its all opinion by the way, nothing is "better" than anything else

but a lot of people who dislike Zwan argue that it's way too cheery and happy go lucky compared to the pumpkins, but it's not the pumpkins now, is it ^^



i like it, but my cd doesnt work right....

i can't make it all the way through jesus, I and come with me doesnt work at all

Rivers Cuomo link=topic=173.msg3056#msg3056 date=1153459856]
its all opinion by the way, nothing is "better" than anything else



Um, Are you serious? So Siamese Dream isn't better than Nick Lachey's new album; it's just opinion????????

I didn't really like the whole album, but zwan was awesome live. They all seemed to work really well together and there were some awesome 20 minute jams. I agree that Pajo was kind of overshodowed by everyone else, though.

actually, I am serious

if you ask some 12 year old girl who is in love with Nick Lachey, what do you think she'll say.

however, if you ask anybody here, what do you think they'll say?


certain things can be decided by fact, others only by opinion


if you believe that all your opinions are fact, you're going to make enemies

?

Rivers Cuomo link=topic=173.msg3116#msg3116 date=1153620466]
actually, I am serious

if you ask some 12 year old girl who is in love with Nick Lachey, what do you think she'll say.

however, if you ask anybody here, what do you think they'll say?


certain things can be decided by fact, others only by opinion


if you believe that all your opinions are fact, you're going to make enemies

May I good-humouredly challenge you?

I think you're making everything a bit too black and white. I'm sure no one believes that all his or her opinions are fact, and if you got the impression that I believe this (which you have no reason to) yer wrong.
For friendly argument: your idea that "nothing is "better" than anything else" is also an opinion, and one that I don't think too many people hold.

Criticism isn't a science, but it has a certain amount of validity, nevertheless. You can't, of course, use any formula to find out if a certain work of art is better than another. However I believe with study and serious observation, reference to accepted authorities etc. you can come to convincing conclusions about the value or greatness of certain works of art or artistes.

It's pretty hard to debate whether, say, Mussorgsky is a greater artist than Tchaikovsky, but not many people would argue with the opinion (dare I say fact? tee hee!) that one of Whistler's Nocturnes are better than a terrible painting I did when I was like 15.

Anyway, that said, I say that Billy Corgan is a greater artist than Nick with as much certainty as I say a water molecule contains hydrogen and oxygen.
I'm sure no one hates me because of it, and if anyone does, oh well, it don't bother me.

Doné link=topic=173.msg3127#msg3127 date=1153638789]

It's pretty hard to debate whether, say, Mussorgsky is a greater artist than Tchaikovsky, but not many people would argue with the opinion (dare I say fact? tee hee!) that one of Whistler's Nocturnes are better than a terrible painting I did when I was like 15.



If you're basing this on technical merit and proficiency, then yes, there would be little room for debate. The skill of an artist can be observed. But is that enough to label it with such broad terms as "Good" or "Better"?

Let's assume for a moment that Whistler's works were only a study of color and form and nothing more. Now assume that the painting you created at 15 was motivated by pure emotion. Technical showmanship aside, which one would be... better?

Wow, you're crazy too.

Doné link=topic=173.msg3149#msg3149 date=1153681298]
Wow, you're crazy too.



I think it was a reasonable question, but I don't want to get this thread off topic, so we'll end it here.

Sorry to end it so abruptly, but I needed to take a shower.
Yes it's definitely a reasonable question. Calling you crazy was just joking around, yno?

One question. Do you actually believe that nothing can be better than anything else, or is it just for arguement's sake that you're taking that position (which is bizarre, but interesting)?

I'm going to create a new topic in the General board.

hahaha

murder i was so confused when I saw this topic...i thought my account got hacked


but I am liking this thread

But who really decides then, what is better music? Scholars, people who have studied the field? If so, then what exactly makes one artist or composer better. I believe that Siamese Dream was one of the most well produced albums of all time, but again that doesn't make it better.

I'm still not convinced.

and yes, it's friendly argument

I think on a personal level you can evaluate works of art on any level you feel is right. It's trying to push the beliefs on other people where the problem lies. Like you've said, there's no science involved in liking or disliking something. The reasons for doing so are endless and unique for every individual.

Rivers Cuomo link=topic=249.msg3159#msg3159 date=1153685173]
But who really decides then, what is better music? Scholars, people who have studied the field?


Once again, it comes back to the technical aspects, because that's the only thing someone can study with objectivity. I think a lot of people have a hard time understanding that technical does not equal enjoyable.

I completely agree that technical skill doesn't necessarily make something enjoyable. But as to technical skill being the only thing that can be valued or measured in any way, what about creativity and originality? Both of these elements are much more important in art than technical skill (would you agree?), and I think these can, to a certain extent, be valued objectively. It requires study, knowledge, and experience though.

But I am not saying that you can take every work of art made and scientifically create a hierarchy, there is room for difference of opinion. Subjectivity does play a large role in the response to art.

I think the main thing to keep in mind is that criticism is a subtle blend of art and science; objectivity and subjectivity both play a role in it in many different ways. Of course no one critic's opinion can be taken as anything close to fact, but that doesn't mean that criticism as a whole has no value or relevance.

But if you don't agree, I don't mind! It means that you believe The Pumpkins' music isn't any better than mine, which is very flattering. I thank you whole-heartedly for the compliment!

-----
PS
Quoth Mr Murder:
"Let's assume for a moment that Whistler's works were only a study of color and form and nothing more. Now assume that the painting you created at 15 was motivated by pure emotion. Technical showmanship aside, which one would be... better?"

Motivation is a very small part of the creative process, as is technical skill.

Originality and creativity are also subjective because they're dependent solely on either the artist's intentions, or the viewer's discernment. It's impossible to know the artist's creative process unless he or she explicitly describes it to you. You can only judge originality based on what you already know to exist, but it's impossible to know of everything that has existed.

But more importantly, any of these points... technicalities, originality, creativity, likeability, creative process, motivation... can be invalidated by anyone who doesn't obligate themselves to evaluate based on those criteria.

This isn't about seeing everything as equal. It's about understanding that there are no universal laws that mandate whether something is good or bad, or should be liked or disliked.

Murder McMurderson link=topic=249.msg3171#msg3171 date=1153691637]

This isn't about seeing everything as equal. It's about understanding that there are no universal laws that mandate whether something is good or bad, or should be liked or disliked.



thanks murder, that's exactly what I meant

I was also going to suggest that we pick a different artist besides nick lachey to base this off of...

I think we're pretty much agreed now, but I was going to say take a die hard radiohead fan versus a die hard pumpkins fan. They both create amazing compositions. That's what you can't really judge as better or worse. There really aren't any "universal laws" like murder said that can distinguish whether one song is better than another, like "this song has more complex harmonies and an unusual time signature"


I really think the only thing that can surely be decided as a fact would be ones skill to actually PLAY the instrument.

I have never implied that there are universal laws. I have stated the contrary several times. Haven't you read my posts????!?!?

Ps for some reason I was logged out and can't log back in. Help!

PPS ~ Rivers Cuomo: What did I say about Mussorgsky and Tchaikovsky? That's exactly what you're saying about radiohead and the Pumpkins, and I completely agree.
And again, I've never said anything about universal scientific laws!!!!!!!!!!