It is currently Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:38 pm



Reply to topic  [ 439 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
 2014 music thread 
Author Message
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

So I'm all about Blondie right now for some reason.

_________________
tumblrletterboxd


Wed Dec 24, 2014 10:50 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

My year-end top 10 has a 70% overlap with the collective of Pitchfork readers.

http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lis ... l-results/

They need to get hipper on Sturgill Simpson and Shabazz Palaces.


Wed Dec 24, 2014 11:16 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

LEAVES wrote:
What I posted was clearly a postulate, not a metric. This is why I used such words as "may have a high likelihood of grativating toward, in theory." And "may have a high likelihood of grativating toward, in theory." A postulate of what I may personally find interesting based on past interests, and why it is that I find those sorts of things interesting. It's not to say that it is correct, nor is it to say that it applies to any person other than myself.


There are some pretty clear evaluative judgments tied up with your inquiry, to wit, that we should be suspicious of all these talentless pretty faces flooding our airwaves as opposed to those real artists who actually produce their own music. At the very least, and to put it more charitably, you are suspicious of these types. There's a criterion here somewhere at work, whether it's a personal one or not isn't really of any consequence, since either can be reasonably interrogated. What we're talking about here is our evaluative commitments.

LEAVES wrote:
I don't listen to any Aaliyah, so I couldn't tell you anything about whether the music under her name is interesting. However, if she had a consistent artistic community then it's only different from a 'group' or a 'band' in name only, in which case 'the artistic community necessarily including Timbaland and Missy Elliot' would certainly qualify as a musical group that I "may have a high likelihood of grativating toward, in theory." If she put out an album with 12 different beatmakers, then I wouldn't anticipate that I would find the whole thing very coherent.


I don't see why the number of beatmakers should matter too much. It just says she happens to have a stable artistic team as opposed, to say, Tinashe or Kelela, who branch out to work with different types of producers. The difference is one between frequent collaborators and infrequent collaborators, neither of which should tell us very much, ipso facto, about the level of excellence in the art. Scorsese likes to work with the same actors on his films. That he keeps it "in house" doesn't mean he's intrinsically a better director than, say, Kubrick, who rarely worked with the same actors.

LEAVES wrote:
Even less so if she didn't write any of the lyrics or melodies.


This shouldn't detract from coherency if she still makes decisions about her content. I'm not really defending coherency in and of itself though. My point is that there are many ways for the artist to be expressive.

LEAVES wrote:
And here is what I don't understand: Why do you post this? I did not attack any of the people you mentioned as not talented. I attacked the process, and wondered whether a process which I find unlikely to produce results that are interesting particularly and solely to myself are applied in the context of this new developing wave. Nothing could be any more impersonal.


I am simply addressing your skepticism. You've essentially questioned whether these women are talented/artists by implying a criterion of talent/artistry that entails or requires (ostensibly stable) contribution to songwriting and production. I am simply answering you to say that, yes, they are indeed talented notwithstanding your concerns. I've tried to cover a lot of examples here to explain how, in some cases, they're talented in virtue of the criterion implicit in your inquiries (via some expectation of quasi-auteurism), and yet in other cases, talented for reasons otherwise (qua stylists, dancers, vocalists, instrumentalists, songwriters, etc). You seem to look down on the pretty-face-singer who doesn't produce, questioning to what extent these new R&B singers are an instance of that, and I've tried to explain that in some cases these pretty faces do produce, but in cases where they don't (Kelela, for instance), it doesn't matter, because they are still achieving something quite compelling and fascinating with their art. This goes back to both Das' and Greensacks' original points that you've (twice) sidestepped or (also) mocked, which is that a vocalist needn't be a producer and a singer to be considered a great talent, and that multidisciplinary types of any skillset are actually quite unique and rare. And the mere fact that she also has a pretty face, but doesn't produce/write, doesn't mean she isn't a great artist, or that the music can't still be deeply interesting. If you want to fall back on the "well not interesting to me" line, then you needn't read this as anything more than our expressing how profoundly it is we don't share in your opinion.

LEAVES wrote:
This isn't even referring to the same context as the context that I was referring to, so I have no idea what is going on at this point. And even when I said that "some of these women contribute literally nothing", it again was not an attack on the women but on the process chosen, perhaps not of their choosing, contractually. So it's completely off-base and irrelevant and completely sidetracking any beneficial discussion to go on a monologue about a point that we both agree on, which is actually insulting to my intelligence and dignity. Thanks for that.


No offense intended. I just think you're shortchanging R&B pop singers. I see the context, but I don't see how it absolves you from Sky's and my objection. You've expressed concern about a trend of pretty female pop singers, which you claim is more directed at a process, but the upshot is doubtless the same if the process leads to the perception of talentless women who are artistically nothing over and above their pretty looks, which, as I'm saying, and Sky is saying, is underselling them, to the say least.


LEAVES wrote:
Certainly. And since your Aaliyah example emphasized the importance of consistent collaboration and not sporadic collaboration, it seems as if you are attempting to reinforce my personal postulate while at the same time insulting my character. Interesting.


The consistency actually isn't the defining feature of the example. The emphasis was on her participation with like-minded members of an artistic community. The consistency, at least, is evidence of the like-mindedness, but we can easily imagine a situation where she only did one song with Missy and Timbaland. The relevant point is that they came together with agreed upon assumptions, principles, and ideas about how the music should sound. This is the nature of collaboration. It could be one-off or they could do a whole album together. It can be great music regardless. Or it could suck, either way. There is nothing intrinsic about the process (frequent collaboration versus infrequent collaboration) that guarantees excellence.

_________________
Recent films:

See my latest blog entry: Run the Jewels’ “Close Your Eyes” and Police Brutality

По́мните Катю...


Thu Dec 25, 2014 2:48 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

Despite my self-imposed moratorium on buying any more vinyl, I picked up the SYRO 3xLP. Nice package.


Thu Dec 25, 2014 11:47 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

Das wrote:
The sooner you realize that a LEAVES argument is mostly about circling back to 'I'm right' while dragging things out as far as they can go, the better you'll feel.
So you're saying that I try to convince the other person of my view while exploring the details is somehow a strange tactic for argumentation? Because I thought that was the point?

Except that here all I'm arguing is that there is no argument, because all I was stating was something less meaningful than opinion, which is mere preference. If you can't agree that I'm right on that point, then I guess we have different ideas about phrases beginning with, "I cannot stand..."

I mean, I tried to start the conversation off with the least academic and most perfunctory post possible, and now I'm having to defend myself against shortchanging R&B pop singers because of something I expressed about how I understand my preferences. I don't even know how that's possible, but I can tell anyone who will listen that my preferences relating to R&B pop singers could not shortchange them in any way, because my preferences are meaningless most especially to anyone else, but even to myself.

_________________
LEAVES come from TREES
Retired


Wed Dec 31, 2014 11:23 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

Izzy Black wrote:
There are some pretty clear evaluative judgments tied up with your inquiry, to wit, that we should be suspicious of all these talentless pretty faces flooding our airwaves as opposed to those real artists who actually produce their own music.

You've essentially questioned whether these women are talented/artists by implying a criterion of talent/artistry that entails or requires (ostensibly stable) contribution to songwriting and production.
I guess the problem here is that you are reading my post as you would a piece of published criticism and worrying about what it is that what I wrote might imply about my thought processes or opinions. Unfortunately, we are writing on a discussion forum, so your insistence on presuming what it is that I am writing about instead of asking what I am writing about is both presumptuous and dismissive - you essentially dismiss the mode of discourse in order to presume. I am presuming that this is because you prefer to rant on a tangent detached from reality instead of actually engage others' opinions.

See how insulting that is?

Great. Now, if you want to go on a thinly veiled rant about how the potential for someone with the exact preferences as mine could clearly indicate evaluative judgments or question their talent, but then explicitly say that it doesn't specifically apply to me, that's great! Perhaps even better would be to engage a person with those thoughts, because I would say, as I have, that everything you're presuming is nonsense and that I don't disagree with anything you are saying except the presumptions that you made about my opinions - which are obviously incorrect, seeing as we share the same opinions that you presumed I could not hold. We could explore how this is possible - or you could keep on telling me how it's not possible, despite the fact that it in fact is. And your whole rant about the pretty faces and producing thing is such an obvious logical fallacy that I still can't comprehend how you have floated so far off into nonsense with it:

IF AND ONLY IF a girl has a pretty face THEN she will get a record deal and marketing push, with or without talent DOES NOT IMPLY that a girl with a pretty face will not have talent. It DOES imply that a highly talented girl without a pretty face WILL NOT get a record deal and a marketing push. This is and was always intended as a gross exaggeration. Nobody anywhere ever is interested in discussing whether this possibility is in fact, in small part or in full, real. Probably.

IF AND ONLY IF a musician is involved with a musical group that produces its own music THEN it is more likely that LEAVES will like the music DOES NOT IMPLY anything about the talent of any person. Period.

...

In other news...

This little Fiio X3 has replaced both my iPod and my audio card in my computer. It's a magical device, and after I was upset that I could not make my headphone-centric audio card sound as good as my mp3 player I found out that I could just run the computer audio through the mp3 player and voila, it sounds amazing.

Image

_________________
LEAVES come from TREES
Retired


Fri Jan 02, 2015 12:05 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

LEAVES wrote:

In other news...

This little Fiio X3 has replaced both my iPod and my audio card in my computer. It's a magical device, and after I was upset that I could not make my headphone-centric audio card sound as good as my mp3 player I found out that I could just run the computer audio through the mp3 player and voila, it sounds amazing.

Image


I've been curious about this device, but I've hesitated because I always assume my PC can hold more audio so I'd just go with a DAC/Amp. I also recently just got the Fiio E17, which is pretty neat as a portable device and sounded great for a while, but it's already had technical issues after only a few months. That's another reason I'm skeptical about Fiio products. It sounds nice though, when it works.

I'll reply to the other things you wrote soon. A bit busy at the moment.

_________________
Recent films:

See my latest blog entry: Run the Jewels’ “Close Your Eyes” and Police Brutality

По́мните Катю...


Fri Jan 02, 2015 1:02 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

Dedicated DAC+amp is probably the best solution.. though that is dependent on how much your gear responds to being amped, an all-in-one like the fio might be a better choice for many, it depends on what you own, really.

I own multiple headphones that'll take as much power as you can throw at them, and a few that require an amp to run outright (electrostatic headphones), so owning an amp is really beneficial for me.


Fri Jan 02, 2015 1:13 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

I'm planning on getting the Matrix M-Stage with the HRT Music Streamer soon, I'll pair them with my AKG Q701s.

I got the Fiio E17 because it was a fairly inexpensive portable option with some cool features, but it just isn't a very reliable device. I'm going to go with the dedicated home amp approach since I do most listening at home and just use standard earbuds when I'm out and about anyways. Plus it's hopefully going to sound a hell of a lot better to boot.

_________________
Recent films:

See my latest blog entry: Run the Jewels’ “Close Your Eyes” and Police Brutality

По́мните Катю...


Fri Jan 02, 2015 1:25 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

for quincy


Fri Jan 02, 2015 1:30 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

Das wrote:
Dedicated DAC+amp is probably the best solution.. though that is dependent on how much your gear responds to being amped, an all-in-one like the fio might be a better choice for many, it depends on what you own, really.

I own multiple headphones that'll take as much power as you can throw at them, and a few that require an amp to run outright (electrostatic headphones), so owning an amp is really beneficial for me.
For me the choice was more like this:

My iPod from 2002 (?) finally broke. Do I get a new one (even though I hate Fascist Fruit Companies), or is there something cheaper?

Oh, this thing is cheaper? And has removable storage? And is a headphone amp? Sold!

Then everything else was a bonus. The fact that I use one pair of headphones and have never used a music player outside of traveling applications probably simplifies my decisions considerably.

_________________
LEAVES come from TREES
Retired


Fri Jan 02, 2015 2:08 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

LEAVES wrote:

Except that here all I'm arguing is that there is no argument, because all I was stating was something less meaningful than opinion, which is mere preference. If you can't agree that I'm right on that point, then I guess we have different ideas about phrases beginning with, "I cannot stand..."


But the initial response was in regard to your reasons for the preference, less the preference itself. The reaction basically just amounted to a "Why?" Literally, it was "why does this matter"

Preferences aren't opinion free entities btw. Preferences are typically rooted in reasons, much like the reasons you've gestured at that we'll get into below, and those reasons inform evaluative opinions, and those opinions inform preferences, etc; Not all preferences are treated equal.

LEAVES wrote:
I mean, I tried to start the conversation off with the least academic and most perfunctory post possible, and now I'm having to defend myself against shortchanging R&B pop singers because of something I expressed about how I understand my preferences. I don't even know how that's possible, but I can tell anyone who will listen that my preferences relating to R&B pop singers could not shortchange them in any way, because my preferences are meaningless most especially to anyone else, but even to myself.


Again, the initial question was fairly innocuous, albeit vaguely provocative, in the grand scheme of things, but when you started to explain yourself that's when things took a turn. The reasons you were giving just started to seem very far afield from the views of some in here, which is fine, but to my mind, it invites discussion. There was a mocking tone in a few of the subsequent posts (although, my post was not intended to mock, but simply to engage, even though it seems I'm the one that has received the most ire and indignation from you for offending your sensibilities). Given how much you love to quip and mock yourself, I'm surprised a bit by your level of sensitivity, but in any case, it strikes me as pretty ill directed in my case, since I've only been interested in fleshing out the reasoning you provided. So it goes, though....

_________________
Recent films:

See my latest blog entry: Run the Jewels’ “Close Your Eyes” and Police Brutality

По́мните Катю...


Mon Jan 05, 2015 4:59 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

LEAVES wrote:
I guess the problem here is that you are reading my post as you would a piece of published criticism and worrying about what it is that what I wrote might imply about my thought processes or opinions. Unfortunately, we are writing on a discussion forum, so your insistence on presuming what it is that I am writing about instead of asking what I am writing about is both presumptuous and dismissive - you essentially dismiss the mode of discourse in order to presume. I am presuming that this is because you prefer to rant on a tangent detached from reality instead of actually engage others' opinions.

See how insulting that is?


It might be insulting if you were interpreting some malicious or bad faith intent on my part, which I assume you might be, but it's important to remember that all I was trying to do in my first post was answer your question, "Do any of these new R&B crowd girls produce their own music?" I probably gave you more than you wanted, but I happen to be very interested in this genre so I gave you a somewhat lengthy response and some information that I thought might be helpful, and I did it without a lick of irony. It wasn't until you started getting into your reasoning that my posts became more inquisitive and argument based. Sure, you've stated a preference on the one hand, that's fine, but on the other hand you've said things like this:

LEAVES wrote:
Yeah, but, like, it's literally true that some of these women contribute literally nothing but a copy of something created by someone else. They're cover artists posing as artists. And it's not always or perhaps even often than it's a talented man behind her - it is often a talented female. And equally often it's a talentless male! But he still contributed more than her!


Here, I saw you giving some reasoning behind your preference, in that, there's the real possibility that some mainstream singers are talentless hacks singing over beats. You cite Rihanna and Britney Spears as examples. I didn't bite on those because we had enough on the table, but I'd be willing to quibble on Rihanna, and to a lesser extent, Spears. It's unfortunate because you get someone like Spears and then it's like it generates automatic suspicion across the entirety of pop music, even though I don't think she's representative of the whole, even if of some.

You then say things like this:

LEAVES wrote:
It is interesting that these girls coming up in this genre often know music rather than just singing. Not that you even need to know much about singing to make it in pop music...


And:

LEAVES wrote:
I gave up on the Knowles family after the head-scratching combo of "Bills, Bills, Bills" and "Independent Women". But that's just a personal thing. One would think that "Bootylicious" would cure me of such feelings, but no!


This was an attempt at a joke. I get it. But some jokes are also comprised of opinions. This seemed to render more support for the claims above.

You also say this:

LEAVES wrote:
Yeah, what a shitty way of creating art. No wonder it's mostly inconsistent nonsense! No wonder I like Kimbra's songs best when she plays her own instruments! No wonder I prefer bands to 'singers'!


Here, you again use passive aggressive irony (which is fine, I don't think anyone else here is offended, we're all guilty) to suggest you're not just stating a preference, but that your delving into your reasons, and reasons that express your own expectations and standards about quality art.

Then there's the appeal to auteurism you made to help explain your preference. I thought this was actually an interesting point and I engaged you on it. No harm, no foul, as far as I can tell.

The two biggest reasons you've given, however, are (1) that you're worried about the ugly faced singers who aren't getting a chance because of the mass discrimination based on looks, and (2) a number of pretty faced singers contribute little to nothing to the track. They're essentially "cover" artists. I've focused more on the latter, but I've also raised some questions about (1).

Anyways, if you don't really want to delve into these views, or if these really aren't rock solid positions your committed to or anything, that's all fine by me. We don't have to discuss it any further. But it's not like we're crazy people from crazytown for asking why you (dis)like something and then expressing how we differ on those views. This is just how people talk about stuff. Yeah there was some mockery going back and forth, but that's hardly anything new here. It's not that serious.

LEAVES wrote:
IF AND ONLY IF a girl has a pretty face THEN she will get a record deal and marketing push, with or without talent DOES NOT IMPLY that a girl with a pretty face will not have talent. It DOES imply that a highly talented girl without a pretty face WILL NOT get a record deal and a marketing push. This is and was always intended as a gross exaggeration. Nobody anywhere ever is interested in discussing whether this possibility is in fact, in small part or in full, real. Probably.


The only push back on this point was that for many of us, that isn't a reason to not like/listen to the music or to be skeptical of its quality. If you're not saying that it is, then no problem, but you've said some things that suggest that it is (the Rihanna and Britney Spears point, among other things). That's where things got hairy.

LEAVES wrote:
IF AND ONLY IF a musician is involved with a musical group that produces its own music THEN it is more likely that LEAVES will like the music DOES NOT IMPLY anything about the talent of any person. Period.


See above.

_________________
Recent films:

See my latest blog entry: Run the Jewels’ “Close Your Eyes” and Police Brutality

По́мните Катю...


Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:38 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

Izzy Black wrote:
The only push back on this point was that for many of us, that isn't a reason to not like/listen to the music or to be skeptical of its quality. If you're not saying that it is, then no problem, but you've said some things that suggest that it is (the Rihanna and Britney Spears point, among other things). That's where things got hairy.
Again, nothing I have said has anything to do with any individual song ever produced, which means that it has nothing to do with whether or not I like any given song. Which is why this is soooooooooooooo crazy how this argument keeps circling back to the same fallacy:

IF a method of production has a lesser likelihood of producing the kind of thing that someone has come to expect, through experience, that they prefer, THEN a said person will not expect to find as much quantity of music that they appreciate in a given genre that uses this method than elsewhere. It DOES NOT imply that any given song or record executive/singer in said genre will not be found to be "quality" by said person, because likelihoods are not in any way tied to the actual quality of any given actuality. If I were to sell you a winning lottery ticket worth $1,000,000 from a lottery where each of the 1,000,002 tickets originally cost $1 or a winning lottery ticket worth $1,000,000 where each ticket of the two tickets originally cost $500,001 - it wouldn't matter which original bucket of money the lottery ticket came from. However, if you were to give me a choice between one random lottery ticket in either bucket, I would choose to play the one with a higher likelihood.

I mean, I kind of liked Sia's Diamonds (as sung by Rihanna). I like a lot of Sia's music. That's not the problem. The problem is that I like Sia's music, not Rihanna's. Or whoever it is that can be said to really make artistic decisions in the songs sung by Rihanna. If anyone. And when I heard Diamonds, I am not likely to find more songs like that by listening to Rihanna's music. Likelihood.

To me, this is logical. And this is only the beginning of the silly presumptuous pettiness going on in here. I can't answer the rest of your points because I still feel like it's just so silly.

Plus, all of this insinuation that you all are making that any person could doubt that Kimbra is wonderfully talented merely because she's beautiful is insulting, and you should all be ashamed of yourselves. I know that I myself am completely incapable of thinking that anyone could think that Kimbra can't be talented merely because she's beautiful. It's just not possible. I mean, she's so delightful.

_________________
LEAVES come from TREES
Retired


Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:40 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

LEAVES wrote:
Or whoever it is that can be said to really make artistic decisions in the songs sung by Rihanna.

So... Rihanna?


Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:54 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread


_________________
“Bisogna essere molto forti per amare la solitudine.” - P.P. Pasolini

WCoF I II IIIL'EtàL'Eau한국88ShadowsBerlin thırd ISOLATIONVistaVision


Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:57 am
Profile WWW
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

Just came across this:

She can seriously sing

_________________


Sun Jan 11, 2015 3:10 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

ceo - Wonderland

:heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:

_________________
criticker


Sun Jan 11, 2015 4:41 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

cloak wrote:
ceo - Wonderland

:heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:

eric berglund is a genius :D


Sun Jan 11, 2015 5:14 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

He really is! The Tough Alliance was legendary this album is just what I needed.

_________________
criticker


Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:41 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

So, I get to listen to the first Sleater-Kinney record in 10+ years today (and I bought The Woods on release day back then, so I've been around). I'll be back a bit later.


Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:49 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

the best songs


Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:36 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

LEAVES wrote:
Again, nothing I have said has anything to do with any individual song ever produced, which means that it has nothing to do with whether or not I like any given song. Which is why this is soooooooooooooo crazy how this argument keeps circling back to the same fallacy:


It's odd to me that you think that generalizing (rather than specifying) somehow makes your comments less problematic. It doesn't. It's arguably less helpful. And it's also not true you haven't talked about individual songs (and artists). You've singled out Rihanna, Britney Spears, and mocked my Beyoncé/Solange points. So this doesn't help either way.

LEAVES wrote:
IF a method of production has a lesser likelihood of producing the kind of thing that someone has come to expect, through experience, that they prefer, THEN a said person will not expect to find as much quantity of music that they appreciate in a given genre that uses this method than elsewhere. It DOES NOT imply that any given song or record executive/singer in said genre will not be found to be "quality" by said person, because likelihoods are not in any way tied to the actual quality of any given actuality.


Ironically, all your talk of fallacies and logic throughout is actually just making the lack of clarity in your statements (and your sloppy use of biconditionals) all the more glaring. Since you're so set on talking past me to harp on this weak line though (you've blatantly admitted to ignoring 3/4ths of my post), let's just break this down in the way that you think you are doing (but aren't). Let's take your conditional:

"IF a method of production has a lesser likelihood of producing the kind of thing that someone has come to expect, through experience, that they prefer, THEN a said person will not expect to find as much quantity of music that they appreciate in a given genre that uses this method than elsewhere."

Several issues here.

First, notice that you've (conveniently) left out your other statements, which misleads us to the effect that you've only been speaking of your preferences and nothing more the entire time. This has the effect of being a false and misleading representation of what you've actually said to redirect the discussion away from your more controversial statements (i.e. a red herring). I've already explained how preferences can rest on reasons. I've also explained how you've made comments that go into those reasons. In other words, you misrepresent yourself and the discussion to suggest that's all you've ever said. Of course, perhaps you don't think your (omitted) statements on talent and specific singers above are actually criticisms or problematic in the way that I've described. That's fine, but you've chosen not to discuss those comments on the merits, even though they're the very comments that caused questions to begin with. That commits you to the only fallacious reasoning I've seen here. The funny part is that you're using this (red herring) as a basis for saying that we're (or at least I am) misrepresenting you, thus ascribing a fallacy (presumably a straw man), but what has happened though is you've actually been misrepresenting yourself. And, in fact, straw manning yourself. In truth, your avoidance of your prior statements has the effect of seeming quite simply like good old fashioned equivocation (if not outright prevarication).

Second, your conditional, even if narrowly construed as precluding the above premises and assumptions, still isn't strictly speaking necessarily true. We can test this by showing that the conditional corresponds to an argument that is invalid. (The corresponding conditional isn't necessarily true if the argument is invalid.) The conditional can be reconstructed as corresponding to the following argument:

1. One has come to expect a certain style or preference of music generally produced by some specific style(s) of production.
2. There is (some other) kind of production method not of such style(s) that is less likely to produce one's preferred kind of music.
3. Therefore, one is less likely to find as much preferred music in a genre produced by this method than elsewhere.

The argument is invalid because the conclusion (3) doesn't follow from the premises (if true). We can't reasonably expect that this given method of production is less effective than other methods without some designation of "elsewhere," since elsewhere may (now) have the same such methods of production (or such methods that are more deleterious to the probability of producing music corresponding to one's preferences). In other words, the conditional isn't necessarily true. This is just quibbling of course because I don't really care about any of this, but it's worth pointing out how sloppy your reasoning is when you claim so sanctimoniously to have the gods of logic well on your side.

LEAVES wrote:
If I were to sell you a winning lottery ticket worth $1,000,000 from a lottery where each of the 1,000,002 tickets originally cost $1 or a winning lottery ticket worth $1,000,000 where each ticket of the two tickets originally cost $500,001 - it wouldn't matter which original bucket of money the lottery ticket came from. However, if you were to give me a choice between one random lottery ticket in either bucket, I would choose to play the one with a higher likelihood.


If your preferences rest on reasons, opinions, and/or evaluations, then this is a disanalogy. You wouldn't be speaking of ineffectual probabilities, but probabilities that turn on quality. Of course, this analogy can actually still work in this regard because we're still talking value (qualitative and quantitative). It's just economic value rather than aesthetic value.

LEAVES wrote:
I mean, I kind of liked Sia's Diamonds (as sung by Rihanna). I like a lot of Sia's music. That's not the problem. The problem is that I like Sia's music, not Rihanna's. Or whoever it is that can be said to really make artistic decisions in the songs sung by Rihanna. If anyone. And when I heard Diamonds, I am not likely to find more songs like that by listening to Rihanna's music. Likelihood.

To me, this is logical. And this is only the beginning of the silly presumptuous pettiness going on in here. I can't answer the rest of your points because I still feel like it's just so silly.


This is what I find really amusing and silly. In each and every post that you claim to be stating nothing more than an (uncontroversial, unbinding, non-evaluative) preference, you say something else that contradicts it by plainly expressing an estimation of value. In addition, your withholding of an estimation of value (simultaneous with judgments of value) is precisely one of the things that has generated perplexity and suspicion from some of us. The default assumption should be (or in any case, generally is) that Rihanna is the agent primarily responsible for her music. To assume otherwise, or to not assume anything, is to ipso facto express skepticism or doubt about Rihanna's contribution to her own music. (Our discourse is such that we describe her music as her music, the same acknowledgments you yield to Sia and Kimbra, as opposed to "whoever it is that can be said to really make artistic decisions" in their songs). Which you've done not just implicitly here, but explicitly above. Hence, questions ensue. Your rejoinder: some more vague, equivocating talk about preferences. It bears the form of backpedaling and "Hey, what I really meant was, um, no, like, uh I'm just saying man, you know, I just prefer certain stuff, and whatever. But you know, I just prefer WHOEVER it is that is making those "Rihanna" songs because, you know, there are a lot of talentless singers out there that contribute nothing to the track, and I'm not saying that Rihanna is one, but you know man, I'm just talking preferences. COME ON! You guys are so silly and presumptuous and I'm not passive aggressively dismissing anything at all and then doing my (weak) best to rationalize my comments." Rinse and repeat.

Mind you (for the second time), my initial post, which was very tame and respectful, merely tried to answer your question about whether these new R&B singers produce their own music. I did two things. I answered to what extent they do, and then I questioned (along with others) why it should matter that they did (in terms of assessing artistic quality/authority). You gave reasons why it should matter, and then, conveniently, seemed to deny that you did, disavowing any intent to engage in a discussion on merits, aesthetics, or value. Again, if you don't want to talk merits, fine. Just don't pretend like we're looneytoons for asking you questions about some of the off handed comments you've made about pop music and talent.

_________________
Recent films:

See my latest blog entry: Run the Jewels’ “Close Your Eyes” and Police Brutality

По́мните Катю...


Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:41 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

Relevant to this discussion:

Quote:
Pitchfork: When it was originally misreported that Vulnicura was produced by Arca, instead of co-produced by you and Arca, it reminded me of the Joni Mitchell quote from the height of her fame about how whichever man was in the room with her got credit for her genius.

B: Yeah, I didn’t want to talk about that kind of thing for 10 years, but then I thought, “You’re a coward if you don’t stand up. Not for you, but for women. Say something.” So around 2006, I put something on my website where I cleared something up, because it’d been online so many times that it was becoming a fact. It wasn’t just one journalist getting it wrong, everybody was getting it wrong. I’ve done music for, what, 30 years? I’ve been in the studio since I was 11; Alejandro had never done an album when I worked with him. He wanted to putting something on his own Twitter, just to say it’s co-produced. I said, “No, we’re never going to win this battle. Let’s just leave it.” But he insisted. I’ve sometimes thought about releasing a map of all my albums and just making it clear who did what. But it always comes across as so defensive that, like, it’s pathetic. I could obviously talk about this for a long time. [laughs]

Pitchfork: The world has a difficult time with the female auteur.

B: I have nothing against Kanye West. Help me with this—I’m not dissing him—this is about how people talk about him. With the last album he did, he got all the best beatmakers on the planet at the time to make beats for him. A lot of the time, he wasn’t even there. Yet no one would question his authorship for a second. If whatever I’m saying to you now helps women, I’m up for saying it. For example, I did 80% of the beats on Vespertine and it took me three years to work on that album, because it was all microbeats—it was like doing a huge embroidery piece. Matmos came in the last two weeks and added percussion on top of the songs, but they didn’t do any of the main parts, and they are credited everywhere as having done the whole album. [Matmos’] Drew [Daniel] is a close friend of mine, and in every single interview he did, he corrected it. And they don’t even listen to him. It really is strange.

Pitchfork: How does it make you feel when this happens now?

B: I have to say—I got a feeling I am going to win in the long run, but I want to be part of the zeitgeist, too. I want to support young girls who are in their 20s now and tell them: You’re not just imagining things. It’s tough. Everything that a guy says once, you have to say five times. Girls now are also faced with different problems. I’ve been guilty of one thing: After being the only girl in bands for 10 years, I learned—the hard way—that if I was going to get my ideas through, I was going to have to pretend that they—men—had the ideas. I became really good at this and I don’t even notice it myself. I don’t really have an ego. I’m not that bothered. I just want the whole thing to be good. And I’m not saying one bad thing about the guys who were with me in the bands, because they’re all amazing and creative, and they’re doing incredible things now. But I come from a generation where that was the only way to get things done. So I have to play stupid and just do everything with five times the amount of energy, and then it will come through.

When people don’t credit me for the stuff I’ve done, it’s for several reasons. I’m going to get very methodical now! [laughs] One! I learned what a lot of women have to do is make the guys in the room think it was their idea, and then you back them up. Two! I spend 80% of the writing process of my albums on my own. I write the melodies. I’m by the computer. I edit a lot. That for me is very solitary. I don’t want to be photographed when I’m doing that. I don’t invite people around. The 20% of the album process when I bring in the string orchestras, the extras, that’s documented more. That’s the side people see. When I met M.I.A., she was moaning about this, and I told her, “Just photograph yourself in front of the mixing desk in the studio, and people will go, ‘Oh, OK! A woman with a tool, like a man with a guitar.’” Not that I’ve done that much myself, but sometimes you’re better at giving people advice than doing it yourself. I remember seeing a photo of Missy Elliott at the mixing desk in the studio and being like, a-ha!

It’s a lot of what people see. During a show, because there are people onstage doing the other bits, I’m just a singer. For example, I asked Matmos to play all the beats for the Vespertine tour, so maybe that’s kind of understandable that people think they made them. So maybe it’s not all sexist evil. [laughs] But it’s an ongoing battle. I hope it doesn’t come across as too defensive, but it is the truth. I definitely can feel the third or fourth feminist wave in the air, so maybe this is a good time to open that Pandora’s box a little bit and air it out.


Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:29 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

That is great stuff from Bjork there.

_________________
reddy brown objects
last.fm


Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:12 am
Profile WWW
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

Hey Izzy, here are a few more: Kill J, Khordelia

_________________


Sun Jan 25, 2015 8:30 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

Well, you see Izzy, I still can't even read your entire posts because it is sooooooo crazy to me, and then I went back to the beginning of this conversation and it's even MORE crazy to me. I do think you guys are looneytoons, like for sure. I mean, even if you are correct, it's clear that it will get nobody anywhere, as I definitely do not care whatsoever, so the effort expended is definitely looney. But I don't think it's worth getting upset about, because you're trying to talk about my three least favorite things to talk about in the entire world (auteurism, male chauvinism, and feelings (or, worse, "opinions" *shudder*) about music), and I do everything I can to avoid those conversations, so we were only ever inevitably going to be attempting to steer the conversation as far away from whatever the other person wanted to talk about as possible. I still think that my first few posts can and should clearly be read as logical and logistical rather than... whatever "value" type word you want to use, but that's just me. However, even that could be troubling, because if I say, "I personally think it's better if you take the lens cap off of the camera it makes for better filmmaking" - then people would argue with me, and I might even agree, even though I definitely think that it is better if you take the lens cap off of the camera. Such is life. And I really cannot stand when rappers use echo. Does anyone?

_________________
LEAVES come from TREES
Retired


Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:13 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

i like everything in rap except when they say things that denigrate women and/or gay/queer/w.e people but ive learned to live with it

_________________
Yaru koto nasu koto, umaku ikanai n' dakara!


Sat Jan 31, 2015 8:19 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread


_________________


Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:34 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

LEAVES wrote:
Well, you see Izzy, I still can't even read your entire posts because it is sooooooo crazy to me, and then I went back to the beginning of this conversation and it's even MORE crazy to me. I do think you guys are looneytoons, like for sure.


My position couldn't be any clearer. Meanwhile, your posts have gotten progressively sloppier, even as I've been rather generously and carefully engaging you on each of your points, despite their fallacious content. At the very least, we can agree that you are willfully and woefully ignorant of my posts. We disagree about the reasons, of course. No worries though. I'm happy to let our posts speak for themselves.

LEAVES wrote:
I mean, even if you are correct, it's clear that it will get nobody anywhere, as I definitely do not care whatsoever, so the effort expended is definitely looney.


You sure seem awfully defensive and apparently outright indignant in several posts for someone who doesn't care. For my purposes, I simply enjoy talking about music, which is how this discussion originally started. I questioned you about some of your reasons and you started waffling and throwing ad hominems. No big deal though. It's just music. No one said anyone's life depended on it. I'm happy to talk about these things because I enjoy the topic and this happens to be a genre of music I really like. I've said this numerous times though. I expect it to be ignored again with the excuse that, despite how sensible and basic that it is, I'm saying something crazy here. Even though the only thing crazy here is how bent out of shape you got over a little pressure on some of the comments you made.

LEAVES wrote:
But I don't think it's worth getting upset about


Exactly. Of course not. No one should be upset here. Yet, you were one that seemed literally offended when we expressed puzzlement over some curious comments you made. Like I said, I enjoy talking about this stuff. If you don't, fine, but you started the mud slinging pretty early on in this. From there, your posts began to descend deeper into irrationality.

LEAVES wrote:
because you're trying to talk about my three least favorite things to talk about in the entire world (auteurism, male chauvinism, and feelings (or, worse, "opinions" *shudder*) about music), and I do everything I can to avoid those conversations, so we were only ever inevitably going to be attempting to steer the conversation as far away from whatever the other person wanted to talk about as possible.


No problem. You can leave at any time. It's really that simple.

LEAVES wrote:
I still think that my first few posts can and should clearly be read as logical and logistical rather than... whatever "value" type word you want to use, but that's just me.


Well, that may very well be what you think, but unfortunately, as much as you've been trying to harp on "logic" this whole thread, I explained quite clearly in my last post how unclear and fallacious your own reasoning has in fact been, rather than the other way around.

LEAVES wrote:
However, even that could be troubling, because if I say, "I personally think it's better if you take the lens cap off of the camera it makes for better filmmaking" - then people would argue with me, and I might even agree, even though I definitely think that it is better if you take the lens cap off of the camera. Such is life. And I really cannot stand when rappers use echo. Does anyone?


Yeah, that's life man. If you go around expressing views on a discussion forum where, you know, people discuss things, you might find some people who express disagreement with you because, well, this is the place to do that. We share our thoughts, discuss, and occasionally, we even disagree. Fortunately for you, there is no moral obligation to participate. You can readily see yourself to the exit. Just click the back button and there you are, back on the main page.

_________________
Recent films:

See my latest blog entry: Run the Jewels’ “Close Your Eyes” and Police Brutality

По́мните Катю...


Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:20 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

Bandy Greensacks wrote:
Hey Izzy, here are a few more: Kill J, Khordelia


Thanks! I'll check this out.

By the way, I've been listening to Evy Jane like obsessively. I've got both EPs. So good. I really appreciate that.

I've also found this artist Billie Black. She's pretty good. Do you like XXYYXX?

_________________
Recent films:

See my latest blog entry: Run the Jewels’ “Close Your Eyes” and Police Brutality

По́мните Катю...


Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:23 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

I like the production of that Billie Black track (sub bass and width!), and she has a good voice. I'll have to check out more.

I've heard a number of XXYYXX songs, yeah. Still keep a few in rotation. He's not bad, but around the same time I discovered him, I also discovered Sango, Flume and Chrome Sparks (on Spotify), and I like them a lot more.

_________________


Tue Feb 17, 2015 11:29 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

Izzy: This isn't really 2014, but Elizabeth Rose has a pretty good sound too.

Somewhat unrelated, but from 2014:



Can't stop listening to this. And something about it (and it's not just the cartoon animals) reminds me of Gorillaz.

_________________


Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:30 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread





Kind of pointless to keep bumping this thread, but yeah

_________________


Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:16 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

Bandy Greensacks wrote:
I like the production of that Billie Black track (sub bass and width!), and she has a good voice. I'll have to check out more.

I've heard a number of XXYYXX songs, yeah. Still keep a few in rotation. He's not bad, but around the same time I discovered him, I also discovered Sango, Flume and Chrome Sparks (on Spotify), and I like them a lot more.


Yeah I like Flume. Just checked Sango. The first half reminded me a bit of SBTRKT (w/ Sampha). More space though, which I love.

I also came across Zodiac (EP on Spotify and Tidal). He's the guy who claims to have produced basically all the best songs off of the Weeknd's House of Balloons and pretty much launched his career, but then had a falling out with him. Not sure if it's true, but it's a nice EP, I thought. Has more of a trip-hop vibe I suppose.

_________________
Recent films:

See my latest blog entry: Run the Jewels’ “Close Your Eyes” and Police Brutality

По́мните Катю...


Sat Apr 04, 2015 7:19 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

Looks like he is sampled on Drake's "Wu-Tang Forever." I knew I heard that instrumental before (the non-Wu-Tang sample).

_________________
Recent films:

See my latest blog entry: Run the Jewels’ “Close Your Eyes” and Police Brutality

По́мните Катю...


Sat Apr 04, 2015 7:29 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

Zodiac is pretty decent. Definitely the only worthwhile thing about those early Weeknd tracks.

Found these the other day: https://soundcloud.com/rozessounds/desirable-1 & https://soundcloud.com/ezamusic/headlights

Oh, and I've come around a lot on TALA. Black Scorpio is great.

_________________


Wed Apr 08, 2015 4:15 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

You don't like the weeknd?

_________________
Recent films:

See my latest blog entry: Run the Jewels’ “Close Your Eyes” and Police Brutality

По́мните Катю...


Mon Apr 13, 2015 6:57 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: 2014 music thread

Izzy Black wrote:
You don't like the weeknd?

Eh. He comes off like a 12 year old trying to sing about sex, and I don't really like his voice.

_________________


Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:34 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 439 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.