What is Good and what is Shyt ?

PaulBrewer

JT made a good point a couple of weeks about the Value of Art and how does one 'measure' it.

I was listening to Lauren Laverne's BBC 6Music yesterday and a guy called Darwin Deez ( http://www.myspace.com/darwindeez ) who performed a song called Radar Detector.

To me it was great fun, a quirky pop song (in the good sense) with no 'seriousness' in it - but full of style and really well played (for an Indie Band!) on a live Radio session.

I compare this to an artist who asked me to edit up some masters - the songs were drab pop/punk (though produced by a well known UK producer) with the subject matter across the album being about some girl who dumped the singer years ago.

I had every intention of doing the job but I could feel my soul begin to rot as every pop/punk bar passed.

I hit the space bar and Apple + E'd the drive ....

I'm not presenting Darwin as a artistic peak (or the other guys as a trough) but ....


So what is the magic that makes my heart jump one day and grinds it to a halt the next ?

Please tell me ....

maccored

the tune itself and just how you feel that time you hear it would be my guess

Rockshamrover

I think it's the person listening too.

Have you ever thought back to a tune that when you first listened to it, you thought it was fantastic, only to find years later when you listen again it seems ordinary.

One song I thought was great a few years back was "Animal Nitrate" by Suede. I came across the tune again recently and I played it, expecting a rush of audio pleasure, only to be disappointed by it's ordinariness now.

The song hadn't changed, which can only mean that I had.

Another one, going back years was "all is yellow hot hot hot" by our own Auto De Fe.

In my memory this was a great song and I'm sure it was at the time, but again, I had another listen recently and was struck by it's ordinariness now.

Maybe our expectations have been set higher or something and we are more critical now that we were then?

Any thoughts?

MilanPan!c

Rockshamrover wrote: »

I think it's the person listening too.

Have you ever thought back to a tune that when you first listened to it, you thought it was fantastic, only to find years later when you listen again it seems ordinary.

One song I thought was great a few years back was "Animal Nitrate" by Suede. I came across the tune again recently and I played it, expecting a rush of audio pleasure, only to be disappointed by it's ordinariness now.

The song hadn't changed, which can only mean that I had.

Another one, going back years was "all is yellow hot hot hot" by our own Auto De Fe.

In my memory this was a great song and I'm sure it was at the time, but again, I had another listen recently and was struck by it's ordinariness now.

Maybe our expectations have been set higher or something and we are more critical now that we were then?

Any thoughts?

A good song can capture something people can relate to. If a lot of people can relate to it (or project into it) it can be popular.

The thing is though that some bands can capture the now of a time and a lot of people relate to the present

but.

The downside is, if all a song is, is a mirror of the now it will sound dated later.

Truly great songs do a bit of all of it. They reflect now, but they also are timeless (lyrically and musically) and the are broadly relatable.


I know VERY few people that like reggae, BUT put on No Women No Cry and the whole room (of the right age mind) will start singing.


It's just relatable and catchy and inoffensive and well enough produced and zeitgeist-y and timeless.

Not my fave, but a good example o a song that somehow trancends a lot of **** to be kinda timeless. Somehow.

Aridstarling

Ok, its late and this is a complicated subject so excuse any rambling.

First of all, Milan Panic, nothing is ever timeless. Nothing at all. Everything has its moment, if that moment is one remembered or interpreted fondly we then perceive that work to be timeless, untainted by age. Shakespeare isn't timeless or universal (or any of the things they teach you at leaving cert) but because the themes involved can be related to in cathartic, humourous or dramatic fashions, while ignoring the details, it seems timeless. The same goes for music, if a piece of music connects with some personal emotion (catharsis), entertains you (humour) or engages you for itself, not its relation to you (dramatic) then that song will never "age" for you. Basic greek philosophy there really.

I would personally argue that 'No Woman, No Cry' transcends so much because it (and most of Marley's work) makes no effort to engage with anything real. But I'm not a Marley fan and this is not the place for a discussion at length on his pros and cons.

So basically Paul, to give my own interpretation of your quandry, the Darwin Deez song interested you because it entertained you, it made no more purchase upon you than to take three or four minutes of your time and fill it with a little goodness, make you smile. Where the other songs attempted to work off the other two categories and failed in both, neither engaging you through its relationship with your own life or by the merit of its own characters and dramatic devices. As a result it ticked none of the three boxes, therefore you formed the opinion you did on it.

Hope you enjoyed my philosophical nonsense, its all part of a larger theory I'm trying to form on aesthetics. Getting there but there are some factors like appreciation of the technical for the sake of its technicality for instance (which probably cuts more into psychology than strict philosophy to be honest) that still have me stumped. I'm here all week.

Rockshamrover

I think both of you made valid points (Milan Arid)

Peoples taste in music seems to change as they get older. Or what they get from music.

We all saw the Crystal Meth videos recently. That band could probably fill the o2 for a week solid. Their core audience were probably teenagers during the 1960s, so they grew up listening to the Stones, the Doors, The Beatles etc.

How does this happen? And more importantly is there a cure?:D

PaulBrewer

Rockshamrover wrote: »

I think it's the person listening too.

Have you ever thought back to a tune that when you first listened to it, you thought it was fantastic, only to find years later when you listen again it seems ordinary.

One song I thought was great a few years back was "Animal Nitrate" by Suede. I came across the tune again recently and I played it, expecting a rush of audio pleasure, only to be disappointed by it's ordinariness now.

The song hadn't changed, which can only mean that I had.

Another one, going back years was "all is yellow hot hot hot" by our own Auto De Fe.

In my memory this was a great song and I'm sure it was at the time, but again, I had another listen recently and was struck by it's ordinariness now.

Maybe our expectations have been set higher or something and we are more critical now that we were then?

Any thoughts?

I see what you mean there Rock - but what about the stuff that transcends that ? Stuff you liked back then AND now. There has to be more to it than personal preference - but some inherent Art Value that is common to the classics both new and old.

maccored

is there a value that art brings? couldnt it be much the same as realising for example, that you liked a certain brand of coffee tens years back and you still like it today, whereas theres other brands of coffee you may have liked before and not anymore? there is obviously an art is creating anything, but one mans Good can be another mans Shyte.

Aridstarling

How do we define "classic" though? The ever expanding cannon of literature, music and art is not one easily bound. At the heart of all this we must realise that all appreciation of art, of any kind, is inherently subjective and can never be in any way totally objective. The most we can hope to do from a disinterested critical point of view is form an educated opinion, one that will be influenced and informed by the related past and present. The links we draw between one piece of art and another, which so often define our reactions to art, are entirely personal, growing from our own store of knowledge and experience. There is no set universal classic, there is no inherent Art Value, its just personal opinion, though hopefully an informed one.

FlipperThePriest

Art seems to be about reactivating the senses. How the brain processes art and music is a lot to do with past personal experiences. Hense at an earlier time in your life when a song may have seemed good; it was because it could fully relate to your experience at that time, but after some years, more significant or fruitful experiences may have surpressed your old experiences and consequently your taste in music.
Being that we're social beings, we share a lot of experiences and this forms the basis for a popular culture of music, or music which we can all enjoy at some stage.

"The brain needs to build predictive music models, whose purpose is to estimate patterns in the incoming stimuli. These predictive models allow the brain to interact with the world efficiently" EDUARDO RECK MIRANDA (from a paper on a neuroscientific outlook on music)....."We receive sound as an
incoming mishmash of pressure waves – not just one vibration, but layer upon layer. Part of our ability to make sense of all this is due to the fact that we develop models of what we expect to hear: phonemes, words, music. As we perceive sound, it either fulfils our expected models or surprises us" (J. Ratey) ....

....it's a pretty interesting paper, anyone that wants an e-copy can let me know.

dasdog

zippy84 wrote: »

"The brain needs to build predictive music models, whose purpose is to estimate patterns in the incoming stimuli. These predictive models allow the brain to interact with the world efficiently"

Slightly off topic but I would think this is partially why American Country & Western music is so popular in places like Ireland. Its probably also why people on mind altering substances which heighten the related senses really get in to trance/dance music which feeds the brains raised appetite for repetition.

zippy84 wrote: »

As we perceive sound, it either fulfils our expected models or surprises us" (J. Ratey) ....

I would think this is part of the reason why people such as John Coltrane are so highly regarded. There are other reasons such as the technical appreciation and other factors people have mentioned above I'm sure.

On reggae, the average person is only exposed to radio friendly Marley hits, the odd UB40 tune (I wouldnt consider them as reggae personally) or sunshine happy music on a TV advertisment for something thats supposed to make their life better.

As for what sounded amazing then and now, well familiarity breeds contempt. Aside from the initial "wow" factor there isn't much which would weigh up then compared to now personally. But for me something like the first Iron Maiden album which I first heard ~25 years ago still sounds almost as exciting/energetic now compared to when I first heard it (initial reaction: what the hell is that??). But they were inventing not replicating something and that's a starting point to being good as opposed to shyt. Honesty, which is rare, is very important too.

Rockshamrover

PaulBrewer wrote: »

I see what you mean there Rock - but what about the stuff that transcends that ? Stuff you liked back then AND now. There has to be more to it than personal preference - but some inherent Art Value that is common to the classics both new and old.

God, you ask some tough questions.

I think music appeals to people on so many different levels. Lots of it can be just down to where you were born and when you were born.

Which records your big brother or sister bought, what music the cool kids in your school listened to.

We are the products of our environment.

MilanPan!c

Rockshamrover wrote: »

God, you ask some tough questions.

I think music appeals to people on so many different levels. Lots of it can be just down to where you were born and when you were born.

Which records your big brother or sister bought, what music the cool kids in your school listened to.

We are the products of our environment.

well, it's more complex than that as well... What about, say, Beethoven?

Aridstarling

Infinitely more complex than that Rock. As a continuation of what Milan was saying there, I fell asleep the other night, at home in the middle of nowhere in rural Offaly, listening to Hymie's Basement, an experimental, lo-fi, hip-hop style album made by two fella's in a basement in Oakland, Minnesotta.

Nothing of my own environment would have enabled me to understand or get pleasure from listening to such an album, its references of place or person meant little or nothing to me (most of the lyrics are pretty nonsensical anyway).

Style wise it would have nothing to do with anything I, my family or any of my friends grew up listening to and as such its enjoyment can not have come from any peer related influence, consciously or subconsciously.

In short, the pleasure in listening to it comes not from identification with the songs or even dramaticised engagement with the songs. Using my theory from earlier it must then fit the "humour" category. (I think I'll have to find a better word than humour because than seems to cheapen or demean it.) The enjoyment must come from a basic appreciation of the sound at an elemental level, my brain has obviously either developed the ability to interpret this music in a way that it finds pleasing and stimulative or it is being surprised by it (possibly more likely in this case) and is therefore being stimulated in that manner.

I should also say that your appreciation for any piece of art can change focus, the reasons behind it can change. In time my appreciation for Hymie's Basement may move from one of elemental sound to one based on knowledge and personal interpretation of the lyrics. Nothing is fixed.

Rockshamrover

Yeah guys I hear you, it's not all black and white.

But guys, had you been born in rural China, you'd be listening to and enjoying a completely different type of music. Had you been born 10 years earlier than you were, you'd probably have no interest in the music you listen to today. When's the last time you caught your granny flicking through your collection of lo fi techno?

On the Beethoven thing, yes nearly all of us like some classical music in our lives, it seems to overcome the generation gap thing with no problems (why is that?) but when did you last buy or download one of his records:D And is he on your ipod? probably not. I personally can appreciate Mr Beethoven but I only listen to him involuntarily.

MilanPan!c

Rockshamrover wrote: »

Yeah guys I hear you, it's not all black and white.

But guys, had you been born in rural China, you'd be listening to and enjoying a completely different type of music. Had you been born 10 years earlier than you were, you'd probably have no interest in the music you listen to today. When's the last time you caught your granny flicking through your collection of lo fi techno?

On the Beethoven thing, yes nearly all of us like some classical music in our lives, it seems to overcome the generation gap thing with no problems (why is that?) but when did you last buy or download one of his records:D And is he on your ipod? probably not. I personally can appreciate Mr Beethoven but I only listen to him involuntarily.

Not me... Huge fan... In fact the bassist in my band is also wildly into classical.

Was listening to the 9th yesterday.

Plus man there's tons of people obsessed with rockabilly or 50-70s jazz.

I would say that yea, many peoples background is reflected in their taste, but that's not the secret to taste. It's more complex, because some things resonant like mad with people from almost every background.

And they seem to do it for years and decades and sometimes even centuries after they're created.

shayleon

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Not me... Huge fan... In fact the bassist in my band is also wildly into classical.

Milan, you got my curiosity. Any links to your bands music?
cheers.

MilanPan!c

shayleon wrote: »

Milan, you got my curiosity. Any links to your bands music?
cheers.

[board collectively groans]

sure man:

http://www.myspace.com/theriottapes
http://soundcloud.com/the-riot-tapes

All just demos, but we have a record coming out this fall.

Feel free to hate it with abandon.

I personally own probably 2-300 classical recordings (lot's of Shostakovich, Beethoven, Cage, Reich, Glass... and a wide mix of everything else).

I even have favourite conductors (e.g. Furtwangler).

In fact, me and my bassist, both of whom come from punk/indie/classic rock backgrounds pretty much only listen to lyric. Funny huh?

(Doesn't help that things like Phantom are arse of course.)

ogy

for a great summary of lots of philosophical thought on what is "quality" check out Robert Pirsigs Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.