If you combine the output of Joy Division / New Order...

[NyQuil]

If we're evaluating bands through personal lenses, with the Beatles, it's probably because their songs were so pervasive while I was growing up that I don't attach a great deal of personal significance to the band.

They're almost like traditional folk songs, Christmas carols or children's songs, I can hum them, I know the lyrics, I hear them everywhere. They've been covered by every acoustic guitar playing guy on every street corner. Every karaoke night has a Beatles song. They played over the PA at supermarkets and in shopping malls.

I didn't really "discover" the Beatles, they sort of happened to me without any agency on my part. I don't find many of their songs to be overly complex or interesting from a musical perspective, aside from their very experimental stuff, which I dislike on the basis that I've always felt that it was inaccessible for its own sake. I found some of their lyrics to be childish and silly.

Of course, I'm not a complete idiot - I've read books about them, watched documentaries, seen the laundry list of bands that were heavily influenced by them and their impact on the evolution of music. I've been informed in considerable depth by Beatles fans why they are so good and so important. I've seen the youtube videos that go into considerable detail into the musical theory behind some of their hits.

So while I can appreciate them on an intellectual level, I do not on that visceral emotional level. In that capacity, I can certainly understand some of the perspectives in this thread.

I can recall going to see that free Eagles concert that Eugene Melnyk threw for season ticket holders back when he was still wealthy. I was no real fan of the Eagles, but over the course of the event, it shocked me to the core that I knew virtually all of their songs. I never set out to assimilate the Eagles, it happened via some form of musical osmosis.

However, in the face of the mountain of evidence that asserts the greatness of the Beatles, I don't feel the need to challenge their position based wholly on my own personal beliefs and experiences. I can tell you who my favourite five bands are, but I won't try to prepare an argument that they are the greatest of all-time.

Part of that is the fact that I believe it is impossible to separate the context of life experience from the music itself. Your mood, life circumstances, age, actions, all of these are factors that inevitably affect your perspective on a particular band, song or album. In that vein, what is "honest" about looking to a collective judgment is that, through amalgamation, personal experiences are ultimately subsumed or effectively cancel out, leaving a purer evaluation of what was created.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Ah, this is the stumbling block for me, one Shareefruck and I have chased around the barnyard on more than one occasion. This seems the ultimate solipsistic nonsense. Why in the world is anyone's personal favourite by definition the best there is? The solipsistic approach places the observer at the centre of the universe--it's critical approach that gives the critic all the power which is why I think it is popular with some people (not accussing Shareefruck here because the dude does think things through and does this sort of thing very well).

My favouite classical composer is Gabriel Faure; I love his beautiful, elegant music like no other classical composer's. But I would be an idiot to suggest that his music was superior to Bach who I also love just less passionately than Faure. To claim that seems to me like a monster ego talking, nothing more--something is great or the best because I like it. That's an arrogant approach. Solipsism creates the kind of critical apparatus that can conflate best and great and favourite as though they are all the same thing, when by definition they are clearly not, and then claim, quoting Shareefruck here, the confusion comes because these terms are "mislabeled" by others. Three separate categories, but they can be ignored because they are inconvenient from this particular solipsistic perspective. Every body has favourites, but, sweet jesus, don't tell me all of them are the best/greatest music in the world. For these guys in the "it must be the best because I like it" school, all I gotta say is get over yourselves.

See, I agree that it is an absolutely solipsistic approach but I don't inherently view this as a bad thing or as an arrogant worldview (and certainly not more so than the worldview that should dictate I need view something else as better because others have decided so). The suggestion is never 'I think it's the best and this is a definitive statement that should usurp what the culture has decided' but 'This is why this works better than the rest for me and here's why.' Which by my own subjective taste, would constitute X as the best band, best book, best film, etc. I don't add a ton of preambles detailing how this is just my opinion/in my view because I think that when discussing art, it doesn't need to be said. Unless someone comes out with the alternative (i.e. claiming that X is objectively the best) then the opposite should be assumed as the default position. In as much as my approach to appreciation is solipsistic, I also appreciate it in others, without expecting any sort of consensus or agreement on my preferences. To me, there is nothing with a critic having all the 'power' or being 'at the center of the universe' when discussing subjective taste. Why wouldn't I want that for myself and for others? Why wouldn't I gain pleasure and appreciation and insight from the singular experience of an individual? I find it incredibly rewarding and a great way to share. Essentially, and for lack of a better word, the solipsism is only present in its initial musing but not in its sharing (i.e. it allows for the validity of other views without subscribing to them)

Again, I agree with your point regarding the definition of the three terms if we're discussing something with an objective goal like organized sport (i.e. there are verifiable ways that we can determine that Wayne Gretzky is the best hockey player) but when all here seem to agree on the subjectivity of the artform (thereby dismissing things such as record sales and etc, which have external factors that are not always artistic) then I don't see where the disagreement is besides a discussion of semantics.

 

[McDeepika]

Ah, this is the stumbling block for me, one Shareefruck and I have chased around the barnyard on more than one occasion. This seems the ultimate solipsistic nonsense. Why in the world is anyone's personal favourite by definition the best there is? The solipsistic approach places the observer at the centre of the universe--it's critical approach that gives the critic all the power which is why I think it is popular with some people (not accussing Shareefruck here because the dude does think things through and does this sort of thing very well).

My favouite classical composer is Gabriel Faure; I love his beautiful, elegant music like no other classical composer's. But I would be an idiot to suggest that his music was superior to Bach who I also love just less passionately than Faure. To claim that seems to me like a monster ego talking, nothing more--something is great or the best because I like it. That's an arrogant approach. Solipsism creates the kind of critical apparatus that can conflate best and great and favourite as though they are all the same thing, when by definition they are clearly not, and then claim, quoting Shareefruck here, the confusion comes because these terms are "mislabeled" by others. Three separate categories, but they can be ignored because they are inconvenient from this particular solipsistic perspective. Every body has favourites, but, sweet jesus, don't tell me all of them are the best/greatest music in the world. For these guys in the "it must be the best because I like it" school, all I gotta say is get over yourselves.

Very well said. Couldn't agree more.

 

[kihei]

See, I agree that it is an absolutely solipsistic approach but I don't inherently view this as a bad thing or as an arrogant worldview (and certainly not more so than the worldview that should dictate I need view something else as better because others have decided so). The suggestion is never 'I think it's the best and this is a definitive statement that should usurp what the culture has decided' but 'This is why this works better than the rest for me and here's why.' Which by my own subjective taste, would constitute X as the best band, best book, best film, etc. I don't add a ton of preambles detailing how this is just my opinion/in my view because I think that when discussing art, it doesn't need to be said. Unless someone comes out with the alternative (i.e. claiming that X is objectively the best) then the opposite should be assumed as the default position. In as much as my approach to appreciation is solipsistic, I also appreciate it in others, without expecting any sort of consensus or agreement on my preferences. To me, there is nothing with a critic having all the 'power' or being 'at the center of the universe' when discussing subjective taste. Why wouldn't I want that for myself and for others? Why wouldn't I gain pleasure and appreciation and insight from the singular experience of an individual? I find it incredibly rewarding and a great way to share. Essentially, and for lack of a better word, the solipsism is only present in its initial musing but not in its sharing (i.e. it allows for the validity of other views without subscribing to them)

Again, I agree with your point regarding the definition of the three terms if we're discussing something with an objective goal like organized sport (i.e. there are verifiable ways that we can determine that Wayne Gretzky is the best hockey player) but when all here seem to agree on the subjectivity of the artform (thereby dismissing things such as record sales and etc, which have external factors that are not always artistic) then I don't see where the disagreement is besides a discussion of semantics.

Yeah...ah, no...like, I mean, really no. My mama didn't bring her baby up to like none of these new-fangled, egalitarian approaches to art criticism. The single thing I hate about this uncritical kind of criticism is that it leads to superficial, fan-friendly blitherings, rather than genuine analysis that brings insights that actually illuminate the work being discussed (which is ultimately the saving grace of much of Shareefruck's writing). Equally unfortunate, such an approach leads to self-indulgent critics and incredibly sloppy writing. Case in point coming from you a few pages back: "The Beatles are good but they get left in the dust by VU. I can't think of one thing they do better besides having more fans." How can you take this solipsistic approach seriously when it leads to laughable claims like that. It is interesting to note that you have never made a single claim as spurious as this on the "books" page, where your approach seems much more text based and rigorous, remarkably free of such howlers. The right that you have to such an opinion doesn't make it any less dumb.

And I don't know why the hell you solipsistic guys aren't just happy to explain why Band X works better for you and is your favourite and leave it at that. Why does that have to get glopped into "oh, and they're the best ever, the greatest." Why does that need to follow? Only a very indulgent kind of criticism, one that exhibits an overweening and uncritical sense of the self, humours such fanboy attempts at evaluation.

The elitist will now retire for cognac by the hearth.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Yeah...ah, no...like, I mean, really no. My mama didn't bring her baby up to like none of these new-fangled, egalitarian approaches to art criticism. The single thing I hate about this uncritical kind of criticism is that it leads to superficial, fan-friendly blitherings, rather than genuine analysis that brings insights that actually illuminate the work being discussed (which is ultimately the saving grace of much of Shareefruck's writing). Equally unfortunate, such an approach leads to self-indulgent critics and incredibly sloppy writing. Case in point coming from you a few pages back: "The Beatles are good but they get left in the dust by VU. I can't think of one thing they do better besides having more fans." How can you take this solipsistic approach seriously when it leads to laughable claims like that. It is interesting to note that you have never made a single claim as spurious as this on the "books" page, where your approach seems much more text based and rigorous, remarkably free of such howlers. The right that you have to such an opinion doesn't make it any less dumb.

And I don't know why the hell you solipsistic guys aren't just happy to explain why Band X works better for you and is your favourite and leave it at that. Why does that have to get glopped into "oh, and they're the best ever, the greatest." Why does that need to follow? Only a very indulgent kind of criticism, one that exhibits an overweening and uncritical sense of the self, humours such fanboy attempts at evaluation.

The elitist will now retire for cognac by the hearth.

It's one post - I've discussed specifically why the VU work for me (similarly to the approach you describe my posts in from the books thread) better than anybody else numerous times, whether you saw it or not is immaterial, but I think it's ridiculous to expect one to write an essay every single time to explain why such a thing works better for me. Call it dumb, call it solipsistic, it doesn't matter to me. I've made similarly strong-willed comments about other directors or artists or works and it never bothered you then - in fact, sometimes/often you approved/agreed of it. The only difference that I can see here is that the artist (I can't even say criticized here!) was one that seems to be your favorite/you have infinite respect and admiration for.

In a similar vein, I don't understand (or believe it to be justified) why my claiming that I find such a band the greatest or the best ever is so bothersome to you (and if I had said it in favor of The Beatles instead of the VU or another band, would it stick in your craw so much?) and why it would justify making personal attacks. The onus isn't on the poster to restrain their enthusiasm, but on the recipients to not take it personally or as an attack on their own views (such as your claim on The Beatles and having 100 of the greatest pop/rock songs, to which I disagree as vehemently as you do my thinking that the VU were a much better band than The Beatles). Would I have been justified in jumping down your throat if you made a post choosing a Satyajit Ray movie as the best/greatest of all-time? Or if you claimed that it left * Other highly acclaimed movie that you don't like/don't like as much * in the dust? I don't think I would be.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

If you combine the outputs of Blur and Gorrillaz then my grandmother would be a bike.

 

[kihei]

It's one post - I've discussed specifically why the VU work for me (similarly to the approach you describe my posts in from the books thread) better than anybody else numerous times, whether you saw it or not is immaterial, but I think it's ridiculous to expect one to write an essay every single time to explain why such a thing works better for me. Call it dumb, call it solipsistic, it doesn't matter to me. I've made similarly strong-willed comments about other directors or artists or works and it never bothered you then - in fact, sometimes/often you approved/agreed of it. The only difference that I can see here is that the artist (I can't even say criticized here!) was one that seems to be your favorite/you have infinite respect and admiration for.

In a similar vein, I don't understand (or believe it to be justified) why my claiming that I find such a band the greatest or the best ever is so bothersome to you (and if I had said it in favor of The Beatles instead of the VU or another band, would it stick in your craw so much?) and why it would justify making personal attacks. The onus isn't on the poster to restrain their enthusiasm, but on the recipients to not take it personally or as an attack on their own views (such as your claim on The Beatles and having 100 of the greatest pop/rock songs, to which I disagree as vehemently as you do my thinking that the VU were a much better band than The Beatles). Would I have been justified in jumping down your throat if you made a post choosing a Satyajit Ray movie as the best/greatest of all-time? Or if you claimed that it left * Other highly acclaimed movie that you don't like/don't like as much * in the dust? I don't think I would be.

Nah, the only difference is that you never said anything that stupid in your life. I have no problem with anybody choosing any band as their favourite. My problem is when that gets bumped up to greatest or best because the writer wishes it so, rather than provides an argument why it could be so. However I do believe it is fair game to point out particularly egregious statements when they occur and I did so. That being said, I can see why you took that as a personal attack, when my actual target was the type of criticism that solipsists champion. Apologies for that. As for enthusiasm, it's great and can be a great hook to get a reader interested. But it's a starting point, not an end point for me. If I am going to stay interested there has got to be more meat on the bone than merely enthusiasm to keep me going.

 

[Aladyyn]

Ah, this is the stumbling block for me, one Shareefruck and I have chased around the barnyard on more than one occasion. This seems the ultimate solipsistic nonsense. Why in the world is anyone's personal favourite by definition the best there is? The solipsistic approach places the observer at the centre of the universe--it's critical approach that gives the critic all the power which is why I think it is popular with some people (not accussing Shareefruck here because the dude does think things through and does this sort of thing very well).

My favouite classical composer is Gabriel Faure; I love his beautiful, elegant music like no other classical composer's. But I would be an idiot to suggest that his music was superior to Bach who I also love just less passionately than Faure. To claim that seems to me like a monster ego talking, nothing more--something is great or the best because I like it. That's an arrogant approach. Solipsism creates the kind of critical apparatus that can conflate best and great and favourite as though they are all the same thing, when by definition they are clearly not, and then claim, quoting Shareefruck here, the confusion comes because these terms are "mislabeled" by others. Three separate categories, but they can be ignored because they are inconvenient from this particular solipsistic perspective. Every body has favourites, but, sweet jesus, don't tell me all of them are the best/greatest music in the world. For these guys in the "it must be the best because I like it" school, all I gotta say is get over yourselves.

This solipsistic approach is the only way to evaluate art, an inherently subjective thing. Trying to put any sort of objective lens on art is doing it a disservice and negatively influencing people's views. Now of course that also makes any sort of "best of all time" conversation utterly worthless, as any list anyone can provide is going to be some combination of personal satisfaction and general acclaim - all the bands mentioned in this thread are hugely popular, nobody is coming in here claiming some obscure band is in the conversation, despite possibly enjoying their output as much as the popular ones'.

If anything I would argue that the approach that puts a band like The Beatles on a pedestal is more ego-driven, in a desire to justify one's taste and opinions.

 

[kihei]

This solipsistic approach is the only way to evaluate art, an inherently subjective thing. Trying to put any sort of objective lens on art is doing it a disservice and negatively influencing people's views. Now of course that also makes any sort of "best of all time" conversation utterly worthless, as any list anyone can provide is going to be some combination of personal satisfaction and general acclaim - all the bands mentioned in this thread are hugely popular, nobody is coming in here claiming some obscure band is in the conversation, despite possibly enjoying their output as much as the popular ones'.

If anything I would argue that the approach that puts a band like The Beatles on a pedestal is more ego-driven, in a desire to justify one's taste and opinions.

Well, there you guys go again.

"The solipsistic approach is the only way to evaluate art, an inherently subjective thing." The only way. Ai yi yi. If you had said "one way" I wouldn't have a problem with that. There are no objective standards, I agree with that. That doesn't mean that there can't be agreed upon subjective standards that are broadly shared, open to debate, and and easy to understand for most readers. I mean, this whole solipsistic approach thing is from one perspective little more that a war on standards because solipsists believe that personal opinion is sacred, cannot and should not be questioned. Standards beggar the notion that personal opinion is everything, that the "I" is all that counts. The other thing standards do is to put the horse before the cart where it belongs, not the other way around. Start by establishing the criteria for greatness and then see if your favourite band fits them. That to me is a big improvement over starting with the favourite band and then figuring out how to boost their status so that it proves what you already want proved to begin with. Why standards are anathema to you guys is they make the judgement of art more of a collective or social endeavour than a solitary, masturbatory one. So you can go, "oh, but those are not my standards." So figure out what your standards are (if you have any), debate them, question them, explore them, and then go from there. Can't do that. Don't want to. Then don't accuse somebody of having a more ego-driven approach than your own.

 

[Aladyyn]

Well, there you guys go again.

"The solipsistic approach is the only way to evaluate art, an inherently subjective thing." The only way. Ai yi yi. If you had said "one way" I wouldn't have a problem with that. There are no objective standards, I agree with that. That doesn't mean that there can't be agreed upon subjective standards that are broadly shared, open to debate, and and easy to understand for most readers. I mean, this whole solipsistic approach thing is from one perspective little more that a war on standards because solipsists believe that personal opinion is sacred, cannot and should not be questioned. Standards beggar the notion that personal opinion is everything, that the "I" is all that counts. The other thing standards do is to put the horse before the cart where it belongs, not the other way around. Start by establishing the criteria for greatness and then see if your favourite band fits them. That to me is a big improvement over starting with the favourite band and then figuring out how to boost their status so that it proves what you already want proved to begin with. Why standards are anathema to you guys is they make the judgement of art more of a collective or social endeavour than a solitary, masturbatory one. So you can go, "oh, but those are not my standards." So figure out what your standards are (if you have any), debate them, question them, explore them, and then go from there. Can't do that. Don't want to. Then don't accuse somebody of having a more ego-driven approach than your own.

It is the only way, in music moreso than literature or cinema, because music lacks any sort of objective metrics. Personal opinion on music is indeed sacred and cannot be questioned, the only way to change someone's opinion on music is to introduce them to something they haven't heard before and letting them develop their taste. There is no need for anyone to justify or defend their favorite bands to anyone, beyond gushing over their favorite songs and albums as a means of recommendation. And there is even less of a need to care what others think about one's tastes and opinions.

The Beatles are an extremely successful and popular band and that's cool. But it's telling that afaik nobody in this thread considers them their favorite band.

 

[kook10]

HF=

"Let's discuss music"

"Sure, great!" (writes 5 paragraph screed about self)

 

[kihei]

^^^^^^
A) Who said anything about objective standards?; B) Who said anything about the need to justify one's favourite band? Maybe try reading my posts again.



This is bit is not aimed at you, just me musing: In what endeavours does solipsism work for anybody? Can you imagine somebody taking a solipsistic approach to relationships? Yowza. How about a solipsistic approach to science? Two words: Donald Trump

 

[Ceremony]

@Miguel Cairo are you still actually reading any of this?

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Nah, the only difference is that you never said anything that stupid in your life. I have no problem with anybody choosing any band as their favourite. My problem is when that gets bumped up to greatest or best because the writer wishes it so, rather than provides an argument why it could be so. However I do believe it is fair game to point out particularly egregious statements when they occur and I did so. That being said, I can see why you took that as a personal attack, when my actual target was the type of criticism that solipsists champion. Apologies for that. As for enthusiasm, it's great and can be a great hook to get a reader interested. But it's a starting point, not an end point for me. If I am going to stay interested there has got to be more meat on the bone than merely enthusiasm to keep me going.

I can respect that. And I do thing that this is a debate that has been around since Jesus wore shortpants and will likely never be settled, but I don't mind chasing that bone - it's all in the attempt.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

^^^^^^
A) Who said anything about objective standards?; B) Who said anything about the need to justify one's favourite band? Maybe try reading my posts again.



This is bit is not aimed at you, just me musing: In what endeavours does solipsism work for anybody? Can you imagine somebody taking a solipsistic approach to relationships? Yowza. How about a solipsistic approach to science? Two words: Donald Trump

But wait: I don't think anyone is advocating for solipsism in any sort of practical matter. I don't even think someone in advocating for even self-indulgence in terms of practical matter. Of course solipsism would have disastrous results in regards to a relationship with a significant other (although I'm sure we've all been guilty of it at times in the course of our relationships with our partners) and especially science, but I don't think art enjoyment has to suffer from it. In fact, I kind of see art as the one thing where I encourage it. Dive in it, knock yourself out, be curious, and satisfy yourself your heart's filling from wherever you can. The only time where solipsism and self-indulgence can become nefarious IMO is when it's used to deny somebody else's experience.

 

[kihei]

Couldn' agree more. Let 'em dive in. That was just me musing out loud. Though maybe not with that last bit, so much--I can think of other shortcomings to solipsism, again Donald Trump comes to mind as a prime example.

But when solipsists say their way is the only way, then I draw a big line.

 

[Miguel Cairo]

@Miguel Cairo are you still actually reading any of this?

Of course, it’s what Ian would have wanted.

 

[Shareefruck]

Regarding the "egotistical arrogance" of this view, you could just as easily look at it the other way-- I don't agree with the idea that people can have a universal understanding of what is objectively best that applies across the entire population based solely on their ability to analyse external information and reconcile all of the impossible-to-know nuances within it (even without experiencing it themselves), and to me it would take a wild degree of authoritative over-confidence in oneself (not to mention the tools we can use to help us with this) that I simply don't have. I treat best and favorite as equal not because I think I can ACTUALLY determine an objective best through my subjective value judgements, but because I think that our modest personal opinions that are only a small percentage of the way to the actual truth is as close as I (or anyone else) can confidently get. I see that as a humbling idea, not an example of arrogance-- It's only possible to have a small piece of the truth (and only possible to incrementally increase the size of that piece by sharing perspectives and re-assessing the experience yourself).

Does this open the door for lazy takes more easily than using a more authoritative and verifiable system, maybe-- but you don't determine how you think things work based on its consequences, you determine it by what you think makes the most sense to you and seems the most fair, in principle. People who make lazy takes can still be picked apart, questioned, or disregarded as flimsy if their own subjective and internal reasoning is non-existent, vague, or isn't sound or consistent-- The process of their reasoning (why they value what they value in the first place or whether there's really as much appreciation there as they say) can still be interrogated, illuminated, and held accountable for whether or not it's understandable, seems feasible, and is objectively sound.

If the argument were instead that the term "best" is nonsensical in evaluations and we should never use it when talking about art (BECAUSE the objective version of it is impossible), I don't know if I would have a problem with that, but if it has to be used, it makes sense to me that the only way to use it would be as something based on your own interpretation of value (the degree that that's insufficient should be implied by nature of what art is)-- I think that's as close as anyone can reasonably get.

Personally, I lean towards thinking that using a limited definition is probably better than nothing, but I have a much easier time entertaining the idea of removing notions of "best" from our evaluations altogether (although I would need "favorite" to be understood differently than just enjoyment/at the mercy of guilty pleasures before I can go along with that) than the idea that "best" can be determined by completely non-subjective observations (which I don't accept at all).

 

[archangel2]

If they are top 3 then Depeche Mode is number 1. Sorry. New Order and Joy are good, but that are not THAT good

 

[kihei]

If they are top 3 then Depeche Mode is number 1. Sorry. New Order and Joy are good, but that are not THAT good

I put Joy Division in a totally different category than New Order and the difference is of course Curtis. His lyrics are a whole realm away from New Order. He seemed to be a chronicler of a kind of social frustration and then, ultimately, a victim of it. But I always got the sense that a lot of people knew exactly what he was talking about and feeling, that it cut deep, and that it was more genuine though less polished than, say, Paul Weller's stuff at the time, which I like, too. And, of course, the lyrical intensity found voice in the music, a perfect match of form and content.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I much prefer Joy Divison to New Order but their output is weird in that while Joy Division would dominate a song ranking, New Order's Leave Me Alone would be right at the top, slightly below Ceremony. I've seen it said that some people believe the song's lyrics were written by Ian Curtis, but I'd prefer not taking away that credit from Bernard Sumner without actual confirmation and the instrumentals are perfectly dreamy.

 

[Shareefruck]

Edit: remove