Tubular.net :: Mike Oldfield Forums Discussion, news, reviews, fan music, and more.
	Search :: Members :: Help :: Guidelines

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Matt Group: Admins Posts: 1186 Joined: Nov. 2002 Posted: June 17 2008, 12:28 A few topics here recently have discussed having respect for music or other forms of art even though they might not be to your taste. Pondering this idea I think you have to accept that there are limits to what you should be expected to respect. For any form of art, it must be reasonable that if you feel no effort or skill has gone into its creation and if the resulting work does nothing for you, it should therefore not need to have your respect. For instance I visited the van Gogh museum in Amsterdam last year. Found it very interesting. None of van Goghs drawings or paintings do much for me - I just don't like them - but I appreciate the efforts he made and skills he acquired. I have respect. Conversely, visiting the local gallery of modern art I find some works that seem to me to have no effort or skill involved and which do absolutely nothing for me. Can I call them "rubbish"? Quite what language is fair to use for something like this is probably another debate - I'll stick to "rubbish" I think to try and avoid the wrath of the admins What about Mikes music? Me, I think even my least favourite of his works seem to me to have a fair bit of skill and some effort put in which puts them above "rubbish" for me. Others opinions may reasonably vary. -------------- "I say I say I say I say, what's got three bottles and five eyes and no legs and two wheels" Back to top

Scatterplot Group: Members Posts: 1981 Joined: Dec. 2007 Posted: June 17 2008, 13:39 For me, "art" in music has pretty much died. Hence my change of avatars. -------------- We raise our voices in the night Crying to heaven And will our voices be heard Or will they break Like the wind Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: June 17 2008, 14:47 Quote (Matt @ June 17 2008, 17:28) For any form of art, it must be reasonable that if you feel no effort or skill has gone into its creation and if the resulting work does nothing for you, it should therefore not need to have your respect. That sounds OK at first reading, Matt, but it has led to an enormous amount of egg on the faces of art critics down the years. The difficulty is this: whenever something truly new arises in art, it often flouts the normal rules of what is 'skill'; and with the best will in the world, it's very common for the reaction to it to be the instinctive cry of 'rubbish!' I know a lot more about this in relation to the history of painting than with regard to music, but the general form of the process is the same. When the Impressionists exhibited their pictures for the first time in the 1870s they were howled at in derision. Their pictures were an insult to the exhibition visitors, and regarded as objects of contempt or ridicule. They were thought to be incompetent and without basic painterly skill. Those pictures are now among the most loved throughout the western world, and those artists, once thought to be bungling imbeciles and charlatans, are now among the most revered. This process happens over and over again. It happened with the PreRaphaelites; it happened with abstract painting; it happened with JMW Turner, that greatest of all English artists whose masterpieces were described as 'pictures of nothing, and very like'; and whose picture Snowstorm (now one of his most famous works) was described by one critic as 'soapsuds and whitewash'. Over and over again: the great artist makes a breakthrough, sees something no one else has ever seen, and therefore presents something entirely unfamiliar to everyone else; he is derided by the critics and most of the public who (not surprisingly) don't understand; eventually (it may take 10 years, 20, or 50, who knows) people start to see it for what it is; and what was once seen as sheer rubbish finally becomes understood and takes its place in the history of great art. The difficulty is that at the time it's presented, for most of us there's no way of knowing whether this thing, here and now, is an unrecognised masterpiece, or really junk. Mostly the only thing to do, if we see nothing in it, is to walk away. If we spit venom at it, well, we might be right of course; or we might, in blinkered ignorance, be doing a grave injustice to a great work, and end up looking as foolish as those nineteenth century guys who slated Monet and his pals. So in my view, the only sensible response to an unfamiliar work of art that I don't understand is simply silence. Respect doesn't really come into it at this stage, beyond the basic respect due to any human being who tries something new. We don't need to be vicious about art that we think is rubbish: eventually it will sink out of sight and be forgotten, because there's nothing in it worth finding. If it really is rubbish, sooner or later it will self-destruct. Back to top

raven4x4x Group: Members Posts: 1535 Joined: Jan. 2002 Posted: June 18 2008, 01:18 I feel that dismissing a piece of art as 'rubbish' is an insult to those who do like it. When I hear the member of a famous punk band (the Dead Kennedys I think it was) describe the music of Yes as 'nauseating' I do feel angry. There's just no need for that sort of comment. Whether a piece of music moves me or not is no reflection on its quality, as I don't consider myself the ultimate judge of music. I don't even know what 'quality' in music means, or if it means anything at all. -------------- Thank-you for helping us help you help us all. Back to top

Dirk Star Group: Members Posts: 1331 Joined: Sep. 2007 Posted: June 18 2008, 04:59 Nick Lowe who is kind of credited with producing the first ever punk album once described The Dead Kennedy`s as.."A bunch of annoying kids playing in your back garden,who you wish would go away."...Mind you I once heard him being interviewed on the radio and he wasn`t very complimentary about Yes either.Although he did admit to liking their early live shows..Anyway I`m not too keen on The Dead Kennedy`s either I must admit.Although I am a fan of both Yes and Nick Lowe. A few years ago I think I probably would`ve drawn the line at Gangster Rap...."Surely these guys are real gangsters" I`d be thinking.. "Where DO YOU draw the line?.....Serial Killer Blues??...Necrophiliac Hip Hop???..Well I can`t say I`m still a big fan of Gangster Rap I admit but I have found myself in clubs listening to it sometimes.And just being kind of fascinated by it all really.There is certianly some requirement of skill to it undoutably even though much of it can appear as crass and offensive.Trying to think about it logicaly now I don`t feel qualified to say any more than that.But that fascination alone makes me understand there`s somthing in it.It`s just not for me. Back to top

Matt Group: Admins Posts: 1186 Joined: Nov. 2002 Posted: June 18 2008, 11:17 Quote (Alan D @ June 17 2008, 19:47) So in my view, the only sensible response to an unfamiliar work of art that I don't understand is simply silence. Fair point about ignoring something rather than crediting it with a response. However if someone asked you your opinion would you maintain silence? Quote Respect doesn't really come into it at this stage, beyond the basic respect due to any human being who tries something new. If what they do as new seems for instance to be a deliberate and poorly executed attempt to disgust and offend, why should I respect them? Quote (raven4x4x @ June 18 2008, 06:18) I feel that dismissing a piece of art as 'rubbish' is an insult to those who do like it. Yes, I think this comes down to my query about wording. If I feel something is truly worthless but others seem to like it for reasons I cannoth fathom. What comment (if any) is it fair for me to make? Quote When I hear the member of a famous punk band (the Dead Kennedys I think it was) describe the music of Yes as 'nauseating' I do feel angry. There's just no need for that sort of comment. Well, if they really don't like it and it does make them feel nauseous surely it is a fair comment? Me I love some of Yes's stuff and can't stand any of Dead Kennedys that I have heard so I'd certainly disagree with their view but feel they have a right to it! Quote Whether a piece of music moves me or not is no reflection on its quality, as I don't consider myself the ultimate judge of music. I don't even know what 'quality' in music means, or if it means anything at all. Absolutely agree which is why I made my comment regarding van Gogh. I am just pondering if it is fair for any artform to feel no respect towards it if you feel it has no qualities at all. Nothing to do really with whether or not you like it. -------------- "I say I say I say I say, what's got three bottles and five eyes and no legs and two wheels" Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: June 18 2008, 15:04 Quote (Matt @ June 18 2008, 16:17) Fair point about ignoring something rather than crediting it with a response. However if someone asked you your opinion would you maintain silence? I've had my fair share of outbursts over the years about art that I thought was contemptible, and I wouldn't like to count up how many times I later discovered that the only really contemptible thing was my failure to recognise my own ignorance and prejudice. My chief concern, these days, is not to fall into the same trap again (though I'm sure I will). But let's suppose I'm having a good day, and am resisting the temptation to cry 'rubbish' in frustration. I don't think there's a formula for the response I might make. It would depend on what, exactly, I was being asked to comment on. If it were something relatively harmless, like (say) an abstract painting that seemed more like a mess than a painting, then I'd respond by saying 'I don't get it.' What happens next would depend on whether it had caught my interest at all. If not, then I'd be inclined to leave it at that. But if it niggled at me, then I'd say 'But I might come back and take another look tomorrow, or next week.' I've been in this position so many times that I'm now very used to reserving my judgement about such things. If it were something really horrible and repelling, then I might ask what the artist's stated purpose was, and see if that changed the way I saw it. Most likely though, I'd just walk away. A case in point: the music of Havergal Brian is, to me, just noise. If all I had to go on were my own ears, I'd dismiss it as incompetent caterwalling. However, a friend of mine really loves it - and he really knows a great deal about music (he can reconstruct the outline of the score of a piece from memory after listening to it, for example). Now - I see no value whatsoever in Brian's music myself; but he thinks its wonderful, complex and imaginative, and I definitely believe him. I know he's not having me on. So it's obvious this music isn't, actually, the mindless racket that it seems to me. My instinctive reaction (to call it rubbish) simply isn't to be trusted in this instance. Quote If what they do as new seems for instance to be a deliberate and poorly executed attempt to disgust and offend, why should I respect them? If I really don't understand what the artist is trying to do, then what I think is 'poorly executed' may only be a reflection of my ignorance. The Impressionists were laughed at because everyone really, truly thought that their pictures were poorly executed, and even offensive. To represent a human figure by a single brush stroke was seen as insulting. Those who were offended  weren't able to understand that the Impressionists were trying something completely new in the way of painting landscape. They didn't know how to look at such pictures. Now, today, we can't even see why there was a problem, but that's because we're so familiar with them that it seems quite normal. So in any given case, when we're faced with new art or music that we think is 'rubbish', the problem may be in the work, or it may lie in our ignorance and limited perception. Our natural inclination when faced with something we don't like is often to try to persuade ourselves that it's someone else's fault (even if it isn't), and art is no exception to that. Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: June 18 2008, 15:13 There seem to be two major concerns here: how one considers the respect he feels or is "supposed to" feel, and how one considers the respect the others have to feel. Am I right? I mean, in principle, a person is free to say whatever he wishes as long as he faces the consequences of it. And if someone came to me and said all the music I listen to is crap and that my tastes suck, I don't know what I'd be less worried about: his lack of respect towards me or his lack of respect towards the musicians I like. Who the hell cares? Many people around the world will think I suck and my tastes suck. Screw them, I'm losing nothing with that. The respect I feel or am supposed to feel stems from understanding nobody is obliged to share my tastes about anything. All the comments I make about music, except when the analysis intends to be absolutely objective, is confined to the realms of my own opinions, and that's that. If nobody listens, bad for me and no one else. Also, I don't think there's any lack of respect in criticism. The choice of words can be relevant, indeed, but if for example I say I hate hate hate Creed and all their music, is it any bad? If they're putting their music out to the public, they're expected to take back all sorts of reactions, aren't they? If I insult the musicians personally, that's something else entirely, and something I'd never do. That is disrespectful. -------------- Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds. Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: June 18 2008, 16:20 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ June 18 2008, 20:13) All the comments I make about music, except when the analysis intends to be absolutely objective, is confined to the realms of my own opinions, and that's that. If nobody listens, bad for me and no one else. I think this is probably where a division occurs. For instance, I'd say that all opinions aren't equal. My opinion about ballet, for instance, is wholly worthless. I've given it little attention and made no serious attempt to understand it. So if I say 'this ballet was rubbish', I'm saying nothing worth listening to. By contrast my opinions about, say, nineteenth century British art, are worth more (maybe not much, but more than nothing) simply because I've spent a lot of time delving into them, so hopefully I've benefited by that delving. Obviously in terms of free speech, anyone can say anything (and be prepared to take the consequences of course) as you say. The real difficulty rests with deciding whether any given opinion (including my own) is valuable. (It doesn't become valuable purely by being mine.) Back to top

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Forums | Links | Instruments | Discography | Tours | Articles | FAQ | Artwork | Wallpapers
Biography | Gallery | Videos | MIDI / Ringtones | Tabs | Lyrics | Books | Sitemap | Contact


Mike Oldfield Tubular.net