Get Ya Freak On.

[Phact0rri]

mac or windows?

[Keffria]

mac or windows?

Windows, unfortunately. ._.

[Risky]

mac or windows?

Windows, unfortunately. ._.

<_< >_>

iTunes.

[McDuffies]

Yes, this exactly. And I'm undecided on live albums; some of them are fabulous summaries of a band's body of work or quirky enough to warrant purchasing, but so many bands I like are pretty crappy live. The banter is sometimes fun, though.

Yeah, I wouldn't exclude "Stop making sence" from Talking Heads shelf... on the other hand most of them are issued just for cashing in... Don't even get me started on Fatboy Slim's live albums which are recordings of him playing other people's recordings.

I'm relieved that we see eye-to-eye on this because I was not looking forward to actually discussing theorists, haha. (I always feel like a jerk if I start quoting Derrida, or horribly out-of-date if I name-drop Fish, etc., but that's essentially the sort of theoretical work I was sorta-plagiarizing in my comments.) You're right, though: not everyone is as qualified to make judgments about a piece of work, and if you're the only one seeing something in a song, it might be a good idea to reexamine it. (I, meanwhile, am always entirely correct. '_')

My experience of reading those heavyweight theory books usually comes down to two reactions:
1. I knew this before I read it here, it's just that I never formulated it.
2. I don't get it. What did he just say?

Oh hay, y'all, the CD drive in my mac laptop is kind of borked at the moment (it reads my burned discs but won't read anything legal), and I have a bunch of new music I really want to rip, so I'm stuck using the family's PC. What program do you folks usually use?

Burning or ripping? For burning I never used anything but Nero. For ripping my original CDs to MP3 which I only make for personal use and never ever share with anyone, I use Audio Catalyst, though other people used to reccomend me Audio Grabber, but that relationship didn't work out.

[Phact0rri]

I always rip my CDs. And I've tried various programs but I've usually always came back to CDEX. Mainly cause I'm an audiophile and like that it allows me to have every specific option to make an mp3 as close to a disc as I can get. This is also why I don't buy mp3's less I don't have a choice. As I like to have the best quality of sound.

[KWill]

I've been using Windows Media Player, mainly out of laziness and because it's free.

[Paul Escobar]

For the record, I do believe that one's art is projection of his personality, and enjoying someone's art is in a lot of ways like hanging with the person himself.

Most art is, for lack of a better word, fiction. Even the most honest, straight-from-the-heart art represents only one small, carefully selected aspect of the artist's personality, and it may not even be one that is apparent in the artist's real, actual self. Thinking you know what an artist is like as a person on the basis of his art is a logical fallacy on par with a slippery slope argument. The art is not the artist, and vice versa.

Not that I say that if artist is a jerk, his art is worthless, there are some very interesting jerks worth hanging out and listening to. But if you're irritated by a kind of person, then his art will be irritating for you as well.

Art can't be put to a reductio ad absurdum like that. It's well established that Picasso was a selfish, manipulative, domineering person - not someone I'd want to hang out with, yet I still think he made great art. I've met artists I thought were mildly irritating in person, yet I continue to enjoy their art unabated. Heck, I can think of many examples in this vein.

Sounds like you're allowing your enjoyment of art to be spoiled by what is essentially irrelevant information. That's your prerogative of course, but not one I share.

The more I think about it, the more the whole "I don't care what kind of person musician is" attitude seems like one of those big fallacies that get repeated without thinking them through, because musician and his work are not clearly separable. Yeah, a despicable person can come up with a hook, or can be technically good guitar player, but does a hook or a good guitar solo alone make a good music? Again, I care a lot about actual message that is communicated and the attitude, and hooks or technical aspects are just things that help us swallow this message easier.
I dunno, the "I don't care..." line seems a lot like rationalization, like if you've listened to something and then realised that a lot of what you've seen in it isn't really there but you've read it into the music, but you decide to force yourself back to blissful ignorance. Maybe a bit exagerated, but something like that.

We all make an interpretation of the art we encounter, but we do so from vastly different preferences. What you're doing above is trying to elevate your own modus of interpretation to a universal rule. That doesn't fly, because this stuff isn't objective.

You like to find a message in art - I'm interested in its form. I'd even argue there's a lot of art that doesn't have a message. What message could there be in Mark Rothko's paintings? When it comes to art with obvious messages, I don't need to sympathise with said message (or the person behind it) to enjoy the music/picture/whatever. I like "Triumph des Willens" as a piece of filmmaking, despite the fact that its message is abhorrent.

In some cases, knowing about the artist can definitely be a good thing. Reading up on Francis Bacon made me understand and appreciate his art a lot better. In that respect, I do care about the artist.

However, in most cases I really, truly don't care what the artist is like in person, because that has no influence on my enjoyment of the art. I don't care if Leni Riefenstahl was or wasn't a nazi, or what her "true" motives for making the Triumph and Olympia films were. I watch the films and go "holy shit, this is awesome filmmaking". (While being aware that I'm looking at propaganda, of course.)

Similarly, I listen to music because I like the music - I'm often largely ignoring the lyrics, the singer's voice being just another instrument to me. Most pop and rock lyrics are bollocks anyway, even many bands I like. (Don't ever actually listen to NIN's lyrics, you'll dispair at how crap they are! But the music's good.)

I can't speak for everyone, but I have a substantial collection of singles, B-sides, etc. from a bunch of bands I really enjoy, including some that are on vinyl even though I no longer have a record player. (>_>) I like to listen to rarities because they're often an insight into a musician's process/evolution. (I especially like finding a good artist and then listening to early demos/EPs because that's just the sort of thing you get, and you kind of realize that if you didn't like the artist before, there's no way this would be appealing, and you feel secretly smug, I suppose, haha.)

For me collecting rarities is the final stage of adoring the group. When I've listened all the albums to death, and I crave for more. Thing is usually they turn out underwhelming

I seek out rarities of the few bands I really like, and like you say, it's often underwhelming. But I'd say it's a reasonable quest for good music, and worthwhile because you do sometimes find a great song tucked away on the B-side of a 12-inch vinyl or something. I'm not into the strict "collection" aspect though; I usually get rid of records I've stopped listening to. But the odd great B-side is treasured.

[Killbert-Robby]

Hanging out with hicks in Canada has turned me to country. Dammit it's not all as bad as people say.

[Phact0rri]

Hanging out with hicks in Canada has turned me to country. Dammit it's not all as bad as people say.

I like the old fashion country with lots of twang, like Bob Kramer and Johnny Cash. But I usually go more towards the -billy side of the tracks, like The Reverend Horton Heat and Batmobile.

There's also the "country" influenced stuff like Nick Cave and the Rosebuds.

[McDuffies]

Most art is, for lack of a better word, fiction. Even the most honest, straight-from-the-heart art represents only one small, carefully selected aspect of the artist's personality, and it may not even be one that is apparent in the artist's real, actual self. Thinking you know what an artist is like as a person on the basis of his art is a look everyone, I'm reading wikipedia. The art is not the artist, and vice versa.

Art is not an artist, art is (in a way) a display of some aspects of artist's personality, some of which he choose to present, some which he inevitably, involuntarily lets through. When you hang around a person, you see some aspects of his personality, some of which he choose to present, some which he inevitably, involuntarily lets through. Someone is better in presenting his good sides through, say, comics, than in conversation with someone. Similarities are there, they are not all there is. I am not talking in absolutes.

...

Man I don't know if I should tell you that you're taking things that I say too literal, or that you're not taking them literal at all.
I mean on one hand I'm talking casually, in general, but you seem to read me as if I just wrote seminal philosophy book and you're writing another book in retribution. But I started from kind of extremes and changed stance like three times already in conversation with Keff, and used terms like "jerk" in I don't know which meaning anymore, but you seem to want to pick apart every sentence and yell "fallacy" before you've even read next one?
On the other hand I say something like "enjoying someone's art is in a lot of ways like hanging with the person himself" and you read it as "enjoying someone's art is in every possible way like knowing the person like you know yourself". I say "to me message is very important part of music" and you respond with "You like to find a message in art - I'm interested in its form", as if I said that I'm not interested in form? I am, form is another very important part.
I know the drill, now I'm supposed to get all defensive and start claiming things just to opose you, even though they're not actually my opinions. Then that leads into pages and pages or nerdish bickering. Sorry, I'm not in the mood for that, perhaps some other time.

We all make an interpretation of the art we encounter, but we do so from vastly different preferences. What you're doing above is trying to elevate your own modus of interpretation to a universal rule. That doesn't fly, because this stuff isn't objective.

Whether value of art is objective or not is a philosophical discussion old as the ages, and it's not concluded yet. My opinion is that every subjectivisation of art leads to complete relativisation of art, as in "no art has any value" which is something I, personally, can't accept (yeah, on a very personal level. I can't find any arguements to support that. So sue me). So, I believe that there is "objective" in art, now whether any of us has any idea of what it is, is a different issue, but of course it's up to every one of us to claim that his own opinion is objective because that's what people do.

What message could there be in Mark Rothko's paintings?

Well in fact, there are many.
Rhotko tried to make paintings which are environments instead of objects, and his redefinition of painting is in a way similar to how ambiental music redefines purpose of music. Many other artists tried to redefine art piece to something other than the object - like Duchamp who tried to redefine art as pure idea, or like dadaists who were destroying their paintings after the exposition.
At the time, art was very much objectified, old paintings were reaching enormous prices with very little regard of what was on them and, seeing this fenomenon as purely part of bourgeoisian culture, artists, usually more or less leftists, tried to redefine paintings as something that bourgeoisia wouldn't be able to turn into an object to be traded with. Rhotko's paintings, therefore, were also politically charged.
Of course, there is also the issue of redefinition of space that painting represents - it's not merely a space implied on the other side of the canvas, a sort of "window" - in some cases (rauchenberg) it's even on our side of the canvas. Rhotko's attempt to make space of the painting a part of the entire room's space is another way to examine this issue.
There are a lot of implications that we can make from Rhotko's paintings, even disparate.

I gotta mention that when I'm talking about message in the first place, I'm not talking about what people often imply, one line that can sum up entire work or an actual moral or anything like that. I'm talking about artist's personal philosophy (something that each one of us has) being visible through the work. This is not something that's always easily put in words, or even something that can be put in words at all, but it is something intelectial that may prompt you to thinking about certain subjects yourself, and affect your own personal philosophy.
But of course, the whole duality of subject/form is a simplification that was largely debunked in 20th century. With some of best artists of their times, like Klee or Kandinski, those two were never separable.

You know I even had an illustration about the subject of message and form which involved Raquell Welch's boobs, but knowing how you always take illustrations literally and pick them apart, I guess I'll skip that part.

[Keffria]

I always rip my CDs. And I've tried various programs but I've usually always came back to CDEX. Mainly cause I'm an audiophile and like that it allows me to have every specific option to make an mp3 as close to a disc as I can get. This is also why I don't buy mp3's less I don't have a choice. As I like to have the best quality of sound.

I'm not an audiophile, but I do hate it when some programs automate everything for you by default and you end up with distorted sound. I'll see whether CDex or Audio Catalyst gives me less grief on the old PC -- thanks guys. :3

Hanging out with hicks in Canada has turned me to country. Dammit it's not all as bad as people say.

Listening "ironically" to trucker-radio stations in the car is about as close as I get to enjoying "real" country music, but good on you, haha.

I feel like we're going to start spinning in circles with the inherent-meanings and jerk-artists debate. For me, at least, this is probably in part because I dabble in the arts and can't bear the suggestion that I have absolutely no control over the meanings of the things I produce, or that some aspect of my personality didn't make it into my work, yet I would really resent the insinuation that something I really liked (whether my own or someone else's art) could be reduced to a simple, fixed explanation, independent of the thoughts new people bring to it. (edit: I'm not saying "stop arguing"; go right ahead, but I don't have much else to add to the debate, so I'll just go back to talking about indie rock, haha.)

My experience of reading those heavyweight theory books usually comes down to two reactions:
1. I knew this before I read it here, it's just that I never formulated it.
2. I don't get it. What did he just say?

Yesss, this exactly. I was (lucky enough to be?) forced to take a course covering a lot of the major theorists, and there were days when I'd end up slogging through the material and just crossing my fingers that the prof would somehow re-word it all in some way that made sense to my feeble brain.

[Jpac]

What message could there be in Mark Rothko's paintings?

It is a widely accepted notion among painters that it does not matter what one paints as long as it is well painted. This is the essence of academicism. There is no such thing as good painting about nothing.

[Paul Escobar]

I feel like we're going to start spinning in circles with the inherent-meanings and jerk-artists debate. For me, at least, this is probably in part because I dabble in the arts and can't bear the suggestion that I have absolutely no control over the meanings of the things I produce, or that some aspect of my personality didn't make it into my work, yet I would really resent the insinuation that something I really liked (whether my own or someone else's art) could be reduced to a simple, fixed explanation, independent of the thoughts new people bring to it.

I think that's just one of those things you get in art. You can't prevent people from making interpretations, and even if you, the artist, think it's flat-out wrong, it may make perfect sense to the interpreter.

What message could there be in Mark Rothko's paintings?

It is a widely accepted notion among painters that it does not matter what one paints as long as it is well painted. This is the essence of academicism. There is no such thing as good painting about nothing.

All art is about something, but not necessarily a message. Perhaps we're veering close to a semantics debate now, but that might not be so bad, since it's practical to define one's terms lest we misinterpret one another. Does a subject matter equal a message?

[McDuffies]

I like the old fashion country with lots of twang, like Bob Kramer and Johnny Cash. But I usually go more towards the -billy side of the tracks, like The Reverend Horton Heat and Batmobile.

There's also the "country" influenced stuff like Nick Cave and the Rosebuds.

It's hard not to respect Cash at least on some level, I greatly enjoyed at least his American recordings, and when one goes along that line I guess he runs into Hank Williams next.
But otherwise it seems like country just isn't my thing, and most of stuff that is dubbed as "alt-country" or something like that, just doesn't seem to be my cup of cake.

I feel like we're going to start spinning in circles with the inherent-meanings and jerk-artists debate. For me, at least, this is probably in part because I dabble in the arts and can't bear the suggestion that I have absolutely no control over the meanings of the things I produce, or that some aspect of my personality didn't make it into my work, yet I would really resent the insinuation that something I really liked (whether my own or someone else's art) could be reduced to a simple, fixed explanation, independent of the thoughts new people bring to it. (edit: I'm not saying "stop arguing"; go right ahead, but I don't have much else to add to the debate, so I'll just go back to talking about indie rock, haha.)

To me it seems obvious that I don't have full control over meanings of the things I produce, I even catch myself interpreting things different than I intended at first, which is cool if I haven't finished it cause then I can add another layer to the onion, but otherwise I'm just hoping that I won't mix what I said and what I thought I was saying.
Anyways as I said, there must be some healthy middle between sticking to what Mark Rhotko said in some interview and a guy who managed to see a sailboat in his painting.

Yesss, this exactly. I was (lucky enough to be?) forced to take a course covering a lot of the major theorists, and there were days when I'd end up slogging through the material and just crossing my fingers that the prof would somehow re-word it all in some way that made sense to my feeble brain.

Heheh, noone forced me luckily... I enjoy reading moderately light theory (such is Giulio Carlo Argan from whom I've actually snitched pieces of that Rhotko interpretation I wrote above) but about one out of three theory books is readable to me, so I chewed through several od them, too stubborn to quit.

***
Oh I suppose many people already saw this, it deserves linking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PsnxDQvQpw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmWp-rI6 ... re=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqXi8WmQ ... re=channel
He kinda sums it up nicely.

[Jpac]

What message could there be in Mark Rothko's paintings?

It is a widely accepted notion among painters that it does not matter what one paints as long as it is well painted. This is the essence of academicism. There is no such thing as good painting about nothing.

All art is about something, but not necessarily a message. Perhaps we're veering close to a semantics debate now, but that might not be so bad, since it's practical to define one's terms lest we misinterpret one another. Does a subject matter equal a message?

I'm afraid we need to further define what that something in art is. Even simplifying art down to subject matter still ignores things like the mechanics behind the expression of the subject matter. There are entire schools of art dedicated to one philosophy or another. In that philosophy is a message, and that message is expounded upon in the way the subject matter is expressed.

Then, there may be another aspect of art that we're forgetting. I'm not sure we've laid a proper foundation to discuss messages, whatever that may mean to each of us, in art.

edit: I always seem to run into this problem with logic and reason. The more logical and reasonable a person becomes, the more they seem to distance themselves from humanity. All your logic and reason, and you fell to "the False Dilemma". Either Subject matter equals a message, or it does not. No one even mentioned subject matter alone. I think we should keep questions more open.

[Killbert-Robby]

Hanging out with hicks in Canada has turned me to country. Dammit it's not all as bad as people say.

Listening "ironically" to trucker-radio stations in the car is about as close as I get to enjoying "real" country music, but good on you, haha.

Oh heavens I don't listen to old men wailing on acoustic guitars about dead dogs. It's like ska I guess. The original meh, listenable, but I don't hunt it out, but hybridize it with some rock and suddenly its-a-tickled-mah-pickle

[Phact0rri]

I'm afraid we need to further define what that something in art is. Even simplifying art down to subject matter still ignores things like the mechanics behind the expression of the subject matter. There are entire schools of art dedicated to one philosophy or another. In that philosophy is a message, and that message is expounded upon in the way the subject matter is expressed..

Oscar Wilde said "Art shouldn't have to be explained". I believe heavily that when I write a song, or when I'm drawing a picture, what inspired me to create it, might not be the thing, that someone gets from it. Sure if I write a political song with heavy current event lyrics someone will understand my position. But maybe even then they won't exactly follow what I'm saying and throw in their own opinions to the mix. But ultimately what something is in the hands of those experiencing it. If I have to describe what it is I've created, its not art. Its propaganda.

[Jpac]

I'm afraid we need to further define what that something in art is. Even simplifying art down to subject matter still ignores things like the mechanics behind the expression of the subject matter. There are entire schools of art dedicated to one philosophy or another. In that philosophy is a message, and that message is expounded upon in the way the subject matter is expressed..

Oscar Wilde said "Art shouldn't have to be explained". I believe heavily that when I write a song, or when I'm drawing a picture, what inspired me to create it, might not be the thing, that someone gets from it. Sure if I write a political song with heavy current event lyrics someone will understand my position. But maybe even then they won't exactly follow what I'm saying and throw in their own opinions to the mix. But ultimately what something is in the hands of those experiencing it. If I have to describe what it is I've created, its not art. Its propaganda.

I actually believe that art encompasses the meaning of the creator and the audience, among other things. One of my favorite pieces of art (and excuse me, because this isn't "fine art") is American Pie by Don McClean. He refuses to explain the lyrics, and that's one of the reasons I love it so.

The creator's meaning and the audience's meaning will never be guaranteed to be in sync, because people, cultures, eras, etc will never be guaranteed to be so. But art will always have meaning, even if someone's aiming for something 'meaningless'.

What I meant to illustrate ( ) in the quotation above was simply that art is much broader than 'subject matter', or personal intent, or audience inference, or the medium through which it's conveyed, or the era, or WHATEVER! *Spins in circles with hands stretched up to the air* I consider humanity's boundaries vast, and art a reflection of such.

[Phact0rri]

see I'm the other way. I feel that people make art to be more than it truely is. they try to infringe on it with vast meanings... when come on... all someone wants to do is make something. I simply believe that people need to quit psychoanilizig brush strokes and take it for what it is. Course I suppose a lot of people would be out of a job.

The same with music. I can tell you production methods, chords, presets being used as much as I want. I could reflect a songs lyrics over someone's actual life. But why would I want to? Why can't I just enjoy a good song without pretending of its historical significance to the legacy of mankind. Its just a pop song!

[Jpac]

Ah, I see. I guess it's hard for me to think that something made by people can be separated from people. Also, I'm not sure if you're talking about people finding vast meaning in one instance, or across all art across the board. I'd be more prone to agree with the idea that some meanings in a single instance may sound ridiculous. If it's all art, I think we're on that course of "agree to disagree".

This reminds me of a post a friend of mine made on another forum. I'd link it, but I'm not sure if he'd appreciate it or not.

This was written in the Edinburgh Review, by Thomas Carlyle, in 1831, concerning reviewing as a symptom of unhealthy modern self-consciousness:

"Far be it from us to disparage our own craft, whereby we have our living! Only we must note these things: that Reviewing spreads with strange vigour; that such a man as Byron reckons the Reviewer and the Poet equal; that, at the last Leipzig Fair, there was advertised a Review of Reviews. By and by it will be found that all Literature has become one boundless self-devouring Review..."

The author, John Gross, expands on Carlyle's remark thusly:

"Complaints about the parasite-proliferation of criticism were nothing knew; seventy years earlier, Goldsmith had compared the literary world of his day to a Persian army, in which the men who actually did the fighting were heavily outnumbered by slaves, camp-followers and hangers-on. With the rise of the professional author came the rise of the professional critic..."

That was on literature; the parallel seems close enough. Some might concern themselves with the tendency for people to get out of hand with their critiques. Even so, there are certainly some meanings that are virtually indisputable.

That doesn't mean we have to look for meaning in any piece of art we look at, but it's there should we want to. In the end, meaning''ll depend on the person; each person will still be part of a vast collection of others in humanity, with a vast collection of opinions. *shrug*