On Jul 4, 2:30 am, Nil <rednoise+n...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
> On 04 Jul 2008, "John P." <Jo...@nospam.com> wrote in alt.guitar:
>
> > If the like or dislike of music were an absolute, you might have a
> > point.
>
> That's my point.
>
> > "I don't like it, so it sucks"
>
> "It's blue. I don't like blue, so it sucks."
>
> Invalid. That cannot be correct. You're preference is irrelevant to
> anyone but yourself. Your preference says nothing about the music's
> true value.
If I don't like blue, then it sucks, AFAIC. Empirical rules do not
apply to subjective matters, such as the appreciation of art.
> > "It sucks, therefore, I don't like it"
>
> "It's blue. Blue sucks, therefore I don't like it."
>
> Invalid. That cannot be proved. It may "suck" TO YOU PERSONALLY, but
> that doesn't mean it "sucks" in general.
The appreciation of music is subjective- of course it's valid.
> > "Any number of people can prove that a certain music, Zappa's for
> > example, sucks, has no value and is of little or no interest."
Seems like a purposeless exercise to me- either you like it or you
don't and that will inform whether you think "it sucks" or not.
Besides, isn't it more valuable to try to appreciate something you
don't like- especially if a lot of others like it- this doesn't mean
you will like it, it just means that you may learn something.
>
> Invalid. How can they prove that? They can't. For one thing, the best
> "any number of people" can do is prove that they don't like it. But
> that doesn't prove that it has no value in general, only to them
> personally. If other people find value in it, then the presence of
> value is proved.
True, but this seems a little too intellectualized- you either like
music or you don't- you can change your opinion as well. Simple as
that.
>
> > ...are all as valid an assessment of what Zappa did
>
> No, those are all invalid.
>
> > as is the claim "Any number of people can prove that a certain music,
> > Zappa's for example, has value and interest."
>
> That's valid. It's very easy to prove the existence of something if you
> can point to it. It's not really possible to prove the NON-existence of
> something because it might where you haven't looked yet. And if it's
> existence has been shown, well, you've lost the argument already. In
> other words, Frank's music has been clearly shown to have interest and
> value. That can't be convincingly argued against. The worst anyone can
> say against it is "I personally don't like it", or "I don't get it."
I think that Zappa's music has significance, desp[ite not liking it. I
think he will be viewed as an important modern composer as time
passes. Time will tell.
>
> Personally, I get some of it, and I don't get some of it. Some of the
> stuff I do get I find to be absolutely thrilling and awesome. Some of
> the stuff I don't get makes me want to chuck the record out the window.
> Some of it I used to like but don't so much now, and vice-versa. He's
> made tons of music and it runs that whole spectrum. So, what, I should
> condemn all of his music as "sucking" because some of it is hard to
> take?
He's very challenging to listen to, IMHO. Not at all a casual listen.
Some can't relate to something that takes effort to take in. People
always push the "suck" button when they don't understand something- I
think saying you don't understand something is more accurate than
saying something sucks. Hell, I do it, too. It's common parlance and
takes less time to type. As long as you can qualify why you think
something "sucks", IMHO it's as valid as a long, fawning essay of
praise.
Mike
