pc issue of the day pt. 4:33 isn't music

Chula Vista · 07-06-2015, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart

Frownland, as Ki says you're the biggest hipster going, so god knows what you would consider art, or music. There is nothing in your post to indicate that is a joke. Anyone else, yes. You, no. I would quite easily believe a man who can listen to four minutes and thirty three seconds of silence and call it music could look at a blank canvas, a mirror or a broken tile and call it art. Your reputation both precedes you and undoes you.

Oh, and once again, I wasn't the only one who took it seriously so your joke fell totally flat. Price of being pretentious.

Frownland sonned.

**Frownland** · 07-06-2015, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart

Frownland, as Ki says you're the biggest hipster going, so god knows what you would consider art, or music. There is nothing in your post to indicate that is a joke. Anyone else, yes. You, no. I would quite easily believe a man who can listen to four minutes and thirty three seconds of silence and call it music could look at a blank canvas, a mirror or a broken tile and call it art. Your reputation both precedes you and undoes you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deprecation

Learn to humour.

grindy · 07-06-2015, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Machine

I mean I guess, but I have a disdain for that thread after the countless pages of circular arguments that happened after all normal disscussion left the table. It might be my most popular thread but I disown it.

It was still an awesome thread with some great discussions.
Not your fault it got hijacked by chulas.
(Which sounds like a cool name for an album for some reason)

**Frownland** · 07-06-2015, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grindy

It was still an awesome thread with some great discussions.
Not your fault it got hijacked by chulas.
(Which sounds like a cool name for an album for some reason)

Album cover idea: photograph of several Jimmy Page clones wielding box-cutters.

Machine · 07-06-2015, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grindy

It was still an awesome thread with some great discussions.
Not your fault it got hijacked by chulas.
(Which sounds like a cool name for an album for some reason)

It was actually really fun for long time and then we had the naysayers come in and ruin the fun. Oh well.

grindy · 07-06-2015, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

Album cover idea: photograph of several Jimmy Page clones wielding box-cutters.

Awesome. Do it!

grindy · 07-06-2015, 12:02 PM

To argue this on a meta level:
I'd postulate two basic approaches to art, taken from the two basic approaches in linguistics, precriptive and descriptive.
If you approach art in the prescriptive way, you have a basic set of rules by which you measure and analyze art. By the adherence of the work to those rules you judge how good it is and whether it's art at all.
If you approach it in the descriptive way, you try to analyze it in itself and in accordance to why the artist made it and in what way it might resonate with the audience and with oneself especially. The question whether it is art or isn't, isn't even really posed.
In accordance with being a descriptivist I won't say that any of those two ways is right or wrong, but I think the descriptivist has the potential for having more fun with art.

Trollheart · 07-06-2015, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deprecation

Learn to humour.

This has nothing to do with me learning how to appreciate humour (it's not a verb, by the way, except in the sense of "to humour someone"): this has to do with people not knowing when you're serious because you expostulate and espouse such out-there ideas in your music and your philosophy. When Batty makes a joke, I get it. When Ki makes one, I (usually) get it. When Plankton makes a joke I get it. When you make a joke, I have no idea whether or not you're serious. If I had never heard of 4:33 I would have been prepared to have taken that as being one of your jokes.

**Frownland** · 07-06-2015, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart

This has nothing to do with me learning how to appreciate humour (it's not a verb, by the way, except in the sense of "to humour someone"): this has to do with people not knowing when you're serious because you expostulate and espouse such out-there ideas in your music and your philosophy. When Batty makes a joke, I get it. When Ki makes one, I (usually) get it. When Plankton makes a joke I get it. When you make a joke, I have no idea whether or not you're serious. If I had never heard of 4:33 I would have been prepared to have taken that as being one of your jokes.

The fact that I would post something like that is part of the joke in itself. It's a drier form of humour.

As I've said many times before, if you have to ask yourself if I'm joking, I probably am. Taking me seriously is a rookie mistake.

YorkeDaddy · 07-06-2015, 01:02 PM

Expected to wander into this thread to see a hilarious ****storm

Was not disappointed

07-06-2015, 12:02 PM	#37 (permalink)
grindy . Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: . Posts: 7,201	To argue this on a meta level: I'd postulate two basic approaches to art, taken from the two basic approaches in linguistics, precriptive and descriptive. If you approach art in the prescriptive way, you have a basic set of rules by which you measure and analyze art. By the adherence of the work to those rules you judge how good it is and whether it's art at all. If you approach it in the descriptive way, you try to analyze it in itself and in accordance to why the artist made it and in what way it might resonate with the audience and with oneself especially. The question whether it is art or isn't, isn't even really posed. In accordance with being a descriptivist I won't say that any of those two ways is right or wrong, but I think the descriptivist has the potential for having more fun with art. __________________ *A smell of petroleum prevails throughout.*