You are here

Objectivity in Art - Part II.

For everything after the recording stage: hardware/software and how you use it.

Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby LdashD » Mon Jan 02, 2017 3:46 pm

I wonder if M (mic) Senior realises the implications of this apparently throwaway line, in Jan’s “The Mix Review of Bruno Mars latest effort:”

… it’s like he can hardly believe he’s getting away with…

Objectivity in art, a man after my own ‘eart.

I’d like to take it one stage further and state that I remember Mike raved about Uptown Funk in another Mix Review, but I reckoned it was also trite cynical twaddle just like the current one, and was a tad peeved cos I’d just remixed Baz Manilow at about the same time and felt it was a much better, more honest and original attempt to fuse ye olde with the new. Their 40’s (ish) vox and brass coupled with my modernity …
https://youtu.be/yvPNDrEtx1s

I’m fascinated cos not many peeps are able to distinguish originality or quality in works of art, especially music, which is always wrongly treated as merely subjective.

I’m even more curious as to why I can’t find any of Mike’s magnum opuses posted online cos as well as being a golden lug’oles engineer/producer, he also understands intervals etc ?

My theory has always been that if you don’t rate/like an artist, say, Ed Sheeran, or Ellie Goulding, what you’re really saying is you don’t like their record collection (taste) cos as a writer you are basically what you listen too. And when an individual criticises a song unfavourably what they really mean is they can do better, don’t they, otherwise how would they know it’s not good enough eh?

Takes one to know one as it were, so where is ‘is music posted then?

The exception that proves the rule perhaps?
User avatar
LdashD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 11:00 pm
Location: London England
Lucid - Diverse Original Prolific Aesthetic - Renaissance man or Jack of nowt? jury's out, you decide, as it's all here on my YouTube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/user/globalwarning

Re: Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby LdashD » Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:01 pm

I decided to refresh my memory of this particular little ditty ‘Uptown Funk’ and agreed to myself that I’d man it through at least ‘til the chorus, thus my opinion has only strengthened. https://youtu.be/OPf0YbXqDm0

I would like to add that when comparing the two that ‘Uptown Funk’ already sounds well dated, mine not so, what were they thinking with that ultra naff kick & snare? Where Ronson’s is perhaps a masterclass in superficial optimum recording/engineering, mine is more to do with songwriting/producing, resulting in art, albeit perhaps somewhat minor, nethertheless…

I’ll take it up a notch by stating the problem with Ronson and ‘is Ilk, and people like Sheeran and ‘is ilk, is that they were influenced by their parents’ musical taste (record collection,) not so me, I knew better than me parents, I even rated some of the stuff they liked, very highly, say Nat King Cole, hence I produce art, not pristine polished pastiches.

Ronson is also more interested in fame than ‘e is art, this attitude will also hamper/stifle 'is creativity, er, already ‘as actually.
User avatar
LdashD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 11:00 pm
Location: London England
Lucid - Diverse Original Prolific Aesthetic - Renaissance man or Jack of nowt? jury's out, you decide, as it's all here on my YouTube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/user/globalwarning

Re: Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby Mike Senior » Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:50 pm

Hi LdashD,

Apologies for the delayed reply. My Forum-surfing is rather sporadic these days! :) Glad you liked the Bruno Mars critique. Now, in response to a few of your points:

- I wouldn't at all credit myself with being able to 'distinguish originality of quality in works of art' in any objective way, because I'm afraid I'm one of those wrong-headed people who consider music to be entirely subjective. :) While I hope that my opinions may tally with those of other SOS readers, based on a certain amount of shared cultural heritage, my opinions are still fundamentally subjective. Despite this, I believe The Mix Review encourages readers to listen more carefully to the music they're surrounded by, whether or not they end up agreeing with my personal interpretations.

- I disagree with your assertion that criticising a song implies you could do it better yourself. I think consumers also have a right to critique the work of creators, because of the important role consumers play in the artistic interaction. Were your assertion true, then I might ask (in suitably pompous tones, of course!) what journalistic magnum opus of yours qualifies you to criticise my magazine article. But I don't agree with your assertion, so I respect and welcome your criticism.

- Like Bruno Mars, I use a different name for my musical output, but if you fancy a listen, then be my guest. That material's all about ten years old now, though, as my musical energies have been directed more into singing and arrangement in recent years.

- Liked the Manilow remix. Didn't know the original, but what you've done with it works nicely.
User avatar
Mike Senior
Frequent Poster
Posts: 984
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Cambridge, UK
Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio | Recording Secrets for the Small Studio

Re: Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby LdashD » Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:29 pm

Hey Mike

Objectivity in music is appreciating/understanding that there’s, voice leading’ & there’s, ‘Good As It Gets’ voice leading, it’s mainly this that makes one riff or composition better than another, a very similar thing happens with painting an image.

Objectivity in Art is also understanding/appreciating that I won’t be writing anything as great as say, ‘Superstition’, ‘God Only Knows’ or Beet’ovens glorious 9th etc, excellent voice leading all round.

Art/music should be memorable, hooks make music memorable and hooks are mostly excellent ‘Good As It Gets’ voice leading, a similar thing happens in painting, “The Persistence Of Memory,” once seen, never forgotten.

Image

I too am a consumer, now and many years before I became a songwriter, we are all consumers, I was of this objective consumer only opinion long before I became a writer, and since I’ve now gained massive insight into writing and creating songs, my opinion has only been confirmed… I wasn’t criticising your journalism, far from it mate, I was agreeing with your opinion, but also added that I felt the same about their first effort, and your opinion was that it isn’t as good as ‘Uptown’ which I understand as you being objective? My opinion, objective of course, was they both weren’t all that.

Thanks for the link man, me curiosity’s cured now.

I know you didn’t ask but it would be perhaps impolite not to mention my thoughts on your stuff, so, not what I was expecting, I was expecting something grand expansive and progressive, even so, ‘tis highly original, tad quirky in places even, more like sketches to my ears, I think you could and should do a tad better, tax yourself maybe, but I understand if you’re more into singing and stuff.

Still diggin’ the column man, keep up the good work.

Sorry, I’ll just add, maybe it’s just me but, as I begin to put a riff together I’m consciously saying to meself yes to this and no to that interval or pulse, objectively trying to forge a half-decent lick, subconsciously of course, like my ‘eroes. Unless a genius, and even they can maintain traits of their mentors, you are what you listen to, so better make it good innit.

Hmm, er sorry again, I wrote 4 chapters of a kids book last year, you wanna read my magnum opus you only need to mention it, that shut you up didn’t it. Me barbers 9 year old boy thought it was exciting, a cow and a crow? Exciting? stupid bloody kids…
User avatar
LdashD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 11:00 pm
Location: London England
Lucid - Diverse Original Prolific Aesthetic - Renaissance man or Jack of nowt? jury's out, you decide, as it's all here on my YouTube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/user/globalwarning

Re: Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby Guest » Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:17 pm

LdashD wrote:I’d just remixed Baz Manilow at about the same time

Linky plz!
Guest

Re: Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby LdashD » Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:15 am

Salty Dog wrote:
LdashD wrote:I’d just remixed Baz Manilow at about the same time

Linky plz!

Thar she blows Skipper https://youtu.be/yvPNDrEtx1s

If'n i may be so bold Sir, if you like my man Bazza, i think you may get a titter or two from this little ditty too.

https://youtu.be/eE9814kDP9w i

And nevermind the poxy music, the vid's are where it's at for moi.
User avatar
LdashD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 11:00 pm
Location: London England
Lucid - Diverse Original Prolific Aesthetic - Renaissance man or Jack of nowt? jury's out, you decide, as it's all here on my YouTube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/user/globalwarning

Re: Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby Dramatic Hammer » Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:11 am

I think it's interesting that you think Uptown sounds dated. I'd counter it's a wilful pastiche of 1980s pop-funk (think Morris Day and the Time, Prince, etc) and well in line with the rest of Mark Ronson's oeuvre.

It's also mildly hilarious that you consider a generic (and quite dated unless you only frequent provincial wine-bars) piano-house remix [of a disco remix] of barry manilow to be a more 'honest and original' triumph of songwriting.


Edit: I should add for balance I'm not keen on Ronson/Mars either.
Dramatic Hammer
Regular
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby molecular » Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:28 am

"I’d just remixed Baz Manilow at about the same time and felt it was a much better, more honest and original attempt to fuse ye olde with the new. "

or

"And nevermind the poxy music, the vid's are where it's at for moi."


I don't get what the point of the thread is. At the start it seemed to be that you were convinced that your remix of Barry Manilow is somehow objectively better than the Ronson vs Mars song.

I agree entirely with Mike that you don't need to think you could do better in order to judge the Ronson as bad. But you did state earlier on that you thought you had done better. That's a question I feel equipped to give you an answer on.

Then you said the music was poxy and it was all about the videos, so I'm wondering what I missed, and what the actual point is?
User avatar
molecular
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 12:00 am
Location: The turn off where the main road goes over the river. If you're at the post box you've gone too far.
Anto mo Ninja, Watashi mo Ninja
http://www.hectormacinnes.com

Re: Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby Mike Senior » Thu Jan 05, 2017 12:48 pm

molecular wrote:...so I'm wondering what I missed, and what the actual point is?

As Oogway might have commented: "Point; don't point. Noodles; don't noodles."

Glad we've cleared that up.

:ugeek:
User avatar
Mike Senior
Frequent Poster
Posts: 984
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Cambridge, UK
Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio | Recording Secrets for the Small Studio

Re: Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby molecular » Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:00 pm

:thumbup:


PS am I the only one who finds that Uber Geek smiley a bit close to the look Gary Glitter was sporting on his way to jail?
User avatar
molecular
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 12:00 am
Location: The turn off where the main road goes over the river. If you're at the post box you've gone too far.
Anto mo Ninja, Watashi mo Ninja
http://www.hectormacinnes.com

Re: Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby zenguitar » Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:12 pm

The Uber Geek smiley looks like Fu Man Chu to me.

Andy :beamup:
User avatar
zenguitar
Moderator
Posts: 7814
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Devon
I've always been a fine figure of a man. 25 years ago it was measured by quality, now it is measured in quantity.

Re: Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby LdashD » Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:02 pm

D-Hammer I think your comment is a tad ungracious and inaccurate. I don’t mind the former though, but I think you do yourself a disservice, it’s Prog House, yes it’s intentionally, subjectively even, generic, that’s wrong? A fusion of said genre and a groovy crooner, with 40’s/disco brass stabs and Big Band backing vox… I set out with one aim, to achieve a release from Bazza’s peeps cos I reckoned I could do a BETTER job than his team had done on the original… they “loved” it and eagerly, immediately, offered to license it to me… mission impossible accomplished then eh.

The ‘honest art’ guv, comes from my understanding that art is usually/generally created by an individual, not a small army of programmers, engineers, technician’s producers, musicians, turd polishers, you name it etc…

This is piano led house from 20 years ago, you may or may not be interested, but anyhow, I played it all in on the day, including the chic’s vox straight after we recorded her, written, played, mixed and engineered in one 16 hour session, with an engineer in Camden Lock Studios, it’s also Prog House by the way.

https://youtu.be/mSNd9DAJxaM

I’d call that art maan, good or bad.


To you and others I would proffer, ‘Why would I need your SUBJECTIVE opinion when I have my own better, er, more accurate OBJECTIVE opinion?’ or if you prefer, ‘Why would I need your unfavourable SUBJECTIVE opinion of my work when I’ve got me own favourable SUBJECTIVE opinion of it eh?” Both are just a worthless/pointless are they not?

My only regret is involving Mike Senior, this post was not directed at him but to anyone who knew the whereabouts of his music.

However, he also seems to be of the mob mentality and is also taking sly digs, so in fairness to myself, I’ll just mention that I think his music smacks of amateurism, with little or no knowledge of the amazing power of intervals/pulses, except other than what he has been taught. His music also sums up other theories I have about the nature of creativity, and how those who know all about tech shit don’t know much about the aesthetic involved in creating, hence, those that can, ‘do,’ while those that can’t, ‘teach’…

I find it odd that someone like Mike Senior, whose job can involve dishing it out, can’t take a bit of half-hearted, limp-wristed criticism? Especially as he adheres to the subjective tag, meaning he can just write my opinion off as being subjective, as his subjective opinion will no doubt be the opposite of mine and will move on and continue in the same vain/vein, and he does use a pencil as is avatar, so he maybe doesn’t see himself as a songwriter, so no harm, done then eh?

Patience molecular I’ll get to you eventually, maybe.
User avatar
LdashD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 11:00 pm
Location: London England
Lucid - Diverse Original Prolific Aesthetic - Renaissance man or Jack of nowt? jury's out, you decide, as it's all here on my YouTube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/user/globalwarning

Re: Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby Mike Senior » Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:15 pm

LdashD wrote:However, he also seems to be of the mob mentality and is also taking sly digs, so in fairness to myself, I’ll just mention that I think his music smacks of amateurism, with little or no knowledge of the amazing power of intervals/pulses, except other than what he has been taught. His music also sums up other theories I have about the nature of creativity, and how those who know all about tech shit don’t know much about the aesthetic involved in creating, hence, those that can, ‘do,’ while those that can’t, ‘teach’…

Fair enough -- you're entitled to your opinion, although I can't say I'm not disappointed that the considerable effort I put into that music fails to elevate it beyond the amateurish in your estimation.

I find it odd that someone like Mike Senior, whose job can involve dishing it out, can’t take a bit of half-hearted, limp-wristed criticism?

On the contrary: I just did, and I've had plenty worse.

But you don't expect me to take it lying down, do you? :)
User avatar
Mike Senior
Frequent Poster
Posts: 984
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Cambridge, UK
Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio | Recording Secrets for the Small Studio

Re: Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby alexis » Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:07 pm

LdashD wrote:...so in fairness to myself, I’ll just mention that I think his music smacks of amateurism ...

For some reason I couldn't open his link to listen, but the point is ... so what? He is not a professional musician, he is a professional engineer and educator. He has other, avocational, creative outlets, including creating and recording music. I don't see it as an issue that what his hobby generates may not be as professional as his engineering and teaching. Again, this is without hearing his music, based solely on your description of it.




LdashD wrote:...His music also sums up other theories I have about the nature of creativity, and how those who know all about tech shit don’t know much about the aesthetic involved in creating, hence, those that can, ‘do,’ while those that can’t, ‘teach’…

In combination with your comment a while back that people with knowledge, "experts", are at best neutral, and in reality probably bad for society, I do fear that my command of the English language will never be masterful enough to understand you. Somehow we obviously see the world almost entirely differently. As I see it, without good teachers we're all stuck in the hunter-gatherer stage of development!




LdashD wrote:I find it odd that someone like Mike Senior, whose job can involve dishing it out, can’t take a bit of half-hearted, limp-wristed criticism? ...

I've re-read the thread, and really can't see what you're referring to. But I do wonder why one would offer criticism in a half-hearted way, that seems a bit disrespectful. And I only know of one meaning of the word limp-wristed, and can't think of any connection to critical analysis, so once again I am lost :( .
User avatar
alexis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3688
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 12:00 am
Location: San Antonio, TX USA
Cubase 9.0.1; i5-4570 3.2GHz,16GB RAM;W10 64bit on Samsung SSD840 Pro256GB;Seagte 1TB SATA600 Audio;UR28M;Motif8;UAD2Solo;Jamstix 3.3;BCF2K;TC Helicon VoiceOne;RevoicePro3.2

Re: Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby LdashD » Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:31 am

Hey Alexis

Teaching apart, parenthood is the most precious/valuable job on the planet, well, parenthood is teaching isn’t it. Nuff said.

Teaching isn’t necessarily necessary in the Arts though, I and millions of others are proof of that, in fact it can stifle creativity… hence art teachers are there to teach the next generation of art teachers ad in fin.

There are no excuses in this biz of ours, I’m not a professional anything.

Songwriting/composing has very little to do with musicianship, professional or otherwise, musicianship is a trade, and can be learnt, to a degree/level, songwriting is an art, you can be a hobbyist engineer, but there are no amateur artists/songwriters, you can either do it or you can’t, Van Gogh wasn’t an amateur because he never sold any of his work, he could cut-it regardless of others ‘expert’ subjective opinion… Einstein was a part-timer, self-taught, considered himself or was considered an amateur, I’m sure I’ve read somewhere. Van Gogh was self-taught, hence his highly original style, that can’t be taught.

Not experts literally, ‘so-called’ experts, critics/journalists, say, tv, book, film, music etc, what makes them an expert? Cos they watch films, listen to music etc, me too, we’re all critics, to a degree.

There are genuine bona-fide experts though, Mike Senior is an expert on his chosen subject, because he has genuine personal and I assume academic qualifications or knowledge, plus experience and understanding in the writing, producing and engineering of music past and present and can use that personal insight to expertly dissect and probe others work fairly squarely and accurately. H is also obviously an bona-fide expert too. So there are experts and experts, or better still, ‘so-called’ experts.

My only prob with Mike’s stuff is, see above, with all that knowledge experience und understanding, he should be wiping the floor with the likes of me? I just don’t hear that know how in his music, yet.

To Mike I’d say, I find it difficult to listen to your work, it’s a bit stoppy starty for me, there’s plenty of decent art there to admire, I’m not that fond of the final product, he’s like a reliable old workhorse trotting through the streets, the blinkers need to come off and he needs to get his skates on and sprint like a thoroughbred, show off even, be bold and adventurous… I don’t think he’s using the best of his ability, yet.

I’m my fiercest critic, when crafting/agonising over a little ditty me missus used to say, “It’s because you’re a perfectionist,” I’m not, the only perfection in our world is nature itself, I'd correct her, “To me something’s either right or wrong, or not good/strong enough,” so I set about making it so, to the best of my ability/understanding regardless, every time.

It’s kinda strange in a way to know that something you’re creating needs to be BETTER than it is at a particular moment and somehow you also know that you can make it BETTER, and therefore, eventually, do actually make it so.

Maybe it’s cos subconsciously I know there’s been and is currently much better than mine floating about in the ether, so I need to get as close to that better stuff as I can, thankfully ‘tis only an interval/pulse or two, that makes the difference between great music and average, so by that criteria I think my stuff is above average at the very least.
User avatar
LdashD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 11:00 pm
Location: London England
Lucid - Diverse Original Prolific Aesthetic - Renaissance man or Jack of nowt? jury's out, you decide, as it's all here on my YouTube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/user/globalwarning

Re: Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby molecular » Sat Jan 07, 2017 2:21 pm

"Patience molecular I’ll get to you eventually, maybe."

Yeah... I mean I think my last question would not be a time consuming one to answer. Is your music really good, or is it "poxy" and we should be focussing on the vids? I'll live in the meantime.

I'm wondering though if there isn't a much simpler answer to all of this, and to your other recent threads, i.e.:

You are of the opinion that your music is better than Mark Ronson's and you are disappointed with what you've heard of Mike Senior's efforts.

There are other people who would completely disagree with you on both counts.

Is that not the end of the matter, solving both the question of subjectivity/objectivity and also your continued confusion about why Mark Ronson is more famous than you are?
User avatar
molecular
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 12:00 am
Location: The turn off where the main road goes over the river. If you're at the post box you've gone too far.
Anto mo Ninja, Watashi mo Ninja
http://www.hectormacinnes.com

Re: Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby LdashD » Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:57 am

molecular
The simple answer is this: https://youtu.be/ym8ovZTgeE8?t=20s

Not sure why it should concern you though, anyhoo ‘ere goes then.

The point is, I enjoy, admire & respect Mike’s expert forensic audio forays, I’m using Mike’s respected opinion to back-up/verify my own less so opinion voiced in a related thread.

A while ago Mike raved about “Uptown Funk” this month he dismissed another similar track by the same artists, as an “…expected… cash-in…” which I understand as being OBJECTIVE? Because he is saying one piece of art is BETTER than another, is he not? I also found it fascinating cos he doesn’t usually stray into that kind of (my) territory.

I coupled this with my own personal feelings on the subject, stating that I think they’re both “cash-ins”, for want of a better term. Therefore I believe I went one BETTER than Mike, in identifying the first track “Uptown” as also not being all that, and that mine was, for want of a better word, er, BETTER.

That’s what it was about.

Image

You and your chums here and elsewhere here seem to think that only each of you can have an unshakeable concrete opinion about something, and anyone who disagrees…

It’s all very well and good and healthy disagreeing with some bod, but you and others haven’t proffered anything other than, “I like” or “I don’t like” which is merely a personal preference, not an opposing OBJECTIVE opinion. It’s not that I don’t “like” Uptown, it’s alright, I don’t rate it very highly, mainly I suppose cos it’s trite, manufactured/contrived nonsense…. which in my book means I can do BETTER, which I have, some don’t agree, others do, they cain’t both be right… this is also what it was about.

The post like some others of mine is supposed to promote discussion in this case about objectivity in art. I do enjoy a verbal dust-up but the er, discussion? Always seems to centre around putting me in my rightful place, taking me down a peg or two rather than putting me straight?

You seem to be implying you can put me straight, a swift listen to your self -indulgent arty farty doodlings tells me otherwise, but anyway, I’m all ears mate, I got nowt against learning or improvement.

Looking forward to hearing yours Alexis’s and others efforts in the upcoming part III of Objectivity In Art, if’n you’ve got the bottle, ‘hearing’ being the operative word and if’n I can be arsed that is.


Image


To whom it may concern:
IT’S NOT ABOUT Mike, I’m BANNING him and any MENTION OF HIM IN THIS THREAD, if’n there’s any life left in it that is.
User avatar
LdashD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 11:00 pm
Location: London England
Lucid - Diverse Original Prolific Aesthetic - Renaissance man or Jack of nowt? jury's out, you decide, as it's all here on my YouTube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/user/globalwarning

Re: Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby blinddrew » Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:03 pm

I'll give this one shot...

LDashD, firstly I'm glad you've toned down the vernacular as it makes your posts marginally easier to read, but it's still really hard to understand what your point is a lot of the time. In any one post you tend to jump around across three or four different topics and it's really difficult to work out what's the point and what's an aside.
Secondly, and I'm assuming this in unintentional, you appear to be demonstrating all the signs of the traits you're assigning to other people (over-sensitivity, an inability to take criticism, an over-inflated sense of your own ability). Your stuff is good, and you may even be as clever and as good as you think you are, but it makes for bloody hard reading and conversation for anyone who has a differing opinion.

I'm not taking a pop, but I am saying that your writing style isn't helping these threads go in productive way. Which is a shame because they could be really interesting discussions.

Over and out.
User avatar
blinddrew
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:00 pm
Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...

Re: Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby zenguitar » Sun Jan 08, 2017 1:02 pm

LdashD wrote:To whom it may concern:
IT’S NOT ABOUT Mike, I’m BANNING him and any MENTION OF HIM IN THIS THREAD, if’n there’s any life left in it that is.

No, it doesn't work that way. You are NOT a moderator here, so do not attempt to moderate the topic.

Andy :beamup:
User avatar
zenguitar
Moderator
Posts: 7814
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Devon
I've always been a fine figure of a man. 25 years ago it was measured by quality, now it is measured in quantity.

Re: Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby molecular » Sun Jan 08, 2017 1:49 pm

Dude, I don't care which peg anyone is on, I have no time for pegs.

It seems to me that mikes opinion is subjective and also has value to me because of his experience. Yours is also subjective and it is open to each of us to decide for ourselves how much we value it.

Re "they caint both be right". Yes they can. If you are in this forum seeking a group of other people to confirm that your Barry Manilow remix is objectively better than Mark Ronson then good luck and cheerio.

It also seems to me that you are one of the only people on this forum who insists on suggesting that our work be compared to one another's, anyway.

For my own part, my link is in my thread and always has been and I'm easy to google. So you're welcome to dismiss it as self indulgent arty farty nonsense, I'm cool with that, and don't particularly feel like I have anything to prove.

If you're proud of your own music, you should say so and not chop and change about whether it's your tunes or your vids or your all round persona that you want people to admire you for.
User avatar
molecular
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 12:00 am
Location: The turn off where the main road goes over the river. If you're at the post box you've gone too far.
Anto mo Ninja, Watashi mo Ninja
http://www.hectormacinnes.com

Re: Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby LdashD » Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:06 pm

Hey Drew long time no see maan, no need to duck bruv, I thought you knew me? I only return fire if and when necessary, and even then only blanks, wait ‘til I get the big guns out, then we’ll see some fireworks.

You say I’m speaking plain English and you still don’t understand me, and that’s my fault? I don’t think I’ve strayed from my, er, dare I say, objective? My queries seem to have an expansive scope, with no clear-cut answers sometimes, at least I’m consistent.

You state it’s a shame about the discussion cos it has potential yet still you prefer to discuss me rather than it? I think you and others have come across a creature that you’ve never came up against before and can’t make ‘ead nor tail of it, innit.

Not sure I can explain it any clearer than I already have?

If you think I’m bothered about gratuitous generally vindictive criticism, you haven’t been listening this past year… part of my strategy is to sorta set myself up as a target, and people do play into my hands, even so…

Truth is people are more than welcome to like or dislike me or my art, and voice their considered opinion on it/me in any way they see fit, as I am, theirs/them, makes no diff to me or my art, unless of course they know BETTER than me, then I’m all ears.

It really is fine by me, goes with the territory, water of a ducks back mate. It’s just occasionally I like to do myself justice, put the record straight, or just get things back on course as here.

I’ve never particularly praised my work here or elsewhere, it’s not about me it’s about objectivity, but of course I know people will use my art as an example of something or other, no surprises there then. If you’re asking me objectively, then I would say my music is no ‘worse’ than Sheeran, Goulding, Bugg and their ilk, high praise indeed eh?

I’ve been reviewed down the years by the er, experts? In all the major music press, some one remembers, “New Breed Of Pop Stormer.” And I think you’ll agree this one sums me up to a tee, “To The Point.” If only the guy new eh. I luv that one, ‘To The Point,’ yeees.

My opinion of my own art is biased, however, how could you not think something was ‘good’ as you were putting it together, otherwise you wouldn’t bother… I think all art needs to be a bit better than plain ol’ good.


My stuff is ‘good’ cos you say so?

You’ll find plenty who think it’s ‘rubbish.’

It can’t be both.

So which one is it?

I only ask cos, if it’s ‘rubbish’ I need to improve, and will endeavour to do so, but if it’s ‘good’ I’m ok as I am.

So, objectively then, which one is it?


I’ll be disappointed if you don’t participate in part III too, Mike too.

Looking forward to hearing your and others efforts.
User avatar
LdashD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 11:00 pm
Location: London England
Lucid - Diverse Original Prolific Aesthetic - Renaissance man or Jack of nowt? jury's out, you decide, as it's all here on my YouTube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/user/globalwarning

Re: Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby LdashD » Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:08 pm

Hey molecular I’m not gonna apologise cos I only responded in kind as is my right.

But you were kind/daft enough to enquire so I thank you for that.

Not sure why it bothers you, however, ‘Poxy’ is me being self-effacing, joshing, I don’t think my stuff is ‘Poxy,’ far from it, however there’s ‘many a true word spoken in jest,’ so you never know.

Music’s me job, I ain’t proud of my work, but I am, for want of a better word, maybe proud of the vids, because I’m primarily a songwriter. I have a good eye, they’re very arty, every single shot is well framed, interesting or unusual, good even. Then there’s the editing, my editing is also arty and original…

There are huge similarities between digital video filming/making/editing and music writing/making/editing in Daws, so I can’t take too much credit.

This video of mine is a good example, filmed mainly around Camden Lock. London, very arty and every single shot is more than good enough and suits the music, some of the shots by the water remind me of French Impressionists, particularly Manet and Renoir, a picnic scene or similar.

The picnickers eventually spot me filming you’ll notice at about 4.02 Elijah Wood looks straight into the camera.

https://youtu.be/3lDimvNt1Co

No hard feelings man, for what it’s worth your stuff is just as capable as others in that field, so you must be doing something right
User avatar
LdashD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 11:00 pm
Location: London England
Lucid - Diverse Original Prolific Aesthetic - Renaissance man or Jack of nowt? jury's out, you decide, as it's all here on my YouTube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/user/globalwarning

Re: Objectivity in Art - Part II.

Postby molecular » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:58 pm

OK, I don't remember asking you to review my work or anyone else's at any point, maybe I did or gave you that impression by accident, whatever.

Either way, I couldn't give half a **** whether you like any of my work. Nonetheless, some people are less hard-nosed than me, and on that basis I think that your attitude towards giving other people negative reviews would be a bit shitty coming from anyone over the age of about 13.

For what it's worth, I think that some other people have made some really interesting points on quality/value in art and the subjective nature of both empirical and emotive understanding. Your own contributions seem to be entirely about your own opinion of your own work, and all the things you think it's better than, so you will excuse me if I don't sit in your audience any longer.
User avatar
molecular
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 12:00 am
Location: The turn off where the main road goes over the river. If you're at the post box you've gone too far.
Anto mo Ninja, Watashi mo Ninja
http://www.hectormacinnes.com


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests