Hendrix: Classic or Dud?

To clarify, I think that Arf Arf's argument, if I have correctly paraphrased it (by saying: Mr. I's "I hate Jimi Hendrix" and Mr. C's "I love Jimi Hendrix" can both be true assertions. . . . But if Mr. I says, "Jimi Hendrix, considered overall as an artist, sucks" and Mr. C says, "Jimi Hendrix, considered overall as an artist, is great," there is the basis for an argument. Both assertions can't be true.) is logically airtight.

On the other hand, I am not convinced that there are objective aesthetic values, and Arf Arf's attempts (elsewhere) to account for this, isn't entirely convincing; though I think he takes it in the most plausible direction possible (an appeal to some sort of community consensus--but can "intersubjective" ever translate into "objective"?--rather than, say, an appeal to some sort of Fort Knox of Platonic ideals to back up the currency of our judgments!). Arf Arf's argument paraphrased above is an argument about the implications of language, assertion, etc. It doesn't prove that values are objective.

I'm not sure where that leaves me. As I've said before, I am a subjectivist, but am not particularly comfortable about that, partly because it sometimes seems that when we have these discussions we are arguing about the real properties of particular works of art, artists, etc.

I wonder if it's worth starting another new thread.

frank kogan owns those threads obv

"purely subjective" = failing to understand meaning either of word "purely" or of "subjective" (or of "meaning", come to that) (or "value", since that's the word arfarf actually did use)

objectivity = kill the people and the meaning will remain? this is what dayremi sneakily means by "overall" eg considered beyond time and history => but hendrix's "greatness as an artist" has no meaning beyond time and history (at which point, being meaningless, the statements stop being contradictory)

in the real, non-mystical, temporal-historical world, "jimi hendrix is shit" requires a socius to provide meaning and/ or usage (if these are different) for the four words between the quotemarks = byebye "objectivity vs subjectivity"

arguments are not won by "demonstration of validity" (eg reduction to purely logical form) they're won when you have something pointed out to you that matters to you that you hadn't thought of, probably a relationship to an aspect of the world that you'd allowed yrself to get dissociated from the question under discussion (pure logic can't even ground arithmetic, the much-cited exemplar of so-called "objective knowledge") (haha kurt gödel co-owns those threads)

my headache is purely subjective, thanks for asking

DeRayMi

I'm not underestimating the amount of meaningful discussion you can have about music even if you are - for want of a better word - a "subjectivist". The example you give is a perfect illustration.

But I was focussing explictly upon the idea of debate about value. It is only meaningful if you believe that subjective judgements can be validated to some extent by non-subjective criteria. And here, non-subjective criteria can only be the opinion of other people, either in the mass (in which case great art and popular art is the same thing) or a subset of the population agreed by consensus to have "good taste". Which is why I objected to the notion of debate being reduced in value if it has reference to "taste in the public domain": in fact it can only have any meaning at all if it has reference to "taste in the public domain".

since debates about value are only possible using language, the problem of meaning is no more relevant than it ordinarily is in any discussion (establishment of "non-subjective criteria" = do i understand what you're talking about; if yes, then "intersubjectivity is go") (it has to be a bit provisional, obv, since sometimes you can think you do when you don't, and you have to go back and find out where the disconnect happened)

for example i haven't the slightest idea what you mean by "subjective judgments" in that post, given how the sentence goes on

"purely subjective" = failing to understand meaning either of word "purely" or of "subjective" (or of "meaning", come to that) (or "value", since that's the word arfarf actually did use)

I still don't understand your point.

objectivity = kill the people and the meaning will remain? this is what dayremi sneakily means by "overall" eg considered beyond time and history =>

I appreciate being credited with sneakiness, but I don't think I was being sneaky. I was trying to find some way to make sure that no one could say both statements could in fact be true. Even Aristotle qualifies saying that the same statement can't be both true and false, by adding "in the same respect," or something of that sort. That's what I had in mind. (Hendrix could rule technically, but suck in terms of expressiveness or creativity, or something of that sort. That's what I had in mind.)

Logic is not the only consideration in philosophical debates, but it should be given some credit. It may not win the war, but philosophical debaters generally agree to acknowledge that it can win specific battles. To jetisson the importance of logic is, in my view, to no longer be doing philosophy*. But again, that's not to say that everything that matters in philosophical argument is reducible to logic, something I definitely don't belive.

Your remaining points I need to think over. I don't think Arf Arf is appealing to anything atemporal or mystical, though.

*--I suppose you could reply: who said anything about doing philosophy?

*

mark s, if it makes you feel any better, I have a headache as well.

arf arf seems to be turning the situation on its head, re value: you "establish the meaningfully shared meaning of the meaning of value" by HAVING THE ARGUMENT, not separately and in advance of the argument (how would you even do that?) => it's what the argument's for (well, no, there are other things the argument might be for)

i have no plan to jettison logic, but 'in the same respect" is a weasel phrase, but it just hides the thing you actually want to discuss inside "same" or "respect" (or possibly "in" but NOT "the", phew): when you translate ordinary language into logical form, you're always sedimenting assumptions along the way, and contrasting versions of this translations are a great of flushing out said assumptions, but the conclusion (the "victory") comes with the production of the forgotten-suppressed-overlooked stuff, not the logical contradiction itself. That's just a tool (I mean, it's a great one): for example, the proof by non-contradiction of the converse of the parallelism postulate in Euclid of the existence of geometries in which said postulate didn't obtain wasn't considered interesting or convincing until Lobachevsky and the Bolyais and Gauss and Reimann had all come up with their different maps (and with them, uses/meanings, mathematically speaking) of hyperbolic and parabolic geometry. The logical argument was the start. The arguments against Cantor's endless nested infinities didn't really bite, because despite the apparent contradictions (what does it mean to say one infinity is "bigger" than another), there were already practical uses/meanings for the distinction ahd the gradation. Brouwer's painstaking grounding of calculus on a method which DIDN'T involve "arithmetic" of infinitesimals was considered an irrelevant sideshow.

I am striving to render our headache objective.

eg you can turn it from a weasel (= bad) to a wombat (= good) by looking at how it is you're imposing the respect => but if you do this in public debate with another, then you're already engaged in the argument and the "establishment of shared meaning/value" or whatever has to be postponed to where it belongs, the CONCLUSION of your argument

objectivity = postponed until the conclusion of all arguments and plus the total course of this sorry veil of tears

Mark

The imprecision of language may be a problem (and I can see the difficulty with non subjective criteria since some metaphysicists would of course argue there is no such thing). But that doesn't mean that debate about aesthetic value doesn't have its own peculiar difficulties.

Taking the statement

"The Beatles music is better than the Beach Boys music"

The question I'm addressing is not "is this statement capable of proof" (I agree it is not, and assume that is common ground); but "does this statement have any meaning whatsoever".

The logical conclusion of a purely subjectivist position (and I don't like the language either but nevertheless I think the meaning is clear enough) is "no".

Which is fine, I don't have any problem with a subjectivist position sincerely believed, with all the implications that has for what can be validly discussed, and proper respect for other opinions.

What I object to is people hypocritically adopting a dogmatically subjectivist position when it suits them (usually to reject the notion that some other point of view - the Canon, music magazines - may be more authoritative than theirs); but feeling perfectly free most of the parade their "good taste" and disrespect the taste of others.

Some kind of evaluation must precede argument or there would be no basis for it. Admittedly argument can alter valuation, but only if you believe the argument has meaning (and the concept of aesthetic value has meaning). The logical conclusion of a subjectivist position is that you believe neither of these things.

ArfArf is my new hero -- for at least today.

well ok, i think we agree sorta — tho by "evaluate" i can't see that you mean much different than "are we both speaking english: ok then we must disagree so LET'S GO!! bing bang bong" — cuz i just don't understand what "purely subjective" means (i mean, i really DO think it is a rubbish term for a confused concept)

ned to thread i suppose, and NO PRIVATE LANGUAGES mr raggett!!

The open texture of the language.
The American Realist school.
Lon Fuller.
Your headaches = infective.

Mark, what you are demonstrating is that it is not possible to be purely subjective (or indeed purely anything). Not that the term has no meaning. It has a quite straightforward dictionary meaning. As a minor addition it may also have impilcations, contexts and subtexts (i.e. our understanding of the meaning is partially subjective itself).

Its not that you are 'wrong', its just that being (more) right isn't particualrly useful when being (slightly) wrong gets a much easier free exchange of views in a discourse of peers.

Its a logical fallacy of 'composition' you repeat in different guises. In the marketing thread it went roughly like "Everything is Marketing, Some things are not bad... thus marketing is not bad".

I think most grown-ups understand that they have falable viewpoints, I even played about with Habermas's "knowledge constitutive" (esp. Emancipatory) in the thread about Arthur Lee by claiming he was so good that it must have been doing so to annoy French Cultural commentators.

So can we all agree that you are right - there is no such thing as subjective and objective and its all just an illusion. However its a pleasing and helpful illusion.

I've no idea how subjective/objective I am being when I say Hendrix doesn't suck - and I don't care because its not an important part of the discourse and the interaction of the discourse community (ie the pleasing and or useful element of the discussion).

I don't think Hendrix sucks, its pretty good odds that if someone else think Hendrix sucks then I don't share enough od their value systems to engage in a pleasing discussion with them. I can't be sure about that, but I certainly wouldn't send that person blind record shopping with my own money - 'oh just get me anything, I'm sure I'll like it'.

ned to thread i suppose, and NO PRIVATE LANGUAGES mr raggett!!

Skribble dwefflenurbs. QUO? Zalnage.

What I object to is people hypocritically adopting a dogmatically subjectivist position when it suits them (usually to reject the notion that some other point of view - the Canon, music magazines - may be more authoritative than theirs); but feeling perfectly free most of the parade their "good taste" and disrespect the taste of others.

In terms of my own statements, I'll agree I'll have made some flip statements here on ILX, but generally speaking they are that, flip. Thus on the Prince thread just now, when I was zinging Sean C. a bit over His Purpleness, and intentionally being very over-the-top about it -- the fact that he doesn't think much of the man actually doesn't bother me at all. At most, if serious answers were all that is asked for on that thread in particular, I would think, "Gosh, these songs really do move me a hell of a lot, so it's initially hard to imagine otherwise -- but such is the case, and that is life, so hey."

I think there's a general question of tone here that is important.

Some kind of evaluation must precede argument or there would be no basis for it. Admittedly argument can alter valuation, but only if you believe the argument has meaning (and the concept of aesthetic value has meaning). The logical conclusion of a subjectivist position is that you believe neither of these things.

Not so, I would say. At least, it seems to me that you're fixing 'aesthetic value' in particular as, if not an objective standpoint, then a generally universally agreed upon construction. But is that the case? Seems said value is as slippery and up for negotiation as many other things. So I might believe in certain aesthetic values for myself, but others might not think much of said values at all. Am I right and they wrong? The concept can be considered generally valid but its interpretation and application radically differing from person to person.

In keeping with Mark S, I'm also confused as to what your meaning of 'evaluation' is...

add in argumentum ad populum and you have the ILM.

I can't be sure about that, but I certainly wouldn't send that person blind record shopping with my own money - 'oh just get me anything, I'm sure I'll like it'.

Doubtless, but does this happen much anyway? Instead we rely on recommendations and discussions, and this need not -- especially the time of mp3s -- mean extra expenditures or 'blind shopping.'

I've no idea how subjective/objective I am being when I say Hendrix doesn't suck

Well, his music makes you happy, yes? And the rest of the world could say otherwise and you wouldn't care? Sounds pretty subjective to me -- I'm *very* much not trying to be flip here, I'm just trying to guess at how this wouldn't be seen as subjective.

it's not subjective, ned -- you're trying to wedge it into your belief system and make it subjective -- instead of dealing with the argument you are trying to absorb it like a constrictor digesting its prey. the way subjectivity is used at the ILM many times is just a cop out. Opinions are meant to rub up against each other in discussion -- if everyone is right (and i'm not saying i am right) and all opinions are valid, then there is no point to discussing anything.

Ned - Actually before the mp3 age I always used to say to US folks if I was buying them a UK item and they wanted to repay me to just send me something ('anything, you choose, surprise me').

You know ML right? His huge parcels of stuff would be full of complete gems. So actually the 'would I send 'em shopping for me' is my main criteria for valuing someone's opinions. (I'd probably want a wee bit more information than their opinion on one artist, but it would have ruined the point of my previous message if I said that).

And yeah, saying "I don't think Hendrix sucks" is almost certainly 'pretty subjective', and I may or may not be self aware of that, but the point is, its not important. If we all image that every message ends in "IMHO" we can get on sharing information and attempting to assimilate each others views. The converse of this, is that overstating that each message here is just one person's opinion gets kinda weak.

I got the new Rothko album today, its great. Thats just my opinion though.

I always think "that's just my opinion" sounds apologetic. Like in Reynolds' Unfaves 2001 he goes to pitch the knife in Dylan's femoral artery and then backs out saying that "maybe it's just him". It came across as a concession and the only weak part of a great (convicted) read.

Ignore that: I don't want to be dragged in. You may pick it apart with your rapier-wit but don't expect me to cuddle it back to life.

well i said it the way i said it and later on arf arf resaid what he was saying in a way i understood and agreed with, so, y'know, Mission Accomplished => anyway since apart from the question of effectiveness posting style you seem completely to agree with me as well abt "being right" (= it is overrated) i think we can evaluate this as "no argument necessary"

Opinions are meant to rub up against each other in discussion -- if everyone is right (and i'm not saying i am right) and all opinions are valid, then there is no point to discussing anything.

I don't see this as the case, though. Opinions on music are indeed, as I see them, inherently valid for each person as they possess them. But that doesn't then mean that said opinions can't rub up against each other, that interchange and exchange can't happen. I admit I find the insistence otherwise a bit strange, so that's perhaps why I'm so puzzled here. Why does the lack of an objective center prevent discussion of ideas?

You know ML right? His huge parcels of stuff would be full of complete gems. So actually the 'would I send 'em shopping for me' is my main criteria for valuing someone's opinions.

A fine criteria in this case, since indeed I know ML and think him a grand feller. :-) But this is something you and he grew into, a relationship and friendship where you realized over time that there was a fine balance and exchange. It wasn't immediate, it was tested through time, if you like -- maybe an initial risk that you yourself trusted his judgment, a matching of, if you like, subjective but similar standards.

For myself, I admit I'd trust ML down the line with my money. I would be very surprised he wanted to trust me with his (I'd be flattered, though!).

The converse of this, is that overstating that each message here is just one person's opinion gets kinda weak.

Now this is more than fair -- but, as Tim, Tracer, Sean and others were saying, there is a sense, unavoidable in many cases and sensed maybe more in tone or in context, that the IMHO is often absent. If pressed, you and I and all of us here on this thread, I'd hope, would say, "Well, it's my opinion at base," or ultimately don't need to say it. But how many people, critical voices, installations (yer Rock and Roll Hall of Fames, yer Billboard rankings, yer Rolling Stone encyclopedias, whatever) take a far more dogmatic vision? I've encountered plenty of them, surely we all have. So again, I think there's a question of tone and context here, a strong one. "IMHO" may seem like a cop-out, but personally I see it as a powerful validation given how music is interpreted, discussed, enjoyed, received. It may be overemphasized but it IS important.

ps i still think a buncha words should just be quietly taken away and stomped violently to hideous death = influence, irony, subjective/objective, post-modern, marketing and stupidity

some of them have no meaning and some of them have too many meanings and all of them divert arguments down into bad gulleys

bad gulleys where i am waiting bwahaha!!

[Add to list, mark: deconstruct.]

Ned is right that the IMHO (or IMO or IMNSHO, etc) is or at the very least should be tacitly assumed in much of what we say. I would think that anyone who has no understanding at all that other people may disagree with a musical opinion is probably a sociopath. As Ned states above, we differ on Prince and we differ on the value of GYBE, but I still respect his musical opinions as I hope he respects mine. But yeat, that doesn't make music discussions invalid. I'm always learning and willing to have my opinion changed, and sometime all it takes is a few carefully chosen words to give me the incentive to re- evaluate.

dude! GYBE suck and Prince rules!

Dude! You hurt me! You hurt me in my heart!

can i just ask what is the dictionary definition of 'subjective' and 'objective'? I'm staring at the dictionary from where I'm sitting but I'm too lazy to pick it up.

Lazy: "1. Resistant to work or exertion; disposed to idleness; slothful. 2. Slow-moving; sluggish: a lazy river. 3. Conducive to languor or indolence: a lazy summer day. 4. Depicted as reclining or lying on its side. Said of a livestock brand. [Origin obscure.]"

deraymi thanks! That has cleared things up.

ned, i understand what you are saying, but too many times subjectivity is the club used to counter an opinion instead of dealing with the opinion itself.

Fair enough -- overreaction is possible and I'm guilty of it, as can be seen upthread with my initial response to Ben. But again, tone and context -- you can't separate that out from this discussion, and you can't deny that sometimes the temptation to simply club is incredibly strong -- and that sometimes someone just won't react otherwise. If the opinion and the person advancing it just won't allow for the possibility that there's a different approach, then underlining that possibility is important.

Thanks, guys, for reminding me why I ran screaming from philosophy classes.
I don't think Hendrix sucks, its pretty good odds that if someone else think Hendrix sucks then I don't share enough od their value systems to engage in a pleasing discussion with them. I can't be sure about that, but I certainly wouldn't send that person blind record shopping with my own money - 'oh just get me anything, I'm sure I'll like it'
Isn't this (engaging in maybe non-pleasing discussions with people who don't share your esthetic sense) where a lot of really interesting stuff (art, music, good criticism, etc.) comes from, though? Clashing or shifting value systems- arguing over the "rules" that you judge artwork by- is more interesting to me than a discussion where everyone agrees on the criteria. It's more of a rush for me to go to a modern art museum with my dad (an excellent arguer but hates most painting post impressionism) than with friends who took the same classes & learned to do crits the same way. I think ILM, and discussions similiar to it, are essential but ridiculously boring when everyone starts out with similiar values they use to judge by. Only talking to people who share your aesthetics keeps you from having to justify and examine how you arrived at them to begin with.
So someone tell me whether I'm arguing for or against the possibility of subjective-only arguments, or whatever was going on above, because I have no idea whether I've even managed to address the topic.

Isn't this (engaging in maybe non-pleasing discussions with people who don't share your esthetic sense) where a lot of really interesting stuff (art, music, good criticism, etc.) comes from, though?

Hmm, no, definately not. If that was the case my only 'interesting' political discussions would be with Daily Telegraph readers, my only interesting discussion on gender issues with be with bigots. I don't find it all that interesting to talk to rabid homophobes for instance. I don't need to really understand them to appreciate my own opinions (whats to understand? I'll still just think of them as wankers). When I read vile hate websites like godhatesfags.com I feel nothing but revulsion - its certainly non- pleasing, its just not interesting. These people may be worth watching, but not because they have insights I need to constantly try to appreciate.

Obviously Im not suggesting there is a direct relationship between extreme bigots and people who aren't keen on Hendrix...(an extemem bigot may have their good points too - thats a joke ffs), but its a similar situation of probability of saying something interesting.

I think the interesting stuff comes from pleasing discussions with people who can offer contrasting opinions on specific things - but share enough of your values to allow you access to the things they value.

We can listen to Mr. Hendrix's music either dipolistically or aedigmatically. Either way the listener may find little to engage his/her cock in the field of ergonatism. Of course, shortly before joining the paratroops in the mid-1950s, Mr. Hendrix was involved in the synthesis of a new type of polymer, subsequently widely used in both the manufacture of japanese robotic toys and secret Israeli killing machines. (Mojo "All Time Untouchable Eternl Psychdlic Heros", Special Edition)

I changed my mind.

Having listened carefully to all the interesting debate following an earlier post I made, I would like to now state for the record that I think Hendrix is for shit and isn't really up to it after all.

Does this mean another 700 posts will follow?

Isn't this (engaging in maybe non-pleasing discussions with people who don't share your esthetic sense) where a lot of really interesting stuff (art, music, good criticism, etc.) comes from, though?

Hmm, no, definately not. If that was the case my only 'interesting' political discussions would be with Daily Telegraph readers.

I think the interesting stuff comes from pleasing discussions with people who can offer contrasting opinions on specific things - but share enough of your values to allow you an access point to the things they value.

I like Hendrix when he excites me. His BBC version of 'Day Tripper' is probably my favourite of his tracks. It's something about how he takes a pop favourite and makes it seem louder, rawer, rougher, more bruised and bruising - rockist words, you may say: but it gives me a thrill to hear him go to work on the piece, making it totally his own yet leaving it totally intact.

his mumbling skills are absolutely astonishing. dull soul blues widdling i can take or leave tho.

mark you forgot "retro"!!

most of this thread has been a kind of stinging rebuke of the C or D format, i think.

I'm so glad I had to go offline during the rest of this debate...

!!!!!!

1. paul, i will borrow some of the tracks you have mentioned and play them next to the hardcore/dnb/4hero ones you mention, see if i can see hendrix in a different light. from a distance i can see the 4hero thing, maybe (more charles stepney though i'd have though), but then perhaps not in the manix stuff

2. alexander, interestingly myself and paul, as has been noted, share a similar ground tastewise, or system if you prefer, yet he likes hendrix and i do not

3. i do not understand the subjective objective thing, i have still to be convinced that objectivity exists, as for radically subjective i do not understand how this is different from just 'subjective'. i take jacks point though, that people can canon-bash but then flaunt their own taste. but perhaps everyone does this but in some cases it coincides with one of the many canons that exist so that particular canon can be used as back up, as pseudo-empirical evidence

4. i do not understand the implication that "i think hendrix sucks=i am Mr Iconoclast". many people do not like hendrix, outside of ilm (which is surely canonical, i have never understood why people say ilm is anti-canon, all the 'greats' are backed up here. all of them), i only know 2 people who own hendrix records. are we to suggest that the rest of these people are iconoclasts? i prefer the term, 'regular people'

5. following on, the implication "i think hendrix sucks=i am mr iconoclast" is really saying, i do not like hendrix because i am some kind of hipster, for ilm cred (but he is popular he, so how would that work exactly?) or IRL cred. but this is bizarre, and shows the old thing that if you don't like a rock or indie standard it is somehow a stance, this assumes that all people have rock or indie backgrounds. but this is not particularly common is it? today, i mean. such accusations would not be levelled at people who did not like Cole Porter, Eddie Palmieri, Offenbach, Madonna, Run DMC, Grooverider, 2pac or any of those old standards...

4. i do not understand the implication that "i think hendrix sucks=i am Mr Iconoclast". many people do not like hendrix, outside of ilm (which is surely canonical, i have never understood why people say ilm is anti-canon, all the 'greats' are backed up here. all of them), i only know 2 people who own hendrix records. are we to suggest that the rest of these people are iconoclasts? i prefer the term, 'regular people'

Gareth, this has nothing to do with the arguments that were made. Using the names Mr. Iconoclast and Mr. Canonical was meant as an alternative to using some more generic designation such as "Mr. X" and "Mr. Y." (It was meant to be slightly funny, but it probably failed to be funny at all.) The names are completely irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Incidentally, I don't own any Hendrix albums.

i like hendrix for his icon status - same way i lioke elvis for his icon status - they did alot just by appearing on stage, tv etc - i dont think there music was amazing - yeah i like some of the sounds jimi produced - i like the fact that his bands were tight whilst he had the ability to go off on tangents but at the end of the day i dont think his music is that touching, when it comes to his compositions i sometimes like to hear quirky covers rather than the original - i find they grind a little i like spikey, loud, edgey guitars but sometimes with hendrix it is a little too - well painful.

i thought he was cool on the lulu show, i thought he had coolhair, i like his voice and the fact that he made it in london town but this is nearly all icon stuff - as for his music well heard a load of it - own none of it

yes, you're right deraymi, i was actually answering points made by others but using your Mr Iconoclast name, which was clumsyness on my part (once again!)