Quote:
Originally Posted by RVCA
What you're essentially saying is that if a new piece of music isn't novel in some way, it isn't worth anything. That's a pretty horse**** thing to say in my opinion. Yes, novelty should be considered when evaluating music, but is it the end-all-be-all? Can there be nothing else without novelty? Of course not, the very idea seems laughable, not least because it immediately discredits 99.9% of music in existence.
|
Ignoring your use of the word novelty (a remarkably reductionist word choice that betrays your complete lack of perspective on 1. what I listen to and 2. what the "artier" parts of my collection set out to do), I will say that I do indeed value something more than pure aesthetics, yes. If you're willing to actually take a look at the music I listen to via my RYM (a link is provided below) you'll find a pretty large amount of aesthetic-driven pieces in my highly-recommended 3.5+ ratings. They earn their way into these positions by having some kind of point, being particularly emotionally poignant, particularly of their moment (or ahead of it in some way or affectionately behind it in such a way as to make a statement beyond "I like old things") or whatever. There was no flippant denial of Tame Impala based on a pre-registered bias, and if you think otherwise, you're just refusing facts.
Quote:
|
Tame Impala is derivative throwback 60's psych nostalgia wankery. Sure. It's basically just Paul McCartney + synths. But I can put that aside and enjoy the music on its own merits anyway.
|
And your subjectively assigned merits are the large conversation driver here along with others in this thread who enjoyed it. I don't really understand why your subjectively assigned merits (that I could dismiss as shallow but don't because I give you the benefit of the doubt) matter more than mine (which you label as pretentious without second thought because you aren't interested in real discussion or giving me any sort of benefit of the doubt). I can accept that others enjoy the album, and that is fine. If they reserve the right to call me some sort of elitist for expecting more out of a several-thousand-year-old artform than Tame Impala, so be it; I reserve the right to call them pig-headed and a little silly for thinking so. What I don't appreciate is this dogmatic righteousness of "let me take it how I will maaaaan" and refusing me to take it as
I will.
Quote:
|
And to be honest, I find it very difficult to take someone seriously who rates a "noisecore" album, comprised of eighty micro-tracks, 8/10 stars. Because when you get to that stage of your music appreciation career, it just looks like you're trying too hard.
|
And here comes the inevitable ad hominem. Let me dissect it.
1. You mention Agoraphobic Nosebleed, a band you've probably never listened to but who exist as one of the primary acts in their genre. This presents a couple dilemmas: it indicates that you not only decided to just fish for a controversial 4/5 from my RYM (and failed, as it's pretty much a consensus among people who actually appreciate Cybergrind that AN are among the best) but most likely didn't go past what you perceived as an obscure first page of those ratings (it starts with A and is right on top for your picking), but it also indicates that you're willing to dismiss kinds of music based on their genre without listening. Who is more close-minded: the guy like me who keeps coming back to Pitchfork-core and rating it fairly for his standards (though those standards land it 0.5s-2.5s generally with exceptions coming up) or the guy who wants to take a piss on a dumb message board that proves itself to be as closed as possible to exploring different facets of music than personal aesthetic rhapsody and strict genre classifications for the same 1000 albums everyone has an opinion on every time I show up and does so by NOT ****ING LISTENING TO THE ALBUM HE IS ATTACKING?
2. You have major problems with other people exploring music in a different way than you do, and your insecurities in what taste you have manifest in pre-supposing snobbishness and hierarchical internal derision from those who listen to different kinds of music. You perceive me as some try-hard who thinks he's better than you are when there's nothing to indicate either.
3. By reaching this point, you've confirmed that you have no defense of this album or the band that made it besides that you liked it. I don't understand this cognitive dissonance: if one big bad poster comes in and says "I dislike this" in a less-than-pathetically-vanilla manner, he is DEMANDED to give an explanation, but when whatever Joe Schmo wants to pontificate affection for the album, he can just say "It's good" and have absolutely no resistance, no demand for further thought or greater contribution to discourse on the album.
**** you and **** your close-minded derision of things you don't understand and make no attempt to out of a self-satisfied ignorance.