Alice considering re-recording some early 80's material

[A_MichaelUK]

From darkmenace:
"No, you are cherry picking."

Show me where I did that. Show me where I chose some words to the exclusion of other words.

He said modern music is not good.

I DID NOT DENY THAT but again, the difference is he is not sneering at anyone who likes it. There were people in 1956 or so saying exactly that same about rock and roll that Ezrin said about "modern music". Were they wrong? Also. he did not say that ALL "modern music is not good." Again, he was making a point about the culture as it currently is.

>Any reasonable person would take that away from what he said,

Who decides they are "reasonable"? Are mr.barlow and The Son of Don Quixote "reasonable"? Who gets to decide?

> but you hem and haw around that. He said it in the way a "snob" would, using your word.
Give me specific example.

> But you give him a free pass. That is groveling.

You don't know anything about my relationship with Ezrin so I would be careful about any further comments about that. In case it didn't penetrate your stuck - up sense of superiority go back and read again what mr.barlow and The Son of Don Quixote wrote because they got it exactly right. Also, how come you haven't explained why you think "Dirty Diamonds" "has a 60s psychedelic vibe to it," or why you think the songs on "Trash" "define" Alice as an "artist". What do you think of Frank Zappa's statement that he didn't like The Beatles or does he get the "free pass" you referred to? How come you ignored that?

>Please do me a favor and allow me to speak for myself.

Who stopped you from doing that?

>I'm not a big fan of Stairway to Heaven, but I recognize that it is a great song.

Pete Townsend and Keith Richard might not think so. Are they "wrong"? Is the vegetarian who refuses to eat meat cooked by the greatest cook in the world "wrong"?

>I have made the distinctions you have trouble making. I can separate personal taste from discussions of the quality of music.

No I do understand the "distinction" perfectly well - I'm just saying it's irrelevant. You on the other hand applaud yourself not just because you have impeccable taste but you look down on others who may not share it or recognize technical proficiency in the way you do.

>You don't want to do that. You think it's wrong or snobbish for some reason.

I don't think I said it was "wrong" but I did say it was "snobbery". I am not accusing you of some horrendous crime. As both mr.barlow and The Son of Don Quixote pointed out, most people don't listen to music in that cerebral kind of way and for you to label people that don't make the distinction or are unable to as "wrong" is snobbery. If it isn't, tell me what you think it is.

>You are afraid to take a stand about aesthetic issues, which I'm not and Bob Ezrin is not.

Who gets to decide what has "aesthetic" merit? How do you explain Frank Zappa not liking The Beatles, in that case?

>Apparently you think the Louvre is a joke.

Where did I say that?

>That the art in that museum is no better than a child's doodles. After all, it is all subjective.

Who cares?! Is Al Di Meola better than Johnny Thunders at playing the guitar? Who cares?! Who cares if the "Mona Lisa" is better than "a child's doodles"?! It isn't important precisely because it's subjective. You like what you like and you don't like what you don't like. It is totally irrelevant.

> If someone said their child's art from first grade is as good as the work by Van Gogh or Degas, it is all subjective and a matter of opinion, would you agree?

Are you deliberately trying to appear idiotic? If that's what that person thinks, let them think that! I don't care! The difference, is I am not going to claim they are "wrong" just because I disagree.

[A_MichaelUK]

From darkmenace:
"That's why we have expressions like guilty pleasure."

Who cares? I was around when that became a genre and it was nonsense then and still is. Why would anyone feel "guilty" about liking a certain artist, band or piece of music? Is there a law that says I have to feel "guilty" about something like that? You should read, see or listen to some of John Lydon's interviews. He makes the point far better than almost anyone can.

>Your name-calling and insults speak far more to snobbery and arrogance than anything I could ever say.

How predictable - another deflection.

>Then you are saying they deserve credit because you believe their work is good while others don't. What a snob you are.

Show me how. I don't go around saying they're "wrong". That is the role you've grabbed for yourself.

>I will take a stand that you are afraid to take, lacking aesthetic judgment and the courage of your convictions,

You were doing quite well, but now you're starting to sound deranged.

>and I will say it here and now: Stairway to Heaven is a better song than Sugar Sugar.

What about people that may like both equally though? Are they "wrong"?

>Try to show some divergent thinking here:

Are you being serious?!

I am not saying I like it better, I may like Sugar Sugar better personally, but Stairway to Heaven is a better song.

WHO CARES?! Unless you're a musicologist, you're not going to care. Almost everything Yes did is better than what The New York Dolls did if you're going to apply standards around proficiency and technique, but once subjectivity comes along IT IS IRRELEVANT.

>It will pass the test of time (it already has), it will appeal to more people worldwide over time, because it is higher quality.

Who cares? Every now and again, we get these polls that tell us "Bohemian Rhapsody" or "Stairway To Heaven are the greatest ever songs. Who cares? Who gets to decide? Why should the people who prefer "Sugar Sugar" care? Who cares? Who cares if some critic in Iowa doesn't like Alice Cooper but prefers Lou Reed instead? Who cares?

>Are you also afraid to make moral judgments? Those are subjective.

You are ridiculous. I thought we were discussing music and creativity. Who said anything about "moral judgements"?

>Or is everything acceptable because there are no objective criteria for deciding right and wrong?

I thought so. You are now struggling. If you really want discuss morality, subjectivity, objectivity and the law, let's do it in private, because it's clear you don't know anything about me and it might be fun.

>Do you deride Alice as a snob and fascist for espousing Christianity, one religion over all the others, when religion can be seen as subjective?

Not at all - I couldn't care less what his faith is. My interest is in his music. Why are you so keen to move from music and creativity to "moral judgements"?

[mr.barlow]

I just re-read Ezrin's comments and I think they are a condemnation of not only the music but moreso the people writing and producing it.

He is right. Our culture today has become one of arrogance and narcissicm. Go to Facebook and we see it on rampant display in all it's glory. One word sums up our society today: "selfie". Today's culture does not want to look back and find the work of others for inspiration--what they want is the whole world to look at THEM. Our music and art today is simply a reflection of our current society. Most of the music today can be compared to the latest YouTube star or Facebook novelty--it's nice for 15 minutes and then it's on to the next thing. The sad thing is--this is being done on purpose--it's only meant to be temporary. No heart, no soul, no nothing. It's empty. Where I slightly disagree with Ezrin is that he thinks it's all about the money--that is true--but I think a lot of it has to do with mediocre artists simply trying to feed their narcissim. As the famous story goes about a musician selling their soul for fame and fortune--well today's "artist" would sign on the dotted line to be the YouTube star of the week.

Each generation of musicians and artists from Mozart to Alice wanted to create a body of work that would live on long after they were gone. They wanted to build a body of work and a lasting career. Most importantly they respected and in some cases revered those that came before them. They looked to the greats who came before them to help them develop as artists.

The bulk of today's young musicians and producers look no further than their own mirror. They have no appreciation of anything outside their circle of Facebook friends and their YouTube channel. They simply don't care and don't want to care.

It's my belief that this too will be a passing thing as sooner or later people will once again want quality and substance. If they don't-- we're all screwed!

[darkmenace]

I DID NOT DENY THAT but again, the difference is he is not sneering at anyone who likes it.

You may call it sneering, but I will make a distinction. I said they are mistaken. If someone said Einstein was born in 1885, I would say "No, you are wrong. He was born in 1879." I'd say the same thing to someone who came to me and said the local bar band is better than Led Zeppelin. I would say, "You might like them more, but you are wrong, they are not better."

Who decides they are "reasonable"? Are mr.barlow and The Son of Don Quixote "reasonable"? Who gets to decide?

I applaud Mr. Barlow who has stated that some music is, in fact, better than others. As for who decides in general, I put more stock in "experts," which is what normal, sane people do in any other realm. For example if it's an issue of medicine, the words of a doctor carry more weight (as they should) than a janitor. Does that bother you? And yet even medicine is partly subjective. Doctors will disagree on a diagnosis. There is no black and white, even there. Mr. Barlow quoted Duke Ellington that when he hears a good song, he knows it. I place greater weight on Duke's perceptions than a 15 year old girl that adores the latest boy band. You call that being a snob. I call it reality.

You don't know anything about my relationship with Ezrin so I would be careful about any further comments about that.

Please settle down, I don't mean it that way. All I'm saying is Bob Ezrin has high status in the Alice Cooper community and even though he says basically the same thing I do, you don't dare criticize him in the slightest. But for a run-of-the-mill fan, you start tossing insults and name calling, even saying the views are fascist. You need to explore this double standard.

Also, how come you haven't explained why you think "Dirty Diamonds" "has a 60s psychedelic vibe to it," or why you think the songs on "Trash" "define" Alice as an "artist". What do you think of Frank Zappa's statement that he didn't like The Beatles or does he get the "free pass" you referred to? How come you ignored that?

The 60s vibe for Dirty Diamonds is just my perception, I don't think it's a major point I'd debate. As for Trash, yes I feel it hurts Alice's credibility as an artist to write that kind of music. He did the same with Constrictor.

As far as Zappa goes, you missed my point yet again. If he says he doesn't like the Beatles, that's fine, he's entitled to like who he wants. If he says the Beatles had no talent and wrote lousy songs, then that's a different statement and I would say he's mistaken. Why is this distinction so difficult to understand?

No I do understand the "distinction" perfectly well - I'm just saying it's irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what? This comments makes no sense in the context of this discussion. The whole point is the relevance of these kinds of statements.

Who cares?! Is Al Di Meola better than Johnny Thunders at playing the guitar? Who cares?! Who cares if the "Mona Lisa" is better than "a child's doodles"?! It isn't important precisely because it's subjective. You like what you like and you don't like what you don't like. It is totally irrelevant.

Irrelevant? To say that is missing the entire point of this discussion. I'm not saying you should care. I'm asking you to take a stand. Do you consider a first-graders doodle's to be on the same level or better than the work of Van Gogh? It's a simple question.

If you say no, it's not on the same level (and I hope you do, for your credibility), then you are acknowledging there is more to judging art and music than just saying "I like it." There is such a thing as better and worse. There are qualitative differences. Why does that bother you so much?

Are you deliberately trying to appear idiotic? If that's what that person thinks, let them think that! I don't care! The difference, is I am not going to claim they are "wrong" just because I disagree.

Whether you care or not is not the point. That you refuse to take ANY stand at all, even in a case as obvious as the one I mention, speaks volumes.

[darkmenace]

Why would anyone feel "guilty" about liking a certain artist, band or piece of music? Is there a law that says I have to feel "guilty" about something like that?

I agree, no one should feel guilty about what they like. You have missed the point of my bringing it up and that is some people realize that they like things that they would not argue are actually good.

Show me how. I don't go around saying they're "wrong". That is the role you've grabbed for yourself.

Yes you do. You do think they're wrong for not giving Alice more credit for his work. If it makes you feel any better, I feel the same way.

You were doing quite well, but now you're starting to sound deranged.

Another insult instead of a reply. You are struggling.

What about people that may like both equally though? Are they "wrong"?

And yet again he misses the point. I'm not talking about liking.

WHO CARES?! Unless you're a musicologist, you're not going to care. Almost everything Yes did is better than what The New York Dolls did if you're going to apply standards around proficiency and technique, but once subjectivity comes along IT IS IRRELEVANT.

And again. "Who cares?" is not a reply to these points.

You are ridiculous. I thought we were discussing music and creativity. Who said anything about "moral judgements"?

It's called a comparison. It's more relevant than you think and it's obvious you don't have clear views on these kinds of topics.

Moral judgments, like judgments of music, are often considered subjective. It's hard to prove one view is superior to another, just like music. And yet people do it anyway. They strive to define right and wrong and act on it. A person might say, "I like having four wives," but in most places that's illegal. Others are saying, "No, you are mistaken. That's wrong to do that." And it's not enough to say, "Who cares?" or it's "Irrelevant." It's entirely relevant to this discussion but it started with making judgments on matters that some people consider totally subjective.

If you really want discuss morality, subjectivity, objectivity and the law, let's do it in private, because it's clear you don't know anything about me and it might be fun.

Sure, I'll do that. I enjoy these kinds of discussions and apologize to others on the board that it's gone so far off topic.

Not at all - I couldn't care less what his faith is. My interest is in his music. Why are you so keen to move from music and creativity to "moral judgements"?

Because the issue is related. Here's how: If a person (purely hypothetical, it could be any one of millions) feels their religion is superior to others, isn't that snobbery? And the stakes are much higher. Some of these people not only think others are mistaken and wrong in their beliefs, they feel those people are "sinners" who will be punished with eternal damnation for being so wrong. I realize you won't want to touch this with a ten foot pole, but what could be more arrogant or snobbish (you also used the term fascist) than that?

[Devon]

You have missed the point of my bringing it up and that is some people realize that they like things that they would not argue are actually good.

I'm going to guess that people like something because they find something they think is good about it.

I'd like to know what standard you are using as "good" for the rest of the group.

[pitkin88]

[Si]

May I suggest that one of the problems with this argument is the use of terms like better "better", "good", and "bad" as absolutes.

What I mean is that if someone says to me Beethoven 9th is "better" then "Stairway To Heaven" (as an random example) I would say that was subjective and down to taste. It can't be measured as an absolute using those terms.

However if you said something like "Beethoven's 9th is a more accomplished composition then Stairway", or "more complex", then I would agree.

One is opinion/taste while the other is more of an absolute which can be measured (to a degree) and is hard to argue with.
The NY Philharmonic are more accomplished musicians then the Ramones. Few would argue with that. I still prefer the Ramones. To call the orchestra "better" musically is personal taste and ignores that they are doing two completely different things with different purposes. I can appreciate the talent that goes into both.

The comparision of musicianship, composition etc is kinda pointless. Is a musician who can play 1000 notes a second better then one who knows how to use space to greater effect. He is arguably more accomplished but as Dave Gilmour proves it's not always the notes you play, its also knowing when not to play. Is Malmsteen a better guitarist the Dave Gilmour? Of course not, but it could be argued he is more technically accomplished. But in the end technically better playing doesn't not correspond to better music as one is an absolute and the other is much more reliant on taste.

Does that makes sense?

[A_MichaelUK]

From darkmenace:
"If someone said Einstein was born in 1885, I would say "No, you are wrong. He was born in 1879."

That can be proven though.

>I'd say the same thing to someone who came to me and said the local bar band is better than Led Zeppelin. I would say, "You might like them more, but you are wrong, they are not better."

How can you prove it?

>I applaud Mr. Barlow who has stated that some music is, in fact, better than others.

How can he prove it?

>As for who decides in general, I put more stock in "experts," which is what normal, sane people do in any other realm.

So I have to listen to what ""experts"" think before I decide what is good?

>For example if it's an issue of medicine, the words of a doctor carry more weight (as they should) than a janitor.

We are not discussing "medicine"! We are discussing music! For every expert on music you find that agrees with you, you will find an expert that does not! Who cares?!

>And yet even medicine is partly subjective.

So you're comparing the enjoyment of music with "medicine". What a genius you are.

>I place greater weight on Duke's perceptions than a 15 year old girl that adores the latest boy band.

I would as well but I don't make a judgement on it.

>You call that being a snob. I call it reality.

Well, snobs can be real too.

>All I'm saying is Bob Ezrin has high status in the Alice Cooper community and even though he says basically the same thing I do, you don't dare criticize him in the slightest.

He isn't saying "the same thing" - again, mr.barlow got it right - he was commenting on our culture. There used to be people describing Alice Cooper the way Ezrin described modern music. Were they right?

> But for a run-of-the-mill fan, you start tossing insults and name calling, even saying the views are fascist. You need to explore this double standard.

It looks like you forgot your original comment that started all this.

>The 60s vibe for Dirty Diamonds is just my perception, I don't think it's a major point I'd debate.

What a ridiculous statement. You have spent ages telling us that music is not subjective (implying there are objective and verifiable indicators) but now you're saying it was only your "perception"! Have you listened to the album or have you not? If so, give examples of the "vibe" you describe.

>As for Trash, yes I feel it hurts Alice's credibility as an artist to write that kind of music. He did the same with Constrictor.

Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. You have to show how and why. After all, according to you, it's all objective. Where are the facts that make your statement true and where are the rules that apply to those facts?

>If he says the Beatles had no talent and wrote lousy songs, then that's a different statement and I would say he's mistaken.

What are your qualifications that make you more of an expert than Zappa was. After all, you said you trusts "experts" and I am sure you would agree that Zappa was an expert of some kind. Maybe you trusts the "experts" that agree with you rather than the ones who do not.

>Irrelevant to what? This comments makes no sense in the context of this discussion. The whole point is the relevance of these kinds of statements.

No, the point is your original statement, where your opinion is deemed to carry more weight than other people's opinion even though neither can be verified.

>I'm asking you to take a stand.

I don't need instructions from you in defending my tastes or the rights of others to have their own taste. I went through this all in 1976 and I don't think there is anything you can teach me on that.

>Do you consider a first-graders doodle's to be on the same level or better than the work of Van Gogh? It's a simple question.

In relation to skill and technique no, I do not but in relation to pure enjoyment on a visceral or emotional level then it may be. It is all subjective.

>If you say no, it's not on the same level (and I hope you do, for your credibility), then you are acknowledging there is more to judging art and music than just saying "I like it."

It depends what you are "judging". If you are "judging" technique, then you judge it based on that and even the judges would be subjective somewhere along the line which you keep denying. If however, you are "judging" it based on how it affects you emotionally or physically, those are different standards. If you want to go through your life evaluating everything intellectually before you decide whether it's better than something else, that's your choice but it isn't your place to look down on those who are more open than that.

>There is such a thing as better and worse. There are qualitative differences. Why does that bother you so much?

It doesn't - the problem is with your patronising and condescending attitude towards those who don't approach something as trivial as the enjoyment of music in the same snobbish way. It happened to early rock and roll, it happened to The Rolling Stones and it happened to The Sex Pistols as well. All you're doing it perpetuating that, so I challenged it.

[A_MichaelUK]

From darkmenace:
"You have missed the point of my bringing it up and that is some people realize that they like things that they would not argue are actually good.

Who says so? For every critic that says Sun Ra is "good", there will be who one who disagrees. Who decides what is "good"? How do you define it?

>Yes you do. You do think they're wrong for not giving Alice more credit for his work.

I did when I was younger but when you get to my age (it seems like you're younger than me), you'll find it's irrelevant. I haven't cared what a critic thinks for years, especially in the age of the internet.

>Another insult instead of a reply. You are struggling.

You can do better than that.

>And yet again he misses the point. I'm not talking about liking.

No I haven't - I already told you I understood the "distinction". The problem is you keep dodging the question. Why is it important that something is judged by you or others as being "good" or not? Why does it matter? Why do you think Woody Allen and so many other creative people hate the idea of giving awards to films or music? Why do you find it so important that you have to judge say, The Stooges against say, Joe Satriani to establish which is better or "good" (other than, maybe, to make yourself feel superior)? In case you haven't noticed, when awards are given for films, books, or music, there isn't a set of standards which have to be met before something is deemed better than something else or deemed to be "good". At some point in the process, subjectivity comes into it. It is what almost all criticism of all art is based on. It isn't a science.

>And again. "Who cares?" is not a reply to these points.

Yes it is. Why are the people who like "Trash" "wrong". Why does it matter? Will you answer?

>Try Moral judgments, like judgments of music, are often considered subjective.

That doesn't make then the same though!

>It's hard to prove one view is superior to another, just like music.

What a huge contradiction. If it is "hard to prove", then how can it be objective?!

>And it's not enough to say, "Who cares?" or it's "Irrelevant." It's entirely relevant to this discussion but it started with making judgments on matters that some people consider totally subjective.

So you are saying the importance of morality is the same as the importance of enjoying music. After all, you just said it was "a comparison". What a weird statement.

>Sure, I'll do that. I enjoy these kinds of discussions and apologize to others on the board that it's gone so far off topic.

I am waiting.

>Because the issue is related. Here's how: If a person (purely hypothetical, it could be any one of millions) feels their religion is superior to others, isn't that snobbery?

Are you honestly comparing something like faith with something like listening to music? I can't think of any less of "a comparison".

>I realize you won't want to touch this with a ten foot pole, but what could be more arrogant or snobbish (you also used the term fascist) than that?

Again, his faith doesn't affect me though. You are asking me to take a position on something that doesn't affect me - again, I don't care what his faith is just as I'm willing to bet you know all sorts of people who's opinions or lifestyles may not affect you either. Do you take a position on them as well? Are you the police or something? When his faith directly affects me in a negative way, I'll be at those barricades right next to you, but until then, you carry on living your life with your smug, strict rules and leave other people alone - that would be my advice.

[A_MichaelUK]

From Devon:
"I'd like to know what standard you are using as "good" for the rest of the group."

Yes, it would be good to know what the criteria are.

[A_MichaelUK]

From Si:
"To call the orchestra "better" musically is personal taste and ignores that they are doing two completely different things with different purposes."

Exactly. It is exactly for that reason that it is irrelevant but darkmenace wants to tell us that we must compare those two bands and we must make a judgement and if we don't do that and if we don't arrive at the same conclusion, then we're "wrong". I didn't realise I had to do that when listening to music.

>The comparision of musicianship, composition etc is kinda pointless.

Exactly. Who cares?

>Does that makes sense?

Yes - a very well - written post.

[mestreech]

[kevinuk81]

I don't like The Beatles or Led Zeppelin, in my mind I am right.

[While Heaven Wept]

I noticed on the sickthings facebook page that one of our old 'self-banned' friends wants to chime in on this without actually posting here.

That's almost as pathetic as some of the comments on this thread.

[A_MichaelUK]

From While Heaven Wept:
"That's almost as pathetic as some of the comments on this thread."

Yes, it's quite cowardly as he prevents someone else from seeing what is being said (or so he thinks).

[pitkin88]

Who are we talking about?

[darkmenace]

May I suggest that one of the problems with this argument is the use of terms like better "better", "good", and "bad" as absolutes.

What I mean is that if someone says to me Beethoven 9th is "better" then "Stairway To Heaven" (as an random example) I would say that was subjective and down to taste. It can't be measured as an absolute using those terms.

I appreciate your thoughtful response and I agree with many of your points but not the conclusion. I don't believe technical proficiency alone makes great music or a great song. The final product is a combination of factors; instrumentation, lyrics (when they're there), arrangements, pace, on and on, and when music is good it has all these come together nicely. When it's bad, something among these factors (maybe many of them) have gone wrong.

In the end the effect is holistic, the whole is more than the sum of the parts. That's why Duke Ellington said "I know it when I hear it." He's saying that the final result determines if it works or not.

I don't believe it is entirely subjective. It is more subjective than say, science (thankfully), but there is a quality of music that is nonverbal and beyond words, but we know, feel it, and we know it is "good." The same is true for movies and painting and other art.

Some of these feelings are subjective, no doubt. A person may like I Never Cry because it reminds him/her of a difficult time in their life. But there is a level beyond subjective, that goes to a higher appreciation within us all.

There are some that may not agree, and I'm aware that it may sound snobbish. I think that's hard to avoid when making these kinds of points.) But I'm not speaking about me only, I'm speaking about music and people in general.

[darkmenace]

>I'd say the same thing to someone who came to me and said the local bar band is better than Led Zeppelin. I would say, "You might like them more, but you are wrong, they are not better."

How can you prove it?

This is "proof" of a different type. Aesthetic taste is different from scientific fact. Yes, that makes it more difficult, but not impossible. And there is no doubt that Led Zeppelin is better than the band I saw last Tuesday at the local bar. No doubt at all. It's as obvious as the sun coming up tomorrow. If you need "proof" for things like, then it's amazing you can go through life making any judgments at all.

So I have to listen to what ""experts"" think before I decide what is good?

No definitely not, you're going to decide anyway.

So you're comparing the enjoyment of music with "medicine". What a genius you are.

I'm going to assume that's sarcasm and say it's too bad you can't apply logic from one subject to another and see the common elements and common themes. If it wasn't sarcasm, thank you.

I would as well but I don't make a judgement on it.

Why are you so deathly afraid of making judgments? This was an easy one, a slam dunk.

He isn't saying "the same thing" - again, mr.barlow got it right - he was commenting on our culture.

You are absolutely wrong. Read the following quote from Mr. Ezrin:

"In just the last few generations, we have witnessed the complete devolution of the mainstream of music from the intricacies and demands of jazz, swing and modern ‘classical’; the subtleties and finesse of the best of popular song writing; the mastery of “folk” instruments and vocal performance in the best of folk and rock; the singular high-mindedness of the greatest singer songwriters; and the hard-won craft of playing and writing and creating meaningful work..."

That's not just a comment on our culture. He's talking about music no longer being "intricate," he's talking about "subtleties" and "finesse." He's talking about the "high-mindedness" of singers and songwriter. He talks about "meaningful" work.

If I said what he did you would start slinging the "superiority" and "snob" remarks. When Bob Ezrin says them, you try to act like it's totally different, which is lame. Can you admit that you have a double standard, because even if you can't it's obvious.

What a ridiculous statement. You have spent ages telling us that music is not subjective (implying there are objective and verifiable indicators) but now you're saying it was only your "perception"! Have you listened to the album or have you not? If so, give examples of the "vibe" you describe.

I have not said music is not subjective. I have said it's a combination of objective and subjective and in fact, beyond that the holistic appreciation. I'm not saying everything is black and white, which is how you want to corner my point of view.

Dirty Diamonds is a combination of a lot of different kinds of songs. I think it has a 60s vibe. I concede that is pretty subjective and while I might debate it, it doesn't matter to me. It's not a point of view that means a lot to me.

Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. You have to show how and why. After all, according to you, it's all objective. Where are the facts that make your statement true and where are the rules that apply to those facts?

No, I don't have to do any of those things. This is a message board for people to share their opinions. I have shared my opinion that Alice's credibility was hurt by doing albums like Constrictor and to a lesser degree Trash. That's it. I have no further stake in it. I am happy to debate it, but I can't offer the kind of proof you want.

What are your qualifications that make you more of an expert than Zappa was. After all, you said you trusts "experts" and I am sure you would agree that Zappa was an expert of some kind. Maybe you trusts the "experts" that agree with you rather than the ones who do not.

There you go, missing the point again. You're good at that. You said that Zappa said he doesn't like the Beatles. That's fine. End of discussion. If he said the Beatles were a lousy band and wrote terrible songs, then that's a different statement. And guess what? Zappa wouldn't say that.

I don't need instructions from you in defending my tastes or the rights of others to have their own taste. I went through this all in 1976 and I don't think there is anything you can teach me on that.

Let me say this once and for all: Everyone has a right to their tastes. That's not the issue. You've tried to go extreme, paint me in a corner, then attack the straw man.

And I have no idea why you are referring to 1976.

In relation to skill and technique no, I do not but in relation to pure enjoyment on a visceral or emotional level then it may be. It is all subjective.

But it's not all subjective. You switched the terms. You moved from the assessment of quality (skill and technique) to a visceral or emotional level (subjective) and then ran right back to your corner: that it's all subjective.

Maybe that's your view, however awkwardly it's being articulated. That no judgments of art are ever possible under any conditions, that it is always merely subjective. And it never matters.

It depends what you are "judging". If you are "judging" technique, then you judge it based on that and even the judges would be subjective somewhere along the line which you keep denying. If however, you are "judging" it based on how it affects you emotionally or physically, those are different standards. If you want to go through your life evaluating everything intellectually before you decide whether it's better than something else, that's your choice but it isn't your place to look down on those who are more open than that.

Yes, I agree that judges have a subjective quality, perhaps more often than not. That's not a reason to throw up our hands and say, "Well, nothing can be judged. Everybody's views are the same, everything is just as good as everything else, it's all just opinion." That's a cop out.

I don't evaluate everything intellectually. Just the opposite. I have a friend who does that with music and it's actually pretty impressive. He hears all the instruments and picks up on a lot of things I don't hear. I enjoy music in a more holistic way, the way Duke Ellington said in his quote.

It doesn't - the problem is with your patronising and condescending attitude towards those who don't approach something as trivial as the enjoyment of music in the same snobbish way.

The King of "patronizing and condescending" attitudes has spoken. Do you see the irony in accusing someone else of that?

I'm not sure enjoying music is trivial. It means a lot to people as evidenced by this message board.

Rather than just having a discussion on this topic, you're the one that wants to paint me as the bogey man, that horrible snob and fascist that is condescending. I'm just trying to share a point of view about music.

[darkmenace]

I did when I was younger but when you get to my age (it seems like you're younger than me), you'll find it's irrelevant. I haven't cared what a critic thinks for years, especially in the age of the internet.

Yes, I understand that. But my point was you believed (and may still believe but not care any longer) that Alice's work deserves more credit because you have made a judgment that his work is good.

At some point in the process, subjectivity comes into it. It is what almost all criticism of all art is based on. It isn't a science.

This is true, I agree.

Yes it is. Why are the people who like "Trash" "wrong". Why does it matter? Will you answer?

They aren't wrong. There is nothing wrong with liking "Trash." It doesn't matter.

If someone makes a factual statement: "Alice's lyrics on Trash are the best he's ever written in his career," I would say I disagree. It still doesn't matter, but I would disagree.

What a huge contradiction. If it is "hard to prove", then how can it be objective?!

It's only a huge contradiction to someone who insists on seeing things in black and white terms. But sorry, the world is grey. Objective science is not always totally objective, and the arts are not always subjective. There is more objectivity in science than in art (and a different type), but there is overlap.

So you are saying the importance of morality is the same as the importance of enjoying music. After all, you just said it was "a comparison". What a weird statement.

I'm not saying they are equally important. I am, however, saying they are similar in that both have a large subjective element in them.

Are you honestly comparing something like faith with something like listening to music? I can't think of any less of "a comparison".

Doing so for the same reason mentioned above.

>I realize you won't want to touch this with a ten foot pole, but what could be more arrogant or snobbish (you also used the term fascist) than that?

Are you the police or something? When his faith directly affects me in a negative way, I'll be at those barricades right next to you, but until then, you carry on living your life with your smug, strict rules and leave other people alone - that would be my advice.

I'm not sure where these weird overreactions are coming from. I'm not trying to police anyone. I'm just on a message board sharing a point of view. What strict rules am I imposing on anyone? The answer is none.