You are here

Objectivity in Art.

Arrangement, instrumentation, lyric writing, music theory, inspiration… it’s all here.

Objectivity in Art.

Postby Guest » Sat Oct 29, 2016 6:59 pm

There was such beast as a, B-side.

Double A-side even.

Does this simple fact prove that art is objective?

Cos it does seem, to me anyway, that some art is better than others?

Re: Objectivity in Art.

Postby job » Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:55 pm

In what way was the A side chosen if not for the judges' feelings and opinions towards it over the B side?

...maybe that it would sell more; due to the people's feelings and opinions towards it when listening.

A side over B side is due to good judgment of people's sentiment, not by some objective maker inherent in the music itself :thumbup:

Or maybe i'm wrong... :?
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 3:12 pm

Re: Objectivity in Art.

Postby Agharta » Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:24 pm

LdashD wrote:Cos it does seem, to me anyway, that some art is better than others?

Better for whom?
If you are the only person on the planet that likes a piece of music does that make it better or worse to you?
Ones ego might have something to say about that of course.
A parent hearing her child play the recorder in public for the first time might be very moved by that experience so does that make it 'good' art?
So I'd say it's all subjective.
There are objective metrics such as playing within recognised parameters such as a particular tuning but how important are these when most music ticks those boxes?
The only thing I can say sure for sure is that there is music I would like to listen to now and the stuff that I don’t want to listen to now.
That will change depending on the time of day, how I am feeling, where I am, who I am with, what equipment I have to listen with etc.
Music I love at a highish volume when dancing at 9pm might well be very unwelcome at 6AM when I’m in bed regardless of the volume.
It’s so subjective and beyond that why should I care at all?
Maybe the secret is just to enjoy my present moment with or without music without needing to label it.
I notice that when I stop and analyse and label, it usually takes me away from the pure experience of it which is what I love about music.
Knowing about EQ levels and all that stuff is fine when you are in the studio but maybe that way of listening can actually get in the way when you just want to purely experience the music?
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3363
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Objectivity in Art.

Postby CS70 » Mon Oct 31, 2016 7:53 pm

LdashD wrote:Cos it does seem, to me anyway

There's your key.
User avatar
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3636
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Oslo, Norway
Silver Spoon - Check out our latest video  and the FB page

Re: Objectivity in Art.

Postby Guest » Thu Nov 17, 2016 5:21 pm

Agharta wrote:
LdashD wrote:Cos it does seem, to me anyway, that some art is better than others?

Better for whom?...

Better for your music if'n you're a songwriter...

CS70 wrote:
LdashD wrote:Cos it does seem, to me anyway

There's your key.


Re: Objectivity in Art.

Postby The Korff » Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:29 am

I was under the impression that the double A-side single was contrived as a crafty way of getting two songs into the charts at once. (Bonus points if you sell two versions of the same single but one with 'limited edition' artwork, or perhaps an 'Enhanced CD' version with a low-quality MPG of a music video).
The Korff
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2120
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:28 pm
Location: The Wrong Precinct

Re: Objectivity in Art.

Postby Guest » Fri Nov 18, 2016 3:21 pm

Copy & pasted from Wikipedia:
The song was originally meant to be a B-side to "I Want to Give You My Everything" (written by Brooklyn songwriter Larry Weiss, and sung by Carl Douglas). The producer Biddu originally hired Douglas to sing "I Want to Give You My Everything" but needed something to record for the B-side, and asked Douglas if he had any lyrics they could use. Douglas showed several, out of which Biddu chose the one that would later be called "Kung Fu Fighting" and worked out a melody for it without taking it too seriously.

After having spent over two hours recording the A-side and then taking a break, "Kung Fu Fighting" was recorded quickly in the last ten minutes of studio time, in only two takes, due to a three-hour time constraint for the entire session. According to Biddu, "Kung Fu Fighting was the B-side so I went over the top on the 'huhs' and the 'hahs' and the chopping sounds. It was a B-side: who was going to listen?" After hearing both songs, Robin Blanchflower of Pye Records insisted that "Kung Fu Fighting" be the A-side instead.

Following its release, the song didn't receive any radio airplay for the first five weeks and it initially sold poorly, but the song began gaining popularity in dance clubs, eventually entering the UK Singles Chart at number 42 on 17 August 1974 and reaching the top on 21 September, after which it would remain at the top for three weeks. It was then released in the United States, where it was equally successful, topping the Billboard Hot 100 chart. The single went on to sell eleven million records worldwide.

I can't comment cos i've never 'eard the B-side, even so i doubt very much it's better than the B-side, er, A-side, er, you know wot I mean innit.

Re: Objectivity in Art.

Postby Airfix » Thu Feb 16, 2017 3:01 am

b side was always better than a - one had to be in to understand why - don't ask - one had to be 'in'. b was it - a is just an entry - baby
Frequent Poster
Posts: 625
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 12:00 am

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users