LPU Chat with Chester: Summary

Discussion in 'News' started by Zane, Dec 6, 2012.

Tags:
  1. Qwerty19

    Qwerty19 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,200
    Likes Received:
    185



    Lololol. You think I can't make the difference between my opinion, and how good a record objectively is. You're right. I can't. Instead, I can make the difference between my opinion and how elaborated a record is. However, complex =/= better. This isn't a fact I can objectively see, it's just a subjective assimilation you're making.

    Really, you're mixing together 2 sides of philosophy/sciences: description (What are the facts?) and judgement (Are those good or bad?). Description is objective while judgement is subjective. Do you realize that your theory means, on a wider basis, that some music genres are better than others? This is pure nonsense, dude.

    Also, you should never have brought your trust towards "official critics" into the game. So, let's say (as you did) that those are not influenced by subjective views about a record, as opposing to us, poor fans. Let's say they're objective. Meteora got 62/100 out of 13 critics on Metacritics. MTM got 56/100 out of 15 critics. I should conclude that Meteora is objectively better than MTM right? If you don't agree, you'll contradict pretty much all you've said until now. Alright, ATS got 66 based on 10 reviews. Unfortunately, My World 2.0 by Bieber got 68 based on 8 reviews, Fame Monster by Lady Gaga got 78 based on 14 reviews. I think you got the point.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2012
  2. mastae

    mastae Some Honky

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2012
    Messages:
    752
    Likes Received:
    34



    Again, you view it black and white.

    I'm not saying that a critic is right because their opinion trumps everyone else's simply because of the fact that they're a critic. I DID say however, that they get the final say so in "official" lists. My whole point until now was that yes, there's a merger of subjective opinion in making an objective opinion, BUT you can't state subjective criteria when basing it in an objective critique. You can't say shit like "Meteora is better because I like the lyrics." That would NEVER hold up. It's all about how you formulate your arguments.

    When a lot of these discussions come up, you fall back on this argument and MANY of the HT/Meteora lovers fall into arguments such as, "Well those albums are MASTERPIECES," "I really connected with the lyrics," "I don't care about poeticism and growing up. I care about HOW I FEEL." These are VERY poor arguments that are based far more on personal connections with the material than actually taking a step back and saying, "Okay, how is this better by comparison?"

    You say complex doesn't always equal better. Okay. WHY. Tell me WHY it's not always better. Tell me WHY relatable, simplistic, borderline childish lyrics are better than poetic, poignant ones dealing with larger issues than the ego. This is how you separate a subjective critique from an objective critique. It's not saying one opinion is always right, but it is saying that if you're going to refute what is regarded by many to be the better of two, you better come in with more than "just because I think so," as an argument.

    "Do you realize that your theory means, on a wider basis, that some music genres are better than others? This is pure nonsense, dude."

    Not only are you putting words in my mouth now, you're also, once again, viewing my perspective from a black and white point of view.

    Another example with the movies, I could sit here and tell you why I thought Drag Me To Hell was a good film because of Sam Raimi's utilization of techniques and cliches used in B-Horror films to make both a disgusting and hilarious film that perfectly merges horror and comedy. At the same time, I could also make THE SAME CRITIQUE that the story leaves a lot to be desired, and that the acting isn't on par with some of his other flicks because of the way he directed specific scenes. I'm taking my personal opinion, separating myself from the film, and giving an honest objective opinion about the film.
     
  3. Qwerty19

    Qwerty19 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,200
    Likes Received:
    185



    Agreed. However, an objective critique would only talk about the characteristics of a record. As soon as it's judging the caracteristics, it falls into subjective territory. Example: some critics might think progressive is great, other might think progressive is boring.
    And by the way, don't you notice that you use yourself those arguments when making your "objective opinions". When you say " ATS is better because lyrics are more poetic", you're in fact saying "ATS is better because I like poetic lyrics better."
    Here we are. This argument proofs what I said: you're making a subjective assimilation. You ask me :"WHY it wouldn't be better?". I could ask you :"WHY it would be better?". And the big deal here is not to find an answer to those questions. The big deal is that there is a question which we can't answer without being subjective. I'm not saying simplistic lyrics are better; in fact, I usually think that poetic lyrics are better. But I know that this preference is due to my experience as an human, to my ideas, shortly said : to my subjective views. It's impossible to comes out with an argument that would proof objectively that complex is better than simple. It's only....more complex. You can't go more far without being subjective.

    You are separating nothing. You're only giving 2 subjectives opinions. First one is about objective facts (utilization of cliches, ...) that makes you subjectively love the film. Second one is about other objective facts (acting is different from other productions of the realisator) that makes you not love it subjectively. Of course B-Horror films are made of elements which looks stupid and ridiculously bad. However, if we look deeper at it, those films are considered as garbage because they mashup all the elements which are subjectively considered as bad by people. What if Aliens came to Earth and though those films were "Greatest human masterpiece" because all we consider bad would be considered as good by them? (yeah, that whole argument sounds stupid, but you choose an extreme example lol)
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012

Share This Page