It can be truly hard, sometimes, to respect artistic preference as a matter of subjecticity. Truly hard. As Rob says in High Fidelity, how can it be bullshit to state a preference? And as Barry responds, when it's the wrong preference, then it's bullshit. I feel I've matured a lot when it comes to respecting other people's points of view, and playing down the seriousness of my own. I don't think Kubrick is God anymore, and I don't necessarily think Michael Bay is the devil. It's just that I agree with Barry, somewhere. Michael Bay is a bad director, and to think otherwise is, just, wrong.
They look about how they sound.
Lets take a classic example: Nickelback. It is almost universally agreed that Nickelback is crap, so unanimously, in fact, that I have seen ads for contests prizing Nickelback concert tickets and actually wondered, "but for who?". Who in this world actually, really likes Nickelback? But sure enough, lots of people like Nickelback; they just happen to be on the other side of a preferential perspective with a gradient edge steeper than the broad side of the Sears Tower - meaning, in one box is a group of people who will not even discuss their musical value, and in another directly beside it is a group who have never felt the need to.
This would be easy to dismiss as a matter of mere different strokes, if it weren't for the feeling that the Nickelback fan is simply short of some kind of comprehension. And, honestly, is it a mutual feeling? I don't think so. I don't think fans of Nickelback stringently believe that anti-fans just don't get it. They're just annoyed when someone says they suck. Like for me, when I run across someone who avidly dislikes U2, I do not think they've missed something. I uphold that they simply don't like them, and I do, and I don't know why. Their opinions are not so polite.
And yet I do not feel that liking U2 is anything close to liking Nickelback. I believe that U2 are technically and substantially Better than Nickelback, by a lot, and that even if my band has their blind-spots (which I'm certain they do) Nickelback is blindfolded in the forret, on rollerskates. Even my friend Matt and I, who maintain very different feelings about Bono, agree that Nickelback is, by any means, not even in the same category. Not even close.
I will do my best to discuss and define why I believe Nickelback is a very bad band. I know very little about musical composition, but I know when art is sold on cheap, stupid, uncreative gimmicks - the artistic equivalent to a logical fallacy, such as an appeal to emotion. In this case, an arguer would, instead of focussing on a sound and valid argument, misdirect the listener into an emotional response. Of course in Art, emotional responses are where its at, and if Nickelback's sound does it for you then no one should try to convince you otherwise. It's just that a severely post-produced vocalist, who's sound is so trite and obvious and bombastic and clearly re-touched, being one of the core stimuluses for the listener...it doesn't imply a great deal of musical value.
This would be easy to dismiss as a matter of mere different strokes, if it weren't for the feeling that the Nickelback fan is simply short of some kind of comprehension. And, honestly, is it a mutual feeling? I don't think so. I don't think fans of Nickelback stringently believe that anti-fans just don't get it. They're just annoyed when someone says they suck. Like for me, when I run across someone who avidly dislikes U2, I do not think they've missed something. I uphold that they simply don't like them, and I do, and I don't know why. Their opinions are not so polite.
And yet I do not feel that liking U2 is anything close to liking Nickelback. I believe that U2 are technically and substantially Better than Nickelback, by a lot, and that even if my band has their blind-spots (which I'm certain they do) Nickelback is blindfolded in the forret, on rollerskates. Even my friend Matt and I, who maintain very different feelings about Bono, agree that Nickelback is, by any means, not even in the same category. Not even close.
I will do my best to discuss and define why I believe Nickelback is a very bad band. I know very little about musical composition, but I know when art is sold on cheap, stupid, uncreative gimmicks - the artistic equivalent to a logical fallacy, such as an appeal to emotion. In this case, an arguer would, instead of focussing on a sound and valid argument, misdirect the listener into an emotional response. Of course in Art, emotional responses are where its at, and if Nickelback's sound does it for you then no one should try to convince you otherwise. It's just that a severely post-produced vocalist, who's sound is so trite and obvious and bombastic and clearly re-touched, being one of the core stimuluses for the listener...it doesn't imply a great deal of musical value.
"Lets see you make 5 notes sound like a symphony, smart ass."
It comes of as easy, thoughtless trickey, that worst of all, does not even believe it is trickery. That carries on doing the same, stupid, boring, obnoxious thing over and over as though it were actually creating. Now, anyone could fall for it; music majors might not be immune to the appeal, it's just that it's unlikely. It is likely that Nickelback most easily connects with people who have no kind of mental stock in music. And that's fine. I likewise believe that while U2 is really, really great at what they do, are not necessarily for music buffs. Here and there, in areas of popular rock study, they are, but their entire catalog? No, that's meant for people like me. It's just that it takes more to trick me, I think. The Edge makes sounds bigger than what he's playing, but there are so, so many ways he's done this. However projective his sound, it is almost always a creative, expansive thing.
Likewise for a band like Blink 182, that was largely accesible to the popular listener, and was often lobbed into the same category with bands like Good Charlette and Yellow Card and New Found Glory and Simple Plan. I think there was something real going on with Blink 182 and I think they brought something valuable to music, however minor. I think those other four bands are for idiots, hard as I try to be nice about it. I think they were beyond horrible, and while I respect and defend your right to enjoy everything any of them ever did, I am extremely skeptical of discussing their merrit. I cannot bring myself to fathom that their biggest fans know something I simply do not.
This only gets harder when it comes to movies. Again, I know that some of my favorite films are not brilliant and perhaps pack a number of notable flaws. I know that my preferences are, in fact, personal, and not universal, but I believe they have been better honed by more practice and and greater engagement than someone's who thinks 2001 is a bunch of crap, or that The Boondock Saints is as good as Pulp Fiction. I believe it with a security that "knowing" just can't touch. And I'll discuss it to prove it. What I have no tolerance for is preference as evidence. I am sick of people claiming blatantly inferior stuff is great simply because they say so. I am tired of people on movie sites going "Well I though Tranformers was great. Michael Bay is a way better director than the haters say." Everybody has a right to their own voice; not everyone belongs in a serious debate.
I'll pay Nickelback one line of credit: however accute their range, they have created a number of catchy melodies, however unpleasant to my palet, and that's...something. For you or someone you know it might be enough. Enough ain't the same as good, though, and it surely never will be.
Likewise for a band like Blink 182, that was largely accesible to the popular listener, and was often lobbed into the same category with bands like Good Charlette and Yellow Card and New Found Glory and Simple Plan. I think there was something real going on with Blink 182 and I think they brought something valuable to music, however minor. I think those other four bands are for idiots, hard as I try to be nice about it. I think they were beyond horrible, and while I respect and defend your right to enjoy everything any of them ever did, I am extremely skeptical of discussing their merrit. I cannot bring myself to fathom that their biggest fans know something I simply do not.
This only gets harder when it comes to movies. Again, I know that some of my favorite films are not brilliant and perhaps pack a number of notable flaws. I know that my preferences are, in fact, personal, and not universal, but I believe they have been better honed by more practice and and greater engagement than someone's who thinks 2001 is a bunch of crap, or that The Boondock Saints is as good as Pulp Fiction. I believe it with a security that "knowing" just can't touch. And I'll discuss it to prove it. What I have no tolerance for is preference as evidence. I am sick of people claiming blatantly inferior stuff is great simply because they say so. I am tired of people on movie sites going "Well I though Tranformers was great. Michael Bay is a way better director than the haters say." Everybody has a right to their own voice; not everyone belongs in a serious debate.
I'll pay Nickelback one line of credit: however accute their range, they have created a number of catchy melodies, however unpleasant to my palet, and that's...something. For you or someone you know it might be enough. Enough ain't the same as good, though, and it surely never will be.
By Dave Beauchene
No comments:
Post a Comment