DISCUSS NEW SCARUFFI

>Yorke killed himself in january 2017

At least christgau is funny and self-aware scaruffi just pisses me off even when I agree with him

>>70106845
>but this could be their best album since Amnesiac.
Is this why /mu/ has a hard-on for Amnesiac? because Scruffy said so?

>>70107005
this
>>70107046
no it's because it's a good album

why do people pay attention to this dude? his taste in music is shit

>>70107100
Pleb

Blackstar

"This is trivial "music" that any amateur could make, except that most amateurs would be ashamed to release it.
Bowie died of cancer in january 2016."

>>70107132
Drone

>>70107056
>no it's because it's a good album
How did you convince yourself of this?

>>70107146
Projecting. I don't base my taste off of Scaruffi I just accept that my taste is bad when it deviates from his.

>>70107132
suck his dick some more you sheep

>>70107138
I couldn't stop giggling when I first read this

A literal autist who lost his touch with modern music

>>70107154
because I think it sounds good

>>70107236
Why?

as usual scaruffi is spot-on

notice how the detractors can never challenge any of the points he makes

>>70107295
the music is pleasant to my ears

>>70107304
>points

I think the word you're looking for is "opinions"

>>70107307
How so?

>>70107332
when I listen to the album I get a sense of satisfaction

>>70107304
What instrument does he play again?

>>70107323
You can make points to defend or argue against an opinion baka.

>>70106845
Surprisingly generous

I actually agree it's their best since Amnesiac

>>70107348
Because you know Scruffy approved

>>70107350
Not an argument.

>>70107356
semantics,
you used points because it has a connotation of objectivity and authority to dickride your favorite autist's (((opinion)))

>>70107358
I concur. Post- Amnesiac goes like this for me:
AMSP
King of Limbs
In Rainbows
I Might be Wrong
2+2=5
HTTT

>>70107304
>"This is trivial "music" that any amateur could make, except that most amateurs would be ashamed to release it.

well, this is just completely incorrect.

not hard to refute what he is saying because it's an opinion and objectivity doesn't exist

>>70107421
>2+2=5
You mean Com Lag EP? I would definitely not rank it above HttT

>>70107410
Not even the anon who originally said that but it's cute how you're changing the argument to something unrelated since you can't contest the scruff

>>70107404
You can use music theory to defend or argue against an opinion baka.

>>70107390
is that your point? you think I'm a Scaruffi drone?
Scaruffi is a meme and I genuinely think Amnesiac is a great album

>>70107464
Well you can't seem to explain why, so clearly yes, you are a drone.

>>70107468
>you like this album Scaruffi likes so you're clearly a drone
you're retarded

>>70107455
no dumbo I'm emphasizing how he tries to mask an opinion as fact.
there is nothing to refute, it's just the conclusion of some old italian autist. if you want to follow his opinions instead of forming your own go right ahead

>>70107447
I don't really like either, to be honest. I think Com Lag has some great tracks but nothing really stands out, whereas HTTT has exactly one great track, a few very good tracks and a lot of average to poor tracks.

>>70107492
>Well you can't seem to explain why
If I had reading comprehension like you, I'd just mimic some quirky Italian's taste as well

>you can't sound "human" if you use synths and drum machines

Who do we blame for this meme? Kraftwerk? The Human League?

>>70107517
what do you want me to say? you want me to write a full review of amnesiac just to please your autistic ass and prove I'm not a Scaruffi drone? you seem so far up your ass

Everyone ITT needs to die

>>70107565
If you can't prove it, it's not true.

Sorry Scruffy drone

>>70107573
lmao ok kid

>>70107525
The closer music moves to perfection, the farther it moves away from humanity.

>>70107495
>subjective things should never be the topic of discussion and I should never be challenged on my opinions
Thats you rn

Why is /mu/ so obsessed with music critics and pretend their opinions matter?

>>70107603
then why are some autechre songs some of the most emotionally charged music I've ever heard

>>70107606
yes that's me
it's a waste of brainpower
people will just believe what they want to believe anyway

>>70107350
your anus

>>70107697
Because you are a broken and emotionless person

File: 1483516467524.jpg (15KB, 332x396px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 332x396px

>>70107424
>not hard to refute what he is saying because it's an opinion and objectivity doesn't exist

>>70107734
wow a fedora meme you sure showed him
what a retard for claiming it's a fool'd errand to try and find objectivity in something inherently subjective

>>70107768
>le art is subjective meme
kill yourself

File: 20110592-Portrait-of-young-businessman-in-shirt-with-palms-up-having-confused-expression-and-no-ideas-Isolate-Stock-Photo.jpg (65KB, 1300x941px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1300x941px

>>70106845
>claims to rate and review music from a historical perspective
>writes reviews within a year of an album's release

>>70107842
How isn't it?

>>70107868
how is it?

>>70107734
>says scaruffi's points can't be refuted
>scaruffi's point is refuted

and now you can't refute my refuting of scaruffi's point, so you resort to fedora memes

lol

>>70107915
You made the initial claim, the burden of proof is on you to prove it's objective

File: 1483087098049.jpg (42KB, 209x204px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 209x204px

Hello my name is Mr. Iffuracs and I come from a place far away.

Boy, The Radioheads sure stink, huh?

>>70107056
>>70107154
>>70107236
>>70107295
>>70107307
>>70107332
>>70107348
>>70107390
>>70107464
>>70107468
>>70107492
>>70107517
>>70107565
>>70107573
literal retards

>>70107842
If you're not trolling you are retarded to the point of sub-humanity

>>70108025
>discussing music?!

>>70107985
i didn't make the initial claim, see this: >>70107424
>objectivity doesn't exist

>>70108031
read a book nigger

>>70108049
>i didn't make the initial claim
Been nice talking to you

>>70108049
Are you are literal retard with no concept of context?

Objectivity does not exist in art because there are no objective truths or parameters that define universal norms of quality

He didn't mean that objectivity doesn't exist period

>>70108049
there's no point trying to argue with someone stupid enough to believe that you can objectively discuss the quality of music

>>70108090
this

>>70108058
Kek you were honest. Thanks for the laugh mate

File: laura-boldrini.jpg (135KB, 933x1400px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 933x1400px

> David Bowie Blackstar (RCA) songwriter 4/10
> Julia Holter Have You in My Wilderness (Domino) songwriter 6/10
> Future Islands Singles (4AD) synth-pop 4/10
> Ariel Pink Pom Pom (4AD) songwriter 5/10

>>70107304 here

have still yet to see anyone address the points that scaruffi made in this review. or any review

that's why i love him. he enrages plebs to the point that they can't think straight

>>70107915
Because our perceptions of music are based on emotions and belief systems, which are subjective.

File: makesyouthink.jpg (71KB, 291x563px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 291x563px

How can a man be so alpha

everyone has a different taste
no taste is the same as another
of two tastes one is better than the other
a taste that is better than every other taste exists

music is subjective, but one of those subjective tastes is the best, thus making music objective
even if it's hard if not impossible to know which one is it, you know it exists

>>70108225
does italian cock taste the same as negro dick?
with the shared genes and all

>>70107842

explain how art ISN'T subjective

>>70108105
>>70108090
>>70107424
>>70108234
https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
Only about one-third of academic philosophers (the people who dedicate their lives to studying these ideas) believe that aesthetic value is subjective, so maybe you should quit pretending you know shit about anything

>>70108239
gold medal winner in the paralympics of mental gymnastics

>>70108090
>Objectivity does not exist in art because there are no objective truths or parameters that define universal norms of quality
how do you know they don't exist?

>>70108075
bye

>>70108105
>>70108139
nice arguments

>>70108255
>argumentum ad auctoritatem

Stop man, you're embarrassing yourself

>>70108225
>have still yet to see anyone address the points that scaruffi made in this review
Well let's see:
>their least machine-based album yet
This is incorrect because there are a number of loop-based songs on this album, as compared to others (Pablo honey) which have no loop based material. Thus Scruffy is wrong here
>The Numbers blends distorted Indian-esque music
There are no ragas contained in the song, so Scruffy is wrong here
>Daydreaming blends more minimalist repetition with drones and sound effects that are almost musique concrete
Vocal manipulations on this song can't really compare to musique conrete, as they are not juxtaposed found recordings.

This is excluding his *subjective* opinions with no merit behind it, such as
>amateurish impersonation of Michael Nyman
>Half of the album is wasted in minor detours
Again, this is coming from someone who claimed Radiohead claimed to be avant-garde, which was a direct lie.

>>70108255

>one third disagrees

exactly, it's subjective

if it wasn't subjective, it wouldn't be POSSIBLE for them to disagree

stop thinking you're smart because you googled some academic shit

>>70108250
read this >>70108239

>>70108266
nice argument

>>70108255
nice try, but it's impossible to argue with them
these retards don't even know basic philosophy, they are still stuck in their nihilism/relativism phase

>>70108281
Because they aren't provable.
This isn't math you brainlet.

>>70108255
[citation needed]

>>70108239
>of two tastes one is better than the other
How do you know if one is better than the other?

>>70107842
good point

>>70108305
>if it wasn't subjective, it wouldn't be POSSIBLE for them to disagree
ahahahahahahahah
how can you be so retarded

>>70108239

>a taste that is better than every other taste exists

okay, how do you its better?

>>70108319
You are a pretentious retard who tries to apply basic logic you learend in you philosophy 101 class to music while forgetting the most elementary truth of philosophy: it's in essence subjective

File: post-china.png (22KB, 574x236px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 574x236px

What did Scaruffi mean by this?

>>70108288
>misapplying le rhetorical fallacies
nice reddit techniques dude

If two-thirds of the authorities who are actually qualified to speak about this issue disagree with your premise, then it's safe to say that you're on pretty fucking shaky ground when you assert, flat-out, that art is subjective

>>70108305
People that have different amounts of knowledge on subjects will come to different conclusions. Before I took a modern physics course I thought that classical mechanics were adequate to explain the entire universe, does that mean that the laws of nature are subjective?

>>70108320
>they aren't provable.
how do you know this?
>calling me brainlet

>>70108349
it's not relevant, i just wanted to prove a "best taste" exists, even if we can't know it

>>70108406
>i just wanted to prove a "best taste" exists
It didn't work because "better" is a subjective value in itself

Try again?

>>70108352
Not him but you are really really dumb my friend. Objective truths aren't debatable. You are trying to elevate philosophy to the level of math and science

>>70108352

explain how I'm wrong, smarty-pants

art isn't math or science

you can definitely prove that 2+2=1, so if someone says 2+2=1,000, they are objectively wrong because it is fact that can be proven.

same with science shit like, idk, the earth isn't flat. someone can SAY its flat but they wil be objectively wrong because the earth's roundness is objectively proven.

but what is objectively proven about art? how can you prove someone wrong about their opinion in music? seriously, give me an example.

>>70108403

>People that have different amounts of knowledge on subjects will come to different conclusions

yeah again that's called subjectivity.

again see above, if something is objective it should be possible to prove it to people with any amount of knowledge.

knowing more about art =/= having better opinions about art

>>70108447

>you can definitely prove that 2+2=1

kek meant 4 obviously

>>70108369
i don't know which one is it, but i know it exists
have you even read the last line?

>>70108375
everything is in essence subjective, should we stop reasoning about everything because it is subjective?

>>70108403
>Before I took a modern physics course I thought that classical mechanics were adequate to explain the entire universe, does that mean that the laws of nature are subjective?
Knowledgeable physicists don't even agree with eachother. Reminder that Quantum Theory and the Theory of Relativity contradict each other

>>70108403
>authorities who are actually qualified to speak
wow nice spook man.

>adequate to explain the entire universe

How could you think that when we can't even grasp the complexity of the human mind.
No they are objective, just not fully fleshed out. The foundation (the principle) is there. If you really studied science you wouldn't be making such retarded assumptions

>>70108475
If you don't know which it is or how it is determined, how do you know it exists?

If your claim is that one's taste is better than anther's, you need to show your *objective* criteria. otherwise your thought experiment failed.

>>70108475
>everything is in essence subjective

what is math?

File: TheNewYorkFuckingTimes.jpg (114KB, 802x558px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 802x558px

success breeds jealousy

>>70108255
As someone who has studied aesthetics, "Aesthetic values" in philosphy usually mean categories like Beautiful and the Sublime, full stop. On a smaller level you get things like harmony or elegance and many others (composition, colour, etc.) that are not really discussed explicitly and relate mostly to the category "artwork" vs. not art (think science/pseudoscience dichotomy)
So when you ask a philosopher whether "aesthetic values" are objective, you're not asking if you can rank artworks or artforms on a scale following an objective criteria. Rather the question is if aesthetic judgements, statements like "This is Beautiful" or "This is armonious" or to a lesser (or compound) extent "This is Art with capital A" are in fact objective.

>>70108531
AI knowledge =/= musical knowledge

>>70108427
protip: math, "science" and philosophy are the same thing my friend

>>70108447
>you can definitely prove that 2+2=4
if you can prove this, it is because of arbitrary rules, eg 2=1+1, 3=1+1+1 etc
the same rules can be made up for arts

>same with science shit like, idk, the earth isn't flat. someone can SAY its flat but they wil be objectively wrong because the earth's roundness is objectively proven.
earth roundness isn't objectively proven, it just is "more proven" than flat earth
absolute truth cannot be reached in any way

>how can you prove someone wrong about their opinion in music? seriously, give me an example.
by creating arbitrary rules, like in math

>>70108490
Another reminder is that they are called Theories
And there is a fucking reason for that

>>70108245

Scaruffi is from northern Italy. Geneticallly they are very similar to central europeans.

>>70108525
>If you don't know which it is or how it is determined, how do you know it exists?
i don't know who's the tallest person in the world, but i know such a person exists

>>70108526
math is objective as long as we agree upon the same arbitrary rules, so it's not actually objective

>>70108555
>earth roundness isn't objectively proven
They have literary measured it, it is observable form space
>the same rules can be made up for arts
Like what? What are some objective rules for art?
>by creating arbitrary rules, like in math
Is logic arbitrary?
>>70108575
>And there is a fucking reason for that
Yes, because even knowledgeable people don't agree.

>>70108597
>tallest person in the world
Height is objectively measurable.

Art is not. Prove otherwise

>>70108555

>absolute truth cannot be reached in any way

so basically nothing can truly be objective, which means everything is subjective, which means art is subjective.

thanks, you proved me right

you guys should kill yourselves

>>70108604
>They have literary measured it, it is observable form space
measures are not "objective" in any way, nor it's your eyesight
>Like what? What are some objective rules for art?
doesn't matter, it matters that i can make them up
>Is logic arbitrary?
yes, of course, it is based on language and other imaginary entities

>>70108238
Wife? He probably married her when she was 14, and he 31

>>70108619
>Height is objectively measurable.
prove it

>>70108641
>i can't directly know something = it doesn't exists
nice logic

>>70108555
>protip: math, "science" and philosophy are the same thing my friend
As in human discourse explaining the world? Well yes, but they are very different types of knowledge, You might aswell add art, myth and religion to the list if we're going that way.

>earth roundness isn't objectively proven
Nope mate you're absolutely wrong there unless you want to go full skeptic and doubt the external world exists, or that we can not trust our senses.

>it just is "more proven" than flat earth
You seem to be implying falsationism here but it does not really apply because there's no causal chain or inductive reasoning whatsoever.

>>70108647
>measures are not "objective" in any way
Why not?
>doesn't matter, it matters that i can make them up
Well i can also make up a 17-legged purple platypus indigenous to Argentina, but that doesn't make it true.
>>70108675
>prove it
Well measurement is the assignment of a number to a characteristic of an object or event, which can be compared with other objects or events.[1][2] The scope and application of a measurement is dependent on the context and discipline. In the natural sciences and engineering, measurements do not apply to nominal properties of objects or events, which is consistent with the guidelines of the International vocabulary of metrology published by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures.[2] However, in other fields such as statistics as well as the social and behavioral sciences, measurements can have multiple levels, which would include nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio scales.[1][3]

Measurement is a cornerstone of trade, science, technology, and quantitative research in many disciplines. Historically, many measurement systems existed for the varied fields of human existence to facilitate comparisons in these fields. Often these were achieved by local agreements between trading partners or collaborators. Since the 18th century, developments progressed towards unifying, widely accepted standards that resulted in the modern International System of Units (SI). This system reduces all physical measurements to a mathematical combination of seven base units. The science of measurement is pursued in the field of metrology.

>>70108427
Science cannot exist without philosophy
>>70108490
But you wouldn't say that their disagreement means that the laws of nature are subjective. You'd say we need more information to develop better answers
>>70108507
The entire point was that I had wrong beliefs about science because I had less knowledge, and that my wrong beliefs were not "subjectively true" in any sense, so the fact that people can disagree on the answer to a question does not make it subjective
>>70108543
that makes sense. I think a lot of these "b-but music is subjective!!" people are afraid that the people who post giant Topsters charts covered in obscure art-rock albums will someday be able to prove that those albums are objectively better than the ones they like.

>>70107100
sheer quantity of the stuff he talks about
you'll take him with a grain of salt and he's a good resource for music
but mostly he's just fun to meme

>>70108782
>But you wouldn't say that their disagreement means that the laws of nature are subjective
That's because they are using the scientific process, which is an objective way to look at the world; in contrast, the humanities doesn't follow the scientific process.

Again, prove otherwise.
>The entire point was that I had wrong beliefs about science because I had less knowledge, and that my wrong beliefs were not "subjectively true" in any sense, so the fact that people can disagree on the answer to a question does not make it subjective
Now tell us about your art classes.
>objectively better
"better" is a subjective term, so this is not possible.

>>70108782
i really don't care about music being "objectively better" than what i like though

i like it because i like it, not because it's objectively good in any sense

I suffered through so many "LOL EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE" faggots. Most of them had the discursive ability of a 5 year old and ultimately retreated to hardcore skepticism ("b-but you can't know if 2 is bigger than 1" or "how can you know that what you see is really there?") to avoid having to ground and defend their beliefs.

The worst of them though are the "muh ethics are subjective" crowd who have read 2 pages of Nietzsche between them all, and decide they can ignore thousands of years of philosphy because of it.

Fucking read a book you niggers.

>>70108991
>Fucking read a book you niggers.
The burden of proof is on you since your ilk made the first claim.

I have yet to see you post any objective criteria for art. Will you be able to do it?

>>70107516
>HTTT has exactly one great track, a few very good tracks and a lot of average to poor tracks.
ur opinion=WGAF

>>70106845
That review reads like like a 7+/10 not a 6/10

>>70108832
I hope you don't think that science is the only way to find objective knowledge, or else you're going to have to rely on that silly, "subjective" humanities subject called philosophy to justify your belief :^)

of course non-science fields don't use the scientific method, because they're not fucking science. That doesn't mean objective knowledge pertaining to those fields is nonexistent. It doesn't even mean that science is necessary to discover said knowledge. Theology has objective facts, such as whether or not God exists. Science almost definitely can't answer that question, and theologians can't provide a definite answer, but there must be an objective answer, even if we can't know it

>Now tell us about your art classes.
lol what the fuck does this even mean

>>70108597
>math is objective as long as we agree upon the same arbitrary rules

No. These "rules" are derived and based upon observations and proveable logic. It's not dogmatic. It doesn't matter what formal language you use, the essence stays unchanged.


>>70108991
no, you. stop trying to defile philosophy by raping mathematical logic and vise versa


>>70108555
>: math, "science" and philosophy

no, no and no.

>>70108238
THICC

>>70109068
>I hope you don't think that science is the only way to find objective knowledge
Not science, but the scientific method. Nice strawman though
>of course non-science fields don't use the scientific method
Incorrect. See https://utw10426.utweb.utexas.edu/Topics/Nonscientists/Text.html
>lol what the fuck does this even mean
Well, if your logic is knowledgeable people have better opinions then non-knowledgeable ones, it would seem I am more educated on art than you, so my opinion is more valid than yours. Right?

>>70109013
I never claimed that. I don't even know what "objective criteria for art means": An objective way to demarcate Art from non-art?

Aesthetics is a shakey ground, what pissed me off is your claims about the subjectivity of all human knowledge
>>70109073
>stop trying to defile philosophy by raping mathematical logic and viCe versa
What does this even mean

>>70109049
for scaruffi a 6 is a 7

>>70109269
>I never claimed that. I don't even know what "objective criteria for art means"
Didn't you read the thread?
How is one piece of art better/worse than another?

>>70109269
by attempting to apply the objectivity of math to the subjectivity of philosophy you are destroying the beauty of both. clear?

also sad that you had to emphasize a meaningless typo as some kind of ad hominem argument to discredit my knowledge

>>70107573
Thanks r tard, I needed a good laugh

>>70109385
Not an argument

>>70107915
Opinions of the masses are new.
Most people are ignorant of the history and study of art and its development
Like how a bunch of people who don't know shit about music argue about it online to no purpose and no end
Fueling nothing
Just ignorance and memes

>>70109372
>by attempting to apply the objectivity of math to the subjectivity of philosophy you are destroying the beauty of both. clear?
You mean that there are no objective philosophical truths? That I claimed that mathematics is subjective? That formal logic (both a branch of philosophy and maths) does not serve as a model for both mathematical and philosphical reasoning?

Sorry about the typo that was poor form, but i was just citing you so I might aswell not reproduce your error

>>70107573
>you need to prove that you enjoy music to prove that you're not a drone

Is there a lower level of retardation than this?

>>70109672
t. drone

>>70109712
cuck

>>70109733
Ooops you meant to quote >>70109672
Sorry about that!

>The word "hype" wasn't enough to describe the media assault on the sprawling 80-minute To Pimp a Butterfly (2015),
>This is a superficial and, ultimately, middle-of-the-road album from an artist who lacks the visceral energy of Public Enemy and Tackhead while also lacking the poetic depth of Kanye West and the musical genius of El-P. He tries to be all of them at once, but maybe he would be most credible if he were just himself: a brilliant script-writer of fictionalized real-life stories

Fucking kek spot on

>>70109779
cuck

>>70109603
Hey, no problem mate. I'm a bit on edge because I'm so used to defending philosophy against closed-minded STEMfags and math against uber relativists

I mean while of course philosophy and math bleed into each other ( the discovery of math itself is born from a philosophical question) the fact that there are no objective truths in philosophy makes it so interesting and beautifully humane. The problem with this though is that you get a decay of--yes subjective but imo absolutely necessary--values and norms if you have no safegaurd against degeneracy ( "huh, when everything in art is subective nicki minaj is a good as mozart". . .) So I understand your pain.

>>70109153
let me rephrase for you, then:

I hope you don't think the scientific method is the only way to find objective knowledge, or else you're going to have to rely on that silly, "subjective" humanities subject called philosophy to justify your belief :^)

>Incorrect
It's weird that I was agreeing with you, but now you're trying to prove me (and yourself) wrong with this article that describes how a journalist and an advertiser (both humanities fields) use the scientific method. Which is it? Are you trying to say cooks have a more "objective" epistemology than philosophers, or something?

Regardless, humanities people do not in general use the scientific method to justify objective assertions, and they don't need to. Science can't prove that Shakespeare had a male lover, but some lit. critics and historians use the techniques and knowledge of their fields to try and convince people, with as much certainty as possible, that he did. And whether or not we can be 100% certain about anything, if a fact exists (Shakespeare was bi, aesthetic value is objective, God isn't real, etc.) then it exists, objectively, regardless of proof. That is part of the point I have been trying to make

>Well, if your logic is knowledgeable people have better opinions then non-knowledgeable ones, it would seem I am more educated on art than you, so my opinion is more valid than yours. Right?
I don't care who knows more about art. This argument started (at least on my side) with me appealing to the consensus of experts to call into question all the people who were saying "duh, of course art is subjective, stupid." Then I started defending the possibility of objective aesthetic values.

Knowing more about art might help me find an answer to the objective vs. subjective question, but I'm not trying to answer it. I'm just speculating on the possibility of an answer, because I think these people who are so certain about it (with their total lack of experience in the topic) are dumb.

>>70109919
>I hope you don't think _____ is the only way to find ____
Strawman
>It's weird that I was agreeing with you, but now you're trying to prove me (and yourself) wrong with this article that describes how a journalist and an advertiser (both humanities fields) use the scientific method. Which is it?
Quote me where I contradicted myself
>humanities people do not in general use the scientific method to justify objective assertions, and they don't need to
In art, there is no objective qualifiers to make something better or worse than anything else. Prove otherwise. Your rhetoric won't save you.
>Science can't prove that Shakespeare had a male lover, but some lit. critics and historians use the techniques and knowledge of their fields to try and convince people
Not relevant
>I don't care who knows more about art.
So you only care if it makes your argument right?

Nice.
>I'm just speculating on the possibility of an answer
Well we already covered that here >>70108525

Thanks for posting.

>>70108303
I think you're actually retarded.
>LEAST machine-based
>Indian-ESQUE
>ALMOST musique concrete
Did you intentionally gloss over those keywords?

>>70110238
Are you retarded?
>>LEAST machine-based
Which is incorrect. Pablo Honey and The Bends are LESS machine-based than this album
>>Indian-ESQUE
If there are no ragas, then it is not INDIAN anything
>>ALMOST musique concrete
It can't be ALMOST musique concrete if it doesn't approach it conceptually.

>>70106845
>Indian-esque
It was fine until that

>>70109457
Oh look when a real post is made everyone avoids it and continues to argue about nothing

>>70110070
>Strawman
There's a reason I phrased it as an open suggestion instead of claiming that it was your position, and it has nothing to do with anything else I've been saying. Nice epic fallacy callout, though.
>Quote me where I contradicted myself
"the humanities doesn't follow the scientific process."
>In art, there is no objective qualifiers to make something better or worse than anything else. Prove otherwise. Your rhetoric won't save you.
Only one-third of philosophers agree with you based on the most advanced discussions we have on the question. My argument is that your position is stupid to steadfastly hold to, not that you're necessarily wrong.

OH and I get to do the fallacy callout thing too! This is a strawman because the existence of objective aesthetic values doesn't necessarily imply that we could rank works of art based on "how much" of these values they contain
>Not relevant
I don't understand. I'm just trying to demonstrate how there are different ways of formulating and generating knowledge, and that something doesn't need to be verifiable through the Scientific Method™ to be objectively true.
>So you only care if it makes your argument right?
le strawman
>Well we already covered that here >>70108525
You don't need to prove that something exists to argue that it possibly exists lol. And that post commits the same le strawman I pointed out earlier. You don't need to believe that aesthetic value is objective, because I can't prove that to you. However, you're stupid if you believe with absolute certainty that it is subjective.

>>70110380
(You)

>>70109872
>the fact that there are no objective truths in Philosophy
I disagree here, what about:

>I think, therefore I am (Descartes)
>Justice is the highest virtue of political systems, and systems deemed unjust ought to be discarded no matter what other virtues they may possess (Rawls, paraphrasing)
>The human being is an animal with a symbolic dimension (Ortega y Gasset)
Different branches of ethics have a lot of axioms that may be considered as objective
>There are some states of the world that are preferable to others (consequentialism)
>Pleasure is preferable to pain (Classical hedonism)
>Virtues such as kindness and truthfulness are preferable to vicvicrueltyes like cruelty and dishonesty (virtue ethics, this one is debatable but seems plausible)
-
The last one links with value theory
>Beauty is preferable to ugliness
>Truth is preferable to a lie
Etc

>>70110464
>vicvicrueltyes
Vices* fuck my phone
>Truth is preferable to a lie
Truth is preferable to falsity*
I did not remember the english word

>>70110418
>There's a reason I phrased it as an open suggestion
Then it's not relevant to the conversation, and should still be discarded. Please stay on task
>"the humanities doesn't follow the scientific process."
Is corporate accounting the humanities? No, it's accounting.
>Only one-third of philosophers agree with you based on the most advanced discussions we have on the question. My argument is that your position is stupid to steadfastly hold to, not that you're necessarily wrong.
See >>70108336
>I don't understand.
The fact the Shakespear is gay or not has no bearing on the quality of his art. This is misdirection
>My argument is that your position is stupid to steadfastly hold to, not that you're necessarily wrong.
All you have to do is show me objective criteria in measuring art. It's that simple. But please dance around it more
>le strawman
How is that a strawman? I was using your logic. Thus the logical conclusion is you are using a double standard, to selectively apply your logic only when you want to be correct.
>You don't need to prove that something exists to argue that it possibly exists lol.
By this logic, I can simply argue art is subjective and no further discussion is required.

Have a nice day.
>However, you're stupid if you believe with absolute certainty that it is subjective.
Does that mean you are not stupid to believe with absolute certainty that it is objective? Or are you going to backpedal and say you don't?

>>70110464
I don't really want to go there because while I believe everything you mentioned can be reduced to personal opinion instead of universal truth I also realize this nihilistic mentality is the bane of western civilization

>>70110344
>Pablo Honey and The Bends are LESS machine-based
Granted, those two albums have the fewest electronics, but the point he's trying to make is not so much that they've doubled down on synths compared to their previous efforts, but rather that it feels more authentic and less sterile than before ("a veritable return to humanity"). That early Radiohead feels robotic or somewhat clinical is criticism a lot of the band's detractors can get behind, even when referring to their derivative and bland britpop phase

>If there are no ragas, then it is not INDIAN anything
It doesn't have to have ragas, or Indian anything, for that matter, in order to at least resemble Indian music. All he's saying here is that he sees some kind of stylistic or sonic resemblance to Indian music, not that it actually contains Indian music, for fuck's sake. Complaining about this is akin to getting flustered that someone used a genre lable a little too loosely, therefore it must be incorrect.

>It can't be ALMOST musique concrete if it doesn't approach it conceptually.
Says who? Given that there are vocal manipulations that have a distinct musique conrete feel (to Scaruffi's ears, at least), I don't see a huge issue in describing the song that way. Even if Radiohead didn't set out to make any musique concrete, that doesn't mean his subjective feelings about Daydreaming are suddenly invalidated.

>>70110704
>but the point he's trying to make is...
Not relevant. He made an error.
>It doesn't have to have ragas, or Indian anything, for that matter, in order to at least resemble Indian music.
In don't think you know what "resemble" means.
>Says who?
The people who created the genre.

>>70110606
>Is corporate accounting the humanities? No, it's accounting.
I pointed out that the examples include a journalist and an advertising designer, both humanities fields. You never even explained what you were trying to prove with that link, because I think it's stupid if you're implying that cooking is a more epistemologically rigorous field than philosophy
>The fact the Shakespear is gay or not has no bearing on the quality of his art. This is misdirection
Shakespeare's sexuality is a well-known discussion in lit. criticism lol. The discussion is not scientific and relies heavily on interpretation of his work. Way to totally miss the point again
>See >>70108336
The citation is literally right there in the post that the above post is quoting. I can't believe this.
>How is that a strawman? I was using your logic. Thus the logical conclusion is you are using a double standard, to selectively apply your logic only when you want to be correct.
I've said a million times that my goal was to show that it's a very shaky position to hold that "art is totally subjective, end of story." (At least on /mu/, where 99% of people have no knowledge in the topic). The validity of your opinion versus mine (apparently determined by how many art classes we've each taken?) is not important, because I am appealing to academic philosophers, not my own knowledge, to show that there is strong belief among experts that aesthetic value is not subjective.

I think if you believe, without a doubt, that art is subjective, and you haven't even read the small fraction of philosophers who agree with you in order to justify that belief, then you are probably just an obstinate shitposter
>By this logic, I can simply argue art is subjective and no further discussion is required.
No, that's wrong and dumb, but you COULD argue (using the same survey data) that I was stupid if I claimed to be 100% certain that art is objective.

(tbc)

>>70110606
>>70110956
>Does that mean you are not stupid to believe with absolute certainty that it is objective? Or are you going to backpedal and say you don't?
And here you are finally using this argument! And it would totally work, if I had ever claimed to believe that aesthetic value is objective. Unfortunately, I've said many times that I do not have a strong position on the question. It seems like you must not be reading half of what I write.

my whole point is that taking such a strong position on this topic is stupid if you haven't studied it for a decade plus, and I'm sick of seeing this shit on /mu/

>>70110956
oh yeah, and I don't think art classes really qualify anyone to answer the objective vs. subjective question anyway, because it's a philosophical question

>>70110956
>You never even explained what you were trying to prove with that link,
You made the claim
>of course non-science fields don't use the scientific method
And I showed you that was untrue, examples of non-science using the scientific method. Art does not use the scientific method. I never contradicted myself.
>Shakespeare's sexuality is a well-known discussion in lit
Not relevant.
>Way to totally miss the point again
I ignore topics that are not relevant to the discussion, or meant to misdirect. I'm sorry that I am not falling for your tricks.
>The citation is literally right there
There are no citations in that survey. Show me them.
>(At least on /mu/, where 99% of people have no knowledge in the topic)
I've been a musician for longer than you've been alive, so you can ignore this cherrypicking.
>because I am appealing to academic philosophers
Oh, to people like me? Sorry, people like me don't agree either, so your point is wrong.
>I think if you believe, without a doubt, that art is subjective, and you haven't....
Do you know music theory? If you don't and you still want to discuss music, you are probably just an obstinate shitposter
>using the same survey data
It has no citations, it must be discarded.
>>70111049
>And here you are finally using this argument!
Where did I state this argument? I'm asking a question.

Nice strawman though
>>70111121
>i don't think studying something makes you qualified to discuss that thing you studied
Sure

>>70110857
>Not relevant
Wow, alright, shame on me for trying to read between the lines? You're critiquing his writing as though it were some kind of scientific paper. Anyway, it should be painfully obvious to anyone, including Scaruffi, that what he wrote is erroneous when taken at surface level. The point is, you're the one who missed the point.
>The people who created the genre.
Without a single source I can't even be bothered to take this response and therefore argument seriously

>>70111231
>Wow, alright, shame on me for trying to read between the lines?
Yes because that's not what anon asked.

Nice goalpost shifting
>Without a single source
You don't know who created musique concrete? You don't know the pioneers of the genre?

>>70111273
>Yes because that's not what anon asked.
What do you mean exactly? Where did I shift the goalposts?

I meant a source as to this bold claim:
>It can't be ALMOST musique concrete if it doesn't approach it conceptually.
A quote or anything by its creators will do.

>>70111368
>What do you mean exactly?
Did you read the thread?
>A quote or anything by its creators will do.
You didn't answer my question. Try again.

>>70110634
>I think therefore I am
>can be reduced to personal opinion instead of universal truth
Fucking HOW

>>70111388
Some anon said people don't properly address his arguments. You then gave your arguments, to which I responded with my own. No goalpost shifting here, unless you have something else in mind
>You didn't answer my question
How is my knowledge of the history of musique concrete relevant? I can research the essentials on the topic myself in 10 minutes, but if you want to make your argument sound convincing and not pulled out your ass, at least provide a source supporting that very specific claim you made

>>70111184
You made the claim
>of course non-science fields don't use the scientific method
You were the one who said that humanities don't use the scientific method and I was agreeing with you. Then you posted that link which contradicted what you said (and, in doing so, "proved me wrong"?)
> Art does not use the scientific method. I never contradicted myself.
You said "the humanities", not "art", and I pointed out that there were humanities examples in there. So if all we're doing is picking at imperfections in each other's language, I say we're even.
>Not relevant.
It is relevant because (as I understood) you were arguing that the humanities cannot be "objective" because they are not scientific, and I brought up an example to show how objective facts can be argued without science
>I'm sorry that I am not falling for your tricks.
lol
>There are no citations in that survey. Show me them.
Here is the journal article whose findings are reprinted on that page
https://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP
>I've been a musician for longer than you've been alive, so you can ignore this cherrypicking.
Playing an instrument and writing music do not teach you things that are relevant to a philosophical discussion on aesthetic value
>Sorry, people like me don't agree either, so your point is wrong.
lol no one who can be called an "academic philosopher" would fail so utterly at following and addressing an argument. I find it hard to believe you have more than 2 years of college.
>Do you know music theory?
Sure I do. Not a ton, but enough to more deeply appreciate a lot of the popular music I enjoy. But it would be stupid of me to think any of my opinions on Baroque music are qualified.
>Where did I state this argument? I'm asking a question.
Well I answered it, so can you stop picking at language and try to follow the line of argument for once?
>>i don't think studying something makes you qualified to discuss that thing you studied
Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy

>>70111661
>Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy
Yes but we don't really take it seriously anymore

>>70111606
>Some anon said people don't properly address his arguments. You then gave your arguments
Glad you got caught up.
>I can research the essentials on the topic myself in 10 minutes
Excellent. Go for it
>>70111661
>https://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP
OK I'm going to read this before I post my answer. Thanks
>lol no one who can be called an "academic philosopher" would fail so utterly at following and addressing an argument.
That's because I'm not addressing your argument.
>so can you stop picking at language
Will you do this too? Or is it again your selective logic that only applies to your opponent and not yourself?

>>70107459
You don't need to play an instrument to understand music theory.

>>70111908
Most people who know music theory play instruments

>>70108239
same faggot shitting up the chart thread
please kill yourself
for writing like this

>>70107100
He's a pedo, like most of 4chan users.

>>70108038
When did you start discussing music? I must've missed it.

>>70107175
See
>>70107178
you stupid drone.

>>70111858
>That's because I'm not addressing your argument.
That's great. What are you doing then?
>Will you do this too? Or is it again your selective logic that only applies to your opponent and not yourself?
Can you point out where I've done this except when it's been in response to your own nitpicking? I'm going back through this conversation and really having a hard time finding instances where you had a substantive response to a point I made, rather than a glib dismissal (followed by me re-explaining my whole point to you for the millionth time)