Fun Stuff > BAND

Objectivity in Music

<< < (16/18) > >>

Gryff:
That's kind of what I was getting at a lot earlier in the thread. It's much easier to compare the top and bottom ends of music, so that's why we're using them as examples, but just because we may struggle to distinguish between two pieces of music that have similar quality levels doesn't mean that distincitions don't exist.

Garcin:
Couldn't agree more.  So now the challenge is to articulate what separates the absolute crap, from the mediocre & above.  And, on the other hand, what separates the good stuff from the transcendantal.

I'm pretty convinced that the correct response to the second question is not "a 10.0 in Pitchfork", but then again, I'm not a Radiohead fan.

--Moiche

KharBevNor:
Bruce's Philosophers Drinking Song:

"Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed...

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away--
Half a crate of whisky every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
'I drink, therefore I am.'

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed."

Garcin:
Oh, that philosopher's drinking song.  It would be beyond amazing to hear a bunch of drunken philosophy phd's slur that one out in a bar, one late Friday night.  Bonus points if they then got into an argument over different philosopher's opinions on the objective worth of music that escalated to slaps and nipple-twists.

--Moiche

Se7en:
How about some slightly newer philosophy? You may argue that maslow wasnt a philospher, but phycologists can often cover a lot of the same ground..
Anyway, Maslows heirachy of needs puts self actualising needs right at the top of the pyramid, which essentially agrees with Aristotles eudaimonia. HOWEVER.. the important part of maslows heirachy is the idea that the higher desires can never been satisfied before the more basic needs are attended to. The heirachy goes..

Physical needs
Safety needs
Relationships needs
Esteem needs
Self actualising needs

So maslow would say that art isnt worth the CD its pressed on if you dont actaully enjoy it, and that egotistical experimental bands would be useless if we didnt also have love songs and happy songs too.

Just thought id muddy the waters some more.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page