Scrambling for Relevance

[NotThePars]

Trying to apply complete objectivity to music opinions is utterly boring tbh. Like people who study pass completion records or shots to goal ratios when deciding who the best footballer is. Supras basically.

[Stephen Malkmus]

Disagree. There's such a thing as being able to make a critical distinction and argue the case for it.

All of what you just said can be applied to everything, not just music. Someone could tell you that The Daily Record is the best newspaper, that Fosters is the best beer, or that Sex and the City 2 is the best film. They might truly believe any of these things, but they'd still be wrong.

Yeah, you can argue a case for it up to a point but that case will never be completely objective. It will still remain an opinion, albeit one which may be more 'informed' than someone else's.

I realise that but they wouldn't be either wrong or right. Someone who says The Sun is a better a paper than The Guardian is just as right/wrong as someone who says the opposite. They may just have different standards for quality, enjoyment etc. If one newspaper was objectively the best no-one would buy anything else.

[vikingTON]

Trying to apply complete objectivity to music opinions is utterly boring tbh. Like people who study pass completion records or shots to goal ratios when deciding who the best footballer is. Supras basically.

I don't think there are too many cases where a 'completely objective' argument has been made tbh. On the other hand, there are a great many more roasters who rely on completely subjective, shrill screams of 'but... it's my opinion!': they are utterly, utterly beige human beings and certainly shouldn't be on any sort of forum.

[Ira Gaines]

Disagree. There's such a thing as being able to make a critical distinction and argue the case for it.

All of what you just said can be applied to everything, not just music. Someone could tell you that The Daily Record is the best newspaper, that Fosters is the best beer, or that Sex and the City 2 is the best film. They might truly believe any of these things, but they'd still be wrong.

As I said. Rank arrogance.

[Stephen Malkmus]

they are utterly, utterly beige human beings and certainly shouldn't be on any sort of forum.

[Tom McB]

What if someone was a massive classical music nerd but heaven forbid, lost their virginity or something while listening to a Paul Potts record? In their opinion Paul Potts may be elevated above the rest of their favourite classical artists because of that emotional attachment to his music. They may even go as far as saying Paul Potts is the "best artist ever". Which wouldn't be true objectively speaking, as the quality of music can't be judged in that way, but there may be no artist they value above him due to that emotional bond.

Music is far more about the emotions it elicits in someone than it is about technical proficiency or record sales. You can't say Pavarotti is better than Paul Potts and hold it up as a fact just as you can't say the opposite. It's completely subjective (as you said). Which is why someone saying "x artist is shite" is a completely worthless statement.

Paul Potts? This fella?

Interesting in the first Para and a decent shout but surely the person should say Paul's music moves me or some such? A deaf man galloping by on a fast horse would know that Roberto Alagna and others are tecnically gifted and thus better artists.

e.g. Alfie Boe should stick to musicals where his shortcomings are not exposed

[Tom McB]

I don't think there are too many cases where a 'completely objective' argument has been made tbh. On the other hand, there are a great many more roasters who rely on completely subjective, shrill screams of 'but... it's my opinion!': they are utterly, utterly beige human beings and certainly shouldn't be on any sort of forum.

Beige, love it. Quite correct.

[jamamafegan]

His music is overlooked as it's the same dull, by-the-numbers stuff he's always done. There's nothing fresh or interesting about it. He doesn't need to adapt to entice a wider audience as he's a millionaire and not struggling to pay bills etc. must be a lovely position to be in tbh but it makes his comments look pathetic IMO.

It's not the same stuff he's always done. It sounds nothing like Oasis and even his latest stuff is a bit different to his last album.

Also, I think it's fair to assume that Sheeran isn't struggling to pay his bills.

[Ira Gaines]

welshbairn, on 15 Jan 2015 - 18:09, said:

Posters who claim definitively that a current player is better than a player whose career was in the sixties/seventies whatever, annoy me. How can they possibly tell?

I think any sort of argument like that doesn't really compare to this though. Whether it's two players from today or whatever. You can probably have a go at who's more talented when it comes to entertainment or stuff like that, but the point of entertainment is to entertain, which is why it's probably the only thing where complete objectivity comes in.

Which also makes the whole Daily Record argument a complete non-starter.

[milton75]

As I said. Rank arrogance.

It's arrogant of you to make that judgement on me, if you want to play that tiresome passive-aggressive game.

Basically you don't want anyone pointing out that something is shite in case it hurts the feelings of some lackwit that likes said drivel.

[Ira Gaines]

Saying something is shite isn't what I'm getting at. I do it all of the time. It's more that I don't think my view is absolute.

[milton75]

Yeah, you can argue a case for it up to a point but that case will never be completely objective. It will still remain an opinion, albeit one which may be more 'informed' than someone else's.

I realise that but they wouldn't be either wrong or right. Someone who says The Sun is a better a paper than The Guardian is just as right/wrong as someone who says the opposite. They may just have different standards for quality, enjoyment etc. If one newspaper was objectively the best no-one would buy anything else.

Everything is objective, but your example falls down as it doesn't stand up to my earlier qualification that someone should at least be able to argue the case for their position.

Taking that example, someone says they think the Sun is as good as the Guardian, you could challenge the quality of the reporting, the depth to which issues are covered, etc., etc.

You would then have a decent case that, as a newspaper, the Guardian better fulfilled its purpose.

Now sure, he other person could tell you that they preferred The Sun because it covered showbiz, had righter colours, and pretended to ask a topless bird what she thought of the news, and you would have to concede that the Guardian was found lacking in those areas... but I think we both know who would feel more confident in their position.

Likewise someone could tell you that Danny Dyer was a better actor than Laurence Olivier, but we know that the discussion would follow a similar pattern as the newspaper one above.

[milton75]

Saying something is shite isn't what I'm getting at. I do it all of the time. It's more that I don't think my view is absolute.

Everyone's "view" is by nature absolute. If you're persuaded to change your mind, you merely end up with a new absolute view, at least given the available data. Even "I don't know" is absolute of a sort.

[THE KING]

Scared to say it to My Chemical Romance. My Chemical Romance.

Some nerve slagging off Oasis when AC/DC have been releasing the same song for 30 odd years.

But its still better than anything they ever done.

[LinkinFighter]

In your opinion you complete fud

[Stephen Malkmus]

Everything is objective, but your example falls down as it doesn't stand up to my earlier qualification that someone should at least be able to argue the case for their position.

Taking that example, someone says they think the Sun is as good as the Guardian, you could challenge the quality of the reporting, the depth to which issues are covered, etc., etc.

You would then have a decent case that, as a newspaper, the Guardian better fulfilled its purpose.

Now sure, he other person could tell you that they preferred The Sun because it covered showbiz, had righter colours, and pretended to ask a topless bird what she thought of the news, and you would have to concede that the Guardian was found lacking in those areas... but I think we both know who would feel more confident in their position.

Likewise someone could tell you that Danny Dyer was a better actor than Laurence Olivier, but we know that the discussion would follow a similar pattern as the newspaper one above.

I get what you're trying to say but it would depend on what the other person deemed the function of a newspaper to be. A lot of people probably don't read newspapers to get a balanced view of world affairs. They might view papers as light reading to entertain them at work or something from which to gain an opinion to give them something to say in conversations with pals etc. For such people they may genuinely see The Sun as being a better newspaper than The Guardian going by what they want from a newspaper.

On the acting front, Laurence Olivier may be a more technically proficient actor, by Hollywood standards at least, than Danny Dyer, but he wouldn't have been very suited to Danny Dyer's role in The Football Factory imo.

Now I'm not saying Danny Dyer should win an Oscar, just that the Academy's definition of a good acting performance is not what everyone would consider to be a good performance. Therefore, one acting performance cannot be deemed to be objectively better than another.

Getting back to music, unless scientists have found that some melodies etc. that everyone universally likes, you cannot say that one piece of music is objectively better than another.

[THE KING]

Disagree. There's such a thing as being able to make a critical distinction and argue the case for it.

All of what you just said can be applied to everything, not just music. Someone could tell you that The Daily Record is the best newspaper, that Fosters is the best beer, or that Sex and the City 2 is the best film. They might truly believe any of these things, but they'd still be wrong.

And thats the point...you are all entitled to your opinion, but if you're trying to tell us its a valid pinacle of a certain field of music .it doesnt make it true...in their mind yes..but youd be correct to say , hod on mate , you dont know what yer takin about, because.....

[Elixir]

Noely G, some boi.

[THE KING]

Anyway bbc scotlandor sky 0116 Elvis inspiredsongs!

[welshbairn]

On the acting front, Laurence Olivier may be a more technically proficient actor, by Hollywood standards at least, than Danny Dyer, but he wouldn't have been very suited to Danny Dyer's role in The Football Factory imo.

Now I'm not saying Danny Dyer should win an Oscar, just that the Academy's definition of a good acting performance is not what everyone would consider to be a good performance. Therefore, one acting performance cannot be deemed to be objectively better than another.

I'd say Olivier would have done a better job in The Football Factory than Dyer in Hamlet, and probably The Football Factory. It's called acting dear boy, you don't have to be a cnut to play one.