This argument has been done times and times again, and to a certain point i agree that we should just admit that people will have their own preferences which we cannot do anything to change once they pass the age of ~18, and that we should write reviews with these things in mind. Yet, I want to believe (however naively) that people's opinions are malleable if they come in contact with "better" things. What's "better", you ask? Taylor Swift, obviously.
11.23.11
11.23.11
11.23.11
11.23.11
………………………..'„-~^'¯'^*~-„_
……………………….ƒ:::::::::::'|:::¯'-„
……………………...ƒ'::::::::::::|:::::::',
……………………..|':::':::::::::::|:::::::::',
……………………..|:::::'::::::::::|::::::::::',
……………………..'|,:::::':::::::::|:::::::::::'|
………………………'::::::'::::::::'|:::::::::::'|
………………………..':::::::::::::'|,::::::::::'|
…………………………':::::::::::::'|::::::::::'|,
11.23.11
…………………………..':::::':::::::|::::::::::|
…………………………….'::::'::::::'|,::::::::'|
……………………………...':::::::::::'|::::::::'|_
……………………………….„'-~::::::::::::::::|"¯'*^~-„_
…„-----„_………………….„~":::::::::::::::::::::'|:::::::::::¯'*^-„
..ƒ . . . .¯'~„…………..„~'::::::::::::::::::::::::::':::::::::::::::::¯'/~„…_„--~/
..| . . . . . . . '~„……..„/':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::„-„::::::|':;:;''¯;:;:;/
..'| . . . . . . . . .'~„…„/'_::::::::::::::::::„--„::::::::::::::::'|;;;'::::'|;:;:;:';:;:;'~-„_
..'|¯'^~-„_ . . . . . .'„/^¯;¯'~-„::::::::::::|;;;;:::::::::::::::';;;'|::::'|;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;¯„>
…| . . . .¯'~-„ .~--„|_;:;:;:;:;:'~„::::::::';;;;|'::::::::::::::::'¯::::::'|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:„~'
…'| . . . . . . ¯'~;:;:;¯'~-;:;:;:;:;'::::::::::¯::::::::::::::::::_„-~^*/|;:;:;/:;:„~'
….'| . . . . . . . . /';:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:'~---„„_____„„„---~^*'¯-„ : /' .';:;/-„_;:'
…..'| . . . . . . „/';:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;'|: : : : : : : : : : : : : : :'ƒ . . .ƒ
……'| . . . . . /;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;/;:;:;:| : : : : : : : : : : : : „~" ._„~'
…….', . . . /__„„„----„--„;:;:;/-„_;:;|' .'~-„_: : : : __„-~^'_„-^'¯
………'~-„___ . . „/'::::';:'/:::::¯'^~---„„_¯¯''''''''¯_„„-~/'::::¯'~-„_
………..', . . .¯¯¯/:::::::V::„::::::::::::|/ ¯¯'''''''¯¯ . ./':::::::::::::¯'^~-„
………….'~„ . . . /::::::::':::'|::::::::::::| . . . . . .„~'„__::::::::::::::_„/'
……………..'~-„,|:::::::::::'„'|::::::::::::| . _„„-~/'……..¯¯''*^~~^*¯
………………….'|::::::::::ƒ..':::::::::::|¯¯:::ƒ
…………………..::::::„~'…..':::::::::|..'~-~'
……………………'~~'………..'^~„„„/'
11.24.11
11.24.11
This argument has been done times and times again, and to a certain point i agree that we should just admit that people will have their own preferences which we cannot do anything to change once they pass the age of ~18, and that we should write reviews with these things in mind. Yet, I want to believe (however naively) that people's opinions are malleable if they come in contact with "better" things. What's "better", you ask? Taylor Swift, obviously."
there's yer problem dude your making all these comparisons
it's cool to find associations between artists and notice creativity and "complexity" as it tickles you but there's really no reason or point (or objective way to do it that when you value art properly, as something that impacts you, for all the reasons it does) in trying to compare the value of different artists with different intentions and different experiences and contexts
11.30.11
Knott- is not elitist. Whew. Very well said.
When a writer takes on the third person, I don't think they necessarily abandon "I." It's there, but it's just not as apparent. Having said that, I prefer writers who use the first person to those who don't, but they need to be able to do it judiciously. Saying "I" on the internet or in a magazine is
12.02.11