Follower or Leader?

[herodotus]

Originality isn't something you try to achieve, it's something you are stuck with. It's a result of alienation, and often very painful to the person who has it.

Schoenberg was original, and was often mocked as a result. Even though he was easily one of the most gifted composers in his milieu, he watched as other, lesser men got all of the praise. Even today he is grossly misunderstood by the majority of people who know of him, which is a very small group to begin with.

Originality is generally a curse. Of course it can also be a pose. But to assume that all originality is a pose is to be a philistine.


@ Cordelia:

So, no you don't have to be a musician to be a critic, but why not do something positive instead?

[vurt]

Not sure the role of critics is well-defined or consistent.

maybe not to critics, everyone else defines them as wankers.
miserable wankers!

[Chuck E. Jesus]

just as long as no one rips on Lester Bangs....

[eduardo_b]

Originality isn't something you try to achieve, it's something you are stuck with. It's a result of alienation, and often very painful to the person who has it.

Schoenberg was original, and was often mocked as a result. Even though he was easily one of the most gifted composers in his milieu, he watched as other, lesser men got all of the praise. Even today he is grossly misunderstood by the majority of people who know of him, which is a very small group to begin with.

Originality is generally a curse. Of course it can also be a pose. But to assume that all originality is a pose is to be a philistine.

But this is perhaps not quite the case now. Diversity -- granted, within some limitations -- is embraced much more than it used to be. Not for experimental works, but for a wide range of music styles nearer the edge of mainstream. People are willing, even enthusiastic, to experience music that wasn't easily found or accessed before technology and 200 channels made it possible.

I'm aware of who Schoenberg is, but don't know how far outside the mainstream of modern classical he is. Are those who gain more fame and appreciation always lesser in talent? He might have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You seem to be saying that true originality is so far removed from what is popular that it's practitioners are unlikely to be appreciated, and possibly may even be ridiculed.

[shamann]

the soundscape/noise/ambient arena is full of people who would be considered bad in any established conventions of music

It was original, but not very interesting or even pleasant.

Mental note, attacking others suggests legitimacy of one's arguments. Must use technique in future.

[robogone]

Then, there is *ahem* some who seem to do neither,

By the way, this is a short road to nowhere.

Considering the huge amount of retarded verbal diarrhea this thread has produced I'm more than happy to take the short road anywhere right now.

[eduardo_b]

Not sure the role of critics is well-defined or consistent.

maybe not to critics, everyone else defines them as wankers.
miserable wankers!

And yet critics are being paid for their efforts in both entertainment and mainstream publications. Publishers aren't likely to pay for this if they didn't think readers actually like and want this content. Can they really be miserable wankers?

[eduardo_b]

the soundscape/noise/ambient arena is full of people who would be considered bad in any established conventions of music

It was original, but not very interesting or even pleasant.

Mental note, attacking others suggests legitimacy of one's arguments. Must use technique in future.

If one's reaction is negative, does that constitute an attack on others?

[shamann]

If one's reaction is negative, does that constitute an attack on others?

No, not always. But in the context of what the two of you were saying, and remembering what Lunatique has posted many times here before, yes.

[vurt]

Not sure the role of critics is well-defined or consistent.

maybe not to critics, everyone else defines them as wankers.
miserable wankers!

And yet critics are being paid for their efforts in both entertainment and mainstream publications. Publishers aren't likely to pay for this if they didn't think readers actually like and want this content. Can they really be miserable wankers?

yup. beig paid any amount of cash doesnt stop you being a miserable wanker.
if you think the fact someone has a job makes them legitimate in anyway is such a capitalist view.

a fair few publishers are wankers too, if you are going to write put some effort in, be a "writer" not some fucknut who goes around thinking they have some insight into other peoples minds or intentions. be creative for once instead of putting others down for doing so. you may be surprised on how much less miserable your life will be.

thats the royal you for critics, not you as a person.
although i do think you are generally miserable i dont think youve ever written anything worthy of being called a "critique". ie attacking that which you have no clue about is not being a critic, its being an ass.
a miserable wanker ass!

[shamann]

a miserable wanker ass!

I'm going to pick a fight with a coworker tomorrow just so I can call them that.

[herodotus]

The thing about 'criticism' is that it is an amorphous concept.

Walter Benjamin and Theodor Adorno were critics and were quite fascinating, though they were certainly wrong about many things. Lester Bangs and Toure are also 'critics', but are far more adept at dropping names of all of the cool people that they have met than they are at understanding the music they write about.

Music is a very poorly understood subject. Whether one looks at it's theory or it's psychology or it's epistemology, one finds very little of substance, and a great deal of opinion that mistakes itself for real insight.

The greatest obstacle to learning is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge.

These words of Daniel Boorstin, though quite general, are completely applicable to the stuff that calls itself 'criticism' these days.



And a final note to those (who shall remain nameless) who constantly take little pot shots at 'non-mainstream' or 'ambient' or 'experimental' or 'modern' or any other music that is more 'out there' than Sheryl Crow or John Mayer:

If you look through my posts, you will find very few nasty things stated about any music. It's not because I don't think nasty things. On the contrary, the vast majority of music that gets played on ANY radio station fills me with a direct, visceral annoyance. This isn't something I pretend to feel because I hope it will make me cool. This is an instantaneous physiological reaction that is actually kind of a pain in the ass sometimes.

No, the fact that I so rarely say nasty things about music here is an attempt at politeness. But the more of the aforementioned pot shots I see, the less I feel polite, and the more I feel like a bit of a chump.

So if you are reading this, please do us all a favor and knock this shit off unless you really want to know what I think of your middlebrow favorites.

[Chuck E. Jesus]

Lester Bangs and Toure are also 'critics', but are far more adept at dropping names of all of the cool people that they have met than they are at understanding the music they write about.

.

i've read some Adorno too dude...

[herodotus]

Lester Bangs and Toure are also 'critics', but are far more adept at dropping names of all of the cool people that they have met than they are at understanding the music they write about.

.

i've read some Adorno too dude...

Lester???

[eduardo_b]

If one's reaction is negative, does that constitute an attack on others?

No, not always. But in the context of what the two of you were saying, and remembering what Lunatique has posted many times here before, yes.

I don't think I've seen all that much from him -- different threads probably -- so I honestly don't know what his typical posts might be. As for the post I commented on, I have to say I thought he raised some valid issues. They are, of course, generalizations, and didn't, to me, seem directed at anyone in particular.