• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Ten most common misconceptions regarding musical critique.

Furretsu

World of Glass
From here...

1. Visual appeal equals musical appeal.
Obvious cases of visual kei faggotry and metal posturing idiocy aside, it’s to say that artsy music videos and photoshoots do not mask the fact that the musicians are just terrible at rousing emotions other than righteous loathing back at them. And even then on the other end, mesmerizing soundscapes wafting from the stage, emanating from spaced-out statues with guitars or what have you. As dorky as they look, no different from the classroom nerd, unmoving but for the subtle flicks of the picks on their fingers, fact remains…. They’ll never get laid.

That, and the other lesson so implicitly overt.


2. If it sucks live, it sucks.
At its basest classification, only two types of music exist. Studio version and live version. One of those clearly plays with sounds difficult/impossible to replicate under real time circumstances, where if not for the advent of studio/recording technologies creative sensitivities remain blunted within the confines of performance-oriented sophistry. A refusal to recognize the inherent limitations of analog instruments and single-layer compositions in evoking the one thing music is supposed to evoke. Mood.


3. Art wank is creativity.
Passionless, directionless mediocrity, the downfall of humanity. In each of his most enduring works stands a sense of purpose marking it different from others of its ilk. Taking away the sense of purpose, or worse, distorting it in demeaning forms, brings us the bunch of whiny art losers we see embodied in the hipster and the bohemian.

Yeah, ars gratia artis my ass. Radiohead sucks. Prove it otherwise.


4. “Broad musical knowledge” really means broad musical knowledge.
There’s no difference between the purist and the liberal. One has a limited area of expertise but knows each and every aspect intimately. The other’s vast awareness over many other things is limited to broad strokes of information severely limited in content and comprehension. Both suffer from the lack of time to explore other avenues than their fields; both suffer from an obvious lack of knowledge about the other. Ironic in that both carry stores of mutually viable information not readily transparent to the other. It’s ridiculously easy to accuse fellow audiophiles of being “narrowminded” when being “openminded” obviously carries its own perils as well. Open up your mind a little more that I may see your brains leaking out please.


5. Primogeniture as grounds for worship.
Literally spawned the whole metal genre now, did they. Revolutionized axe handling and drumming techniques, did they now. Well and good. Choking to death on his own vomit was the best thing Hendrix has ever done though. Or maybe the shotgun mouthwash c/o Dead and Cobain. Destroyed by their own excesses and other imbecilities.

Angry now? Object lesson: your musician “gods” are still HUMAN. Prone to mistakes as much as the rest of the species. Never let your blind faith overcome your reason. You’re no better than those religions you claim to despise for their alleged predilection for turning people into sheep.


6. ARTIST is synonymous to ENTERTAINER.
An ARTIST makes things solely for him/herself. An ENTERTAINER makes things for the enjoyment of others. Something so obvious yet people tend to mistake one for the other almost every single time. The pure entertainer being mind-numbingly easy to spot, it’s the entertainer masquerading as an artist that needs careful inquisition, seeing that there’s this Popper-unfalsifiable concept called “artist intent” and its many levels of interaction with its immediate environment and the world at large.

Artistry is strictly elitist by nature. It does not allow for easy correlation between symbols and abstractions so as to make people think what the artist is really doing. Sophistication or blatant crassness be the work, the intended effect as is production and execution is always deliberate. There’s a difference between telling people your ideas and making them realize it without actually saying anything.


7. The bestest band in the world is the bestest band in the world and nobody is allowed to challenge that.
a. Somebody somewhere has always the upper hand. In pushing those buttons in your soul that nothing else could. And then somebody somewhere with the upper hand over the former. Ad infinitum. It may even cycle back in ways you wouldn’t even imagine. Anything is possible.
b. Ah, the classic “if you have nothing nice to say shut your trap” routine. Rebuffed and rebutted. Many, many, many times. Nobody ever seems to notice the rebuttals. History’s doomed to repeat itself. Mankind is truly doomed.


8. The band precedes its own reputation.
All those dime a dozen bands stuffed under emo prove otherwise. It’s a perpetual scourge that must be expunged from conventional thinking as often as possible, the myth of true objectivity. There’s no such thing as a fully impartial accumulation of knowledge about a band, only pieces of facts presented upon a (presumably) conscious being. Impressions always make an impact upon the listener, whether for the better or for the worse, or even accurate or not.

How many of you can honestly say (better to do it fgt) that you’d be willing to listen to some 2000 “indie” discographies (assuming you loathe everything the term supposedly represents) just to prove to yourself there’s even ONE tolerable band among the bunch.


9. Musical pigeonholing makes everybody’s lives easier.
KoЯn is nu metal. No u. theyre ALTERNATIVE metal. No u. they didn’t want to be associated with metal they said it themselves.

Idiots.

Genre classification obviously has limitations dipshits. Man in his paradoxical desire for information synchronicity with his fellows needs some sort of stabilizing conventions that everybody may agree on. Sometimes the conventions are thrown out of the window, the only thing agreeable upon being the fact that the object in question is just different. And it’s sometimes better to let it rest at that. Compressing a universe in three syllables is the surest way to destroy its meaning. Words and labels can only express so much. Besides, there’s misconception number 10.


10. Music is serious business.
It isn’t even if you’re making your living solely out of it. It isn’t if you’re simply enjoying it within the comfort of your living room/wherever for the sake of it.

In the end, it’s

all

just

diversion.

A diversion that took me WEEKS to think up, unfortunately. :\
 
AK some bands just can't play live because they're one-man bands. this goes for a lot of black metal shit

also Radiohead is amazing
 
AK some bands just can't play live because they're one-man bands. this goes for a lot of black metal shit

also Radiohead is amazing
Radiohead are shit ;) but yeah you get some amazing bands like Bathory who could neverplay live. Most of that list is pretty dead on though. Did you write it?
 
based on this article, I really, really don't like whoever wrote it, and not just because he insulted Radiohead. >(

first of all, I didn't understand half of what he said because he used all these BIG FANCY WORDS and obscure references. D: okay, so maybe this is my fault for being stupid, but um, if this guy wants his opinions to be known, he could always try to make a readable article. FOR EXAMPLE:

The Article said:
It’s a perpetual scourge that must be expunged from conventional thinking as often as possible, the myth of true objectivity. There’s no such thing as a fully impartial accumulation of knowledge about a band, only pieces of facts presented upon a (presumably) conscious being.
arrgh maybe I'm just a dunce but I had to read this bit several times to figure out what he was trying to say. I'm pretty sure one could reword it so that I only had to read it once to grasp the meaning. mmm, that would be nice.

with that said, I feel the need to defend my favorite band sooooo:

From point 3, I gathered that he is accusing Radiohead of being praised not because they are good songwriters, but because they do weird shit.

Well, there is a difference between doing weird shit for the sake of doing weird shit, and doing weird shit in order to make good music. The song Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving With a Pict is an example of the former*, while the song Bohemian Rhapsody is a (mild) example of the latter. In Pink Floyd's case, the band should have probably known that no one sits around listening to angry and bizarre forest noises, and therefore no one is likely to enjoy Several Species in a "oh, this is a lovely song" sort of way. However, in Queen's case, they probably knew that while putting an opera section into the middle of a rock song is something that is not often done, it can sound great, and provided that one could make it work, people could enjoy it.

Radiohead do not do weird shit for the sake of doing weird shit.** All of their stranger songs may at first seem utterly bizarre, but upon repeated listening, they can be quite beautiful. Conducting a brass band, but not bothering to tell them what to play? It seems like it would be just cacaphonous and chaotic, but it sounds awesome in the Radiohead song The National Anthem. Recording a song, then reversing it and putting it on an album? It sounds stupid, but Like Spinning Plates is an great track.

While some may not like Radiohead's music due to personal taste, the band is not being experimental for the sake of just being weird. They are trying new things in order to create good music.


*not trying to insult Pink Floyd, they are an amazing band
**Pulk/Pull Revolving Doors is the exception.
 
I dunno... OK Computer is amazing of course, but (other than Pablo Honey) The Bends is probably my least favorite of all their albums. Too many of the songs on The Bends are just kind of forgettable, such as Bones, Black Star, Sulk, etc. Amnesiac is far more interesting, to me at least. (though it does have some crappy songs)
 
to me this sounds kinda like "ten most common misconceptions regarding how my dick is way bigger than yours and I am going to wave it around some more"
 
I dunno... OK Computer is amazing of course, but (other than Pablo Honey) The Bends is probably my least favorite of all their albums. Too many of the songs on The Bends are just kind of forgettable, such as Bones, Black Star, Sulk, etc. Amnesiac is far more interesting, to me at least. (though it does have some crappy songs)

I'm a guitar-centric listener
 
Back
Top Bottom