Re: Musical tastes and tasteless arguments

[brownfld@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth R Brownfield)]

lawtonj@project4.COMputer-science.manchester.ac.UK (Kaleidoscope) writes:
>This IMO (IMHO) thing really bugs me (but that's just my opinion) - surely
>most people out there should be able to detect sarcasm, or opionated speech.
>In fact it's rather obvious that when talking about music outside of just
>analysing it's components then one MUST be making a subjective opinion.
>Tell me exactly how do you make objective writing on music (or at least
>objective and interesting writing). The best writing connected with music
>I have read is inspired by the music, by the writers obsessions, by, oh
>who cares. But they never say, 'in my humble opinion' - mostly because to
>write like that you don't conside your opinion humble; you've just discov-
>ered the best piece of music in the world, you want to communicate your love
>for it to everyone - you aren't going to sit back & then say, 'but that's
>just what I think, but I'd get a few other opinions first'. Do you notice

     IMHO is not sarcastic.  It's there for it's exact purpose.  You can take
it sarcastically if you want, but I've never seen it expressed sarcastically.
     You have a point on the "subjective comments should be assumed" subject,
but the point you missed is that 1) what's the line between subjective and
objective?  When I say "Artist A sucks" should this be considered objective or
subjective without any other contextual support?  In other words, Vickie's
words could be taken as thought they were meant to be objective.  When it's
mixed with the Happy Rhodes subject line, people are going to get a bit
paranoid.  If she meant it objectively, I have a problem with it.  Otherwise,
it was intented to be subjective, it's fine by me.
     This is not rec.music.objective.

>many 'real' reviewers (tell me the difference between me writing here, and
>me being published in a newspaper?) declaring that the review is purely
>their opinion & no one else's? No, because the nature of a review makes it
>implicit that the writing is a personal opinion (I need a thesaurus with
>different words for opinion in it!!!!). Sorry to flame at great length 
>about this but it just seems stupid when the whole way we view the world
>is subjective to try & insist we get closer to some 'real' truth.

     Reviews _are_ indeed assumed to be subjective, but that's what a review
is.  Vickie's tone was not that of a review, like it or not.  She loves Happy
Rhodes, and it shows.  I don't hold it against her _at all_, but passion for
an artist (Kate Bush, perhaps?) can get in the way of objectivity.  This isn't
a sin, it just needs to be avoided.

>I mean the fact that this newsgroup is based around people who think that
>Kate is the most important musical artiste in the world shows that some
>people have a pretty warped view of reality anyway (should I put a smiley

     Not entirely, but pretty on-the-mark.

>in here?). If we didn't have so many IMOs & :-) people might learn to read
>what people are saying (and it might allow a little interesting ambiguity).

     This is wrong.  I will never accept "you didn't read it right" when the
"reading" is typed, on a page in front of you.  Written language is far from
specific, and it is not the fault of _anyone_ to misinterpret it.  Telling
someone that they misinterpreted a paragraph is like telling someone that they
can only interpret a poem or music one way.  Netnews isn't as richly developed
as poetry, but the argument applies to anything written.

>>Say someone here touts Artist X as the greatest thing since Kate Bush (in 
>>that ever so useful hyperbolemic style).  A friend tells me that Artist X 
>>sounds like someone abusing a chimpanzee with a garden rake.  Is it not 
>>fair for me to point out my friend's opinion when explaining why I have
>>not rushed out and bought the new Artist X release?

>But hearing that would make me want to investigate - if the two views are
>that extreme then there is likely to be something to the music that causes
>such violent opinions. I tend to avoid stuff that is mundanely described by
>everyone as OK - I mean I quite like Tania Tikaram's first LP but the general
>reaction from everyone in the UK (and on gaffa/love-hounds) is such that I'm
>hardly encouraged to investigate the later ones, when something like Happy
>exists that I'm more likely to have a strong opinion, either way on - there's
>every chance that the Tanita LP would be a waste of money as I have so much
>music I already REALLY like, so it would never get played, but a 50/50 chance
>(about, judging byt the opinions given here) I'd find Happy as exciting as
>Kate.

     That's fine, it's your opinion, and it's your belief.  Expressing this
belief is worthless because it's different for everyone.  I'm not referring
to what you just said, what I mean is that Vickie's post was an expression of
a belief of this same nature with a disturbing tendency towards correctness.
     _Tendency_.  IMO.

>>Is this suddenly members only with any citation of the opinions of
>>outsiders to be viewed as subterfuge?  Does it depend on whether 
>>they tow the line?

>A point on which I really do agree, just to balance the flaming out. I guess
>it might have been acceptable to have quoted a magazine review Richard, as
>that's an accepted source.

     The word "Review" is indeed a good indicator of subjectivity, a word known
better in UseNet as IMHO.

>Julian Lawton - University Of Manchester - England

-- 
                                                        Ken.
Kenneth R. Brownfield                            brownfld@uiuc.edu
Computing Services Office                 uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!brownfld
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.     (finger for more info.)