Hendrix: Classic or Dud?

Tracer--I wasn't just saying "Jimi made good stuff that I like." I was saying that my understanding of what it means to call something the "best" is different from the negative terms you described.

I wouldn't really call Hendrix's songs "pop hooks" and I don't think he had as much to do with the invention of metal as, say, Black Sabbath

For one thing, Sabbath came much later. It seems pretty clear to me that Hendrix paved the way for the invention of heavy metal. It's debatable whether or not he invented it himself, but clearly the seeds are there in the way he structured his songs around highly- amplified, distorted blues-based riffs. This is the vein that later metal groups like Zeppelin and Sabbath would go on to mine.

There are pop hooks in Hendrix's songs, but perhaps they're harder to spot because they are mixed with blues and jazz as well. Songs like "Wind Cries Mary" or "Manic Depression" are catchy pop, among other things.

What Nate says re: Hendrix and the invention of metal applies even more so to Cream.

A man who makes three nearly perfect albums (one of them a double) in just under two years gets classic in my book. Like Ned, I had the hardest time disassociating the music from the cult--especially hard because when I was growing up, Hendrix fans were often the same bozos that loved The Doors and who generally made life unpleasant for everyone around them--but relistening as an adult at a point where I could get over that initial prejudice made me change my mind. (caveat: I do play guitar as well, so understanding how hard some of his tricks were to reproduce give added appreciation, etc etc)

ben it's the "best-ever" type language makes me go all irrational and snarky. it's like it puts him in this unreachable category that with hendrix i IMMEDIATELY associate with the type of thing Roger Fascist wrote in his sleep up there; i mushed you into that category and i'm sorry.

i'll always remember this: sitting in a kitchen with josh malen, who died of cancer several years ago, gushing to him about jimi's sound and his talents and overdoing it, and saying "ya think anybody'll EVER figure out what the hell he was doing?" and josh kind of smiles and says "oh we know what he was doing. but nobody can do it like HE does." that story doesn't make him the best, or not the best. nothing anyone could say could make him those things.

My problem with the "best ever" argument is that there's an implied "...and we (should) all know why" attached to the end of it. Which the subsequent debate (Is Jimi the best guitar player? Was his noise more important than VU's? Who influenced more people? What were his technical achievements?) confirms - what we're debating here is no longer personal taste, but taste in the public domain. We may have differing opinions, but the opinions go towards objective, factual "categories" of achievement, which can be proven (by SCIENCE!) via referral to the will of the majority. Like Ned, for me the very idea of squabbling over the nominees for best rock god in a baby- boomer role seems totally deadening. Tell me what effect the music has had on you, and why, and I'll listen.

(I have never knowingly heard Jimi Hendrix, hah!)

I always find it funny to read stuff I posted on threads from a year ago.

I wish more indie bands (Ha! I almost inadvertently typed "blands".) used violas.

"what we're debating here is no longer personal taste, but taste in the public domain"

Pretty much the only thing we can debate. Or we get:

"I hate Hendrix"

"I disagree. He's great"

"Nothing to disagree about. I hate him."

No debate possible.

arfarf has just destroyed ILM.

An alternative that maybe ArfArf agrees with:

"I hate Hendrix."

"How can you? It says in this book here that he is the greatest ever! And it has facts 1-5 to prove it."

"Oh, sorry. I guess I must bow down under the weight of this independently verifiable evidence. Hendrix is a god."

(the secret of subjectivity in re ILM is not just allowing people to decide whether an artist is great or not but, more importantly allowing them to debate the criteria by which said greatness is judged. The arguments discussed upthread have little to do with the criteria a person listening might bring to a Hendrix record, and everything to do with what a historian might write down for the public good. This is what I object to)

Doesn't address my point though.

Okay then:

When I said "taste in the public domain" I meant judgements on quality which seek to gain universal recognition. Which is clearly not what you thought it was - I grant there may be better ways of putting it, but I don't think its a totally incorrect usage of the term.

Yes but you are still not addressing the argument.

The notion of debate presupposes that, of two conflicting views, there is at least the potential for one to be more valid than the other.

If the value of art is determined purely subjectively, no sincerely held opinion is less valid than any other. So no meaningful debate is possible.

Oh - it's that we're talking about. I thought there was something wrong with my argument, but obviously it's rather that one hundred and forty five subjectivity vs objectivity threads haven't been enough. I'd refer you back to those threads, but if I recall you already contributed to a couple of them?

If we're going to accept your definition of "meaningful debate" (ie. debate which necessarily arrives at a consensus - though note that you've totally ignored the possibility of changing people's subjectively held opinions via persuasion) I guess I'll just have to sacrifice meaningful debate then. I'm sure that at least a couple of people on the boards will be happy to indulge me by participating in what is clearly pointless and mindless nattering.

the phrase "purely subjectively" is meaningless

the existence of ilm answers — indeed, completely dissolves — arf arf's argument

What Tim and Mark S said, with a further note, ArfArf, that your own taste is subjective and not validated by any outside standard that's universally accepted -- since there is no such standard, merely other subjective constructions, and thus the idea of one viewpoint being inherently more 'valid' than the other is impossible. Any further complaints about subjectivity can be directed to me, where I will point out in excrutiating detail where I'm coming from. ;-)

a love objectively supreme

I'd refer you back to those threads

I don't think Arf Arf's arguments were defeated there, more that they were lost track of, ignored, etc.

I don't see any way out of his basic argument here. If Mr. Iconoclast says, "I hate Jimi Hendrix" and Mr. Canonical says, "I love Jimi Hendrix," there isn't really the grounds for an argument over whether something is or isn't the case (unless they want to question whether or not the other is telling the truth). There's no disagreement any more than there is if one person says they like chocolate and someone else says they like vanilla. 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.

I assume this is obvious enough, so where is the weakness is this argument that I am missing?

"True for me" I don't really get. I have read discussions of this way of speaking, pro and con, but it seems to me to turn the concept of truth on its head. (Are you asserting that something is the case or not, damn it?)

Despite basically agreeing, I think, with Arf Arf's argument, I'm also not that concerned about it when it comes to discussing music. I understand his frustration at seeing people constantly appear to be making assertions, but when called on it just saying that it means "true for me."

*

I do agree that Arf Arf seems to underestimate the amount of meaningful discussion that can still take place if I says "I hate" and C says "I love." C. can always say (as someone here has said to Gareth), "But don't you see how similar Hendrix is to this other music you like?" Without asserting that Hendrix really is or isn't good, you can still try to lead someone to hear him more like you hear him.

the existence of ilm answers — indeed, completely dissolves — arf arf's argument

mark s, could you come down from your laconic heights to explain this?

"the phrase "purely subjectively" is meaningless "

No it isn't.

Without asserting that Hendrix really is or isn't good, you can still try to lead someone to hear him more like you hear him.

Quite right, which is how Paul's and Ben's further explanations are most worthy. :-) There's a realm for negotiation and deeper understanding, though it need not necessarily mean a situation where 'both assertions can't be true' as you state, DeRayMi -- but that's the difference between us on the 'true for me' part.

Taking that more thoroughly -- I know that it's very VERY true for me that MBV are my favorite ever band and that "Soon" my favorite ever song. Nothing has made me feel like that before or since that first cataclysmic listen, and it still connects with something deep in my heart whenever I hear it since. But I can't force anyone to *agree* with me on that point, and I can't necessarily argue in depth to the point where someone will then agree with me by my arguments alone. They're going to have to hear the song and decide, and indeed, maybe my talking about the song will have given them a different perspective on it. But they could still disagree and not think much of the song -- and I'm not going to be wounded or annoyed with that assertion, because they'll have heard the song and decided, same way that I could hear something -- Belle and Sebastian, say, specifically one of the songs that nearly every fan really loves -- and still consider it to be bleah even though there are many, many passionate believers in said song's worth.

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.]