[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwitel /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is a masterpiece to you may not be a masterpiece to others. I know it well, and can appreciate how grounbreaking it was-but it was extremely difficult for me to get into being that its 40 yrs. old (regardless of how progressive it was).

Masterpieces are objective. You can recognize a masterpiece and not enjoy the piece itself. If you are using the term "masterpiece" subjectively, then you need to find a new word to describe works you really, really like.

 

[Dhw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Masterpieces are objective. You can recognize a masterpiece and not enjoy the piece itself. If you are using the term "masterpiece" subjectively, then you need to find a new word to describe works you really, really like.

So when you call something a masterpiece, it is a given that it is objectively a masterpiece, but when kwitel says it isn't a masterpiece, then his/her statement is subjective? Hate to break it to you, but you're still stating an opinion, just like everyone else. And statements like "you need to find a new word" come off as awfully condescending and irritating.

 

[asmox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dhw /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hate to break it to you, but you're still stating an opinion, just like everyone else. And statements like "you need to find a new word" come off as awfully condescending and irritating.

If you look up "opinion" in a thesaurus, you'll find "Aman" listed in the antonym section. I thought this would be common knowledge by now.

Seriously - masterpieces are not objective. If they were, there wouldn't be so many arguments about what albums are and are not masterpieces. If you're trying to say that "masterpiece" is an objective word only when used by certain people, and a subjective word when used by others... well... who are you to say which person is using it objectively and which one subjectively?

I can just as easily say that you are the one who's using the word subjectively.

 

[Aman]

I use the term "masterpiece" very, very sparingly. It implies a work that has changed the course of history in a big way.

Beethoven's 9th Symphony. The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Frank Sinatra's In The Wee Small Hours. And yes, King Crimson's In The Court of the Crimson King. All of these albums have had a big impact on music. ITCOTCK essentially began the progressive rock movement of the 70s. That's pretty damn important.

I don't use the term to describe an album I really like but know is not "important" to music, like Zorn's Astronome, or Braxton's Composition No. 249. That's inappropriate.

And also, I never implied anything about asserting my authority over anybody else. He completely fabricated that. I never questioned what he liked or didn't like. But to say it's not a masterpiece (as dictionary defines the word, a work of among the artist's best, or one of great importance) is just foolish.

There's no opinion to King Crimson's importance to music. They changed its course entirely! Imagine what would have happened with no "prog rock." No experimenting with music production techniques popularized in the 70s; no rebellers coming up with punk rock to battle the complexity of prog rock; no Dark Side of the Moon; no concept of inserting modern compositional influences in rock n' roll. That's a lot of stuff King Crimson enabled.

 

[Uncle Erik]

I came across "Discipline" on vinyl at the record store yesterday. Needless to say, I happily took it to the counter and paid up. This is one of my favorites, as are "Red," "ITCOTCK," "Three of a Perfect Pair," and I've always loved "Lark's Tounge in Aspic" as well.

There's not much I can add to Aman's opinions- I think his assessment is dead on. I'll also agree that King Crimson is much more complex than Tool and others. That's what is so disappointing about today's music. If you want to hear music that develops and goes somewhere, you're limited to classical, jazz and older rock. Stuff like hip-hop that repeats the same musical phrase over and over and over and over and into the ground is a snore, no matter the lyrics. Its popularity is the result of the destruction of music education in public schools.

And I love Fripp. One of my very, very favorite guitar players. Few can play as cleanly and precisely as he does. He is a joy to listen to. Even better with good headphones since you can really hear what he's doing.

 

[stewgriff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif Stuff like hip-hop that repeats the same musical phrase over and over and over and over and into the ground is a snore, no matter the lyrics. Its popularity is the result of the destruction of music education in public schools.

I think King Crimson's great, but I gotta disagree with this generalization of hip hop. I'll grant that the music usually never develops in the same way as jazz, classical, etc., but step outside of the radio hits and the lyrics more than earn their worth, and certainly aren't a "snore". And my public school "destructive education" converted me to jazz.

 

[Akathriel]

Red is definately my favorite King Crimson album with Discipline and Lark's Tongue in Aspic being close seconds. In general I have to say the older King Crimson appeal more to me in general than the Crimson of the 80s-90s. How many different itteration has KC gone through? 4?

At the above poster, hip hop is at best poetry but never music, especially not in its current devolution. The repetition of a sample ad nauseum requires no musical inspiration, regardless of how impressive the lyrics are poetically.

 

[Aman]

Guys, I've heard some damn good hip-hop in the past, a lot of which was very experimental, instrumental, and complex. The Roots, Blackalicious, and Saul Williams are just a few. What about all those awesome jazz-rap bands?

I never meant to say one genre was better than the other - only that King Crimson was extremely important to music. They had a huge impact on music's development through the 70s and beyond. I will agree that the post-modern era's "pop" music is a result of music becoming more about the commercialization of itself (cultural trends, etc.), whereas the modern era music and earlier had much more emphasis on meaning and virtuosity - even the pop stuff.

 

[asmox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's what is so disappointing about today's music. If you want to hear music that develops and goes somewhere, you're limited to classical, jazz and older rock.

This is a very narrow and inaccurate notion.

Don't use Tool as your yardstick. What they're doing today is not comparable to what King Crimson were doing in the context of their relevant time periods. If you care at all about seeing how wildly off-base your statement is, you're going to have dig deeper than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman I never meant to say one genre was better than the other - only that King Crimson was extremely important to music. They had a huge impact on music's development through the 70s and beyond.

I don't question the importance of King Crimson's music. The only thing I'm questioning is the denouncement of a person's opinion and the elevation of your own opinion to fact based on usage of "masterpiece". I still maintain that it's a completely subjective term.

The first definition of "masterpiece" on dictionary.com is -

1. a person's greatest piece of work, as in an art.

That is completely, unquestionably, 100% subjective.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by asmox /img/forum/go_quote.gif The first definition of "masterpiece" on dictionary.com is - 1. a person's greatest piece of work, as in an art. That is completely, unquestionably, 100% subjective.

Depends on what angle you look at it from.

Historically, we know that "In The Court of the Crimson King" was significantly more important to music than "Lark's Tongue in Aspic". I know many King Crimson fans who prefer the latter over the former. However, I don't know any that would deny that the former was the cause of a very important change in music into and throughout the 70s.

There are albums that you like, and then there are albums that are "good". This applies to everything. Compare an inexpensive meal you love with a masterfully-prepared food dish you don't enjoy that is quite a bit more expensive. Say that masterfully-prepared dish is fish, but you don't eat fish. Is the food bad just because you don't like it? Bobby Flay makes damn good food, and it's not because everybody likes it - it's because it's well-made. There's a significant difference.

This comes over to music as well. I know plenty of people who could care less about progressive rock, but anybody well versed in music understands the significance that ITOTCK had. I don't look at music as "good" or "bad" in a subjective sense, since I obviously love a lot of music that is only substantial within certain levels of taste and/or genre, as do most people. Pop bands like Aha - I like them a lot - but I would never consider them "good music", because they did little of anything significant. I just think it's fun and enjoyable. I know that albums like Astronome by John Zorn cannot be determined as "good" or "bad", because we have no idea what will happen as a result of this album, and frankly, it isn't among Zorn's strongest work. But I really, really enjoy it. The sheer power, the intensity - it's all a very lovely thing for me. But I won't be saying it's one of the best albums ever made; who am I to judge this in this context and in this time period?

So, when I consider a masterpiece (an artist's "best" work), I consider an album which has been proven as objectively the best work. I don't put any personal judgment into the mix; just my knowledge of the work and its inner and outer contexts. Pink Floyd's "masterpiece", as history and production techniques have told us, is Dark Side of the Moon. But I don't enjoy this album as much as others, such as Piper at the Gates of Dawn, or Meddle.

And again, it all comes back to people being way too touchy these days. I am NOT trying to undermine anybody's opinions! kwitel from the very beginning was offended that I mentioned the word "masterpiece" within his context (that he could not "enjoy" it), and he shouldn't have been, since I was clearly not using the word in the same contextual manner that he was. You guys have to stop whining all the time, and realize that it is impossible to judge "good" or "bad" in music from a subjective standpoint. Objectively speaking, however, King Crimson's album has been proven as a "good" record, since we know how innovative and ahead of its time that it was.

 

[Jubei]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif I put on my vinyl copy a minute ago. "21st Cenutry Schizoid Man" is an absolute masterpiece of a song.... wow.

Absolutely true. I love the entire album - and I have been listening to it for close to 20 years.

 

[asmox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif You guys have to stop whining all the time, and realize that it is impossible to judge "good" or "bad" in music from a subjective standpoint.

On the contrary, I think that it's impossible to judge good/bad in music from an objective standpoint, because there is no universal criteria for what makes a piece of music good, and what makes it bad. Until you can provide such criteria, "good" and "bad" are subjective points of view.

Of course, when you do write up your criteria, you need to realize that those items will be what you believe a piece of music should contain in order for it to be "good". For instance, you might believe that if a piece of music does not display a certain level of instrumental proficiency, it isn't good; somebody else might be of the mind that instrumental proficiency is the last thing that should be taken into account when asserting the value of a piece of music.

Any way you look at it, you're stating an opinion.

Music can be proven to have been impactful, it can be proven to be technically proficient... but it cannot be proven to be good or bad, and it cannot be proven to be a masterpiece, because everybody's got their own view on what makes music good, and everybody's got their own view on what consitutes an artist's "best work".

There is no checklist that everybody goes by.

 

[MdRex]

"I reject your reality, and substitute my own!"

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MdRex /img/forum/go_quote.gif "I reject your reality, and substitute my own!"

As Braxton says, "The concept of attraction in this context..."

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by asmox /img/forum/go_quote.gif On the contrary, I think that it's impossible to judge good/bad in music from an objective standpoint, because there is no universal criteria for what makes a piece of music good, and what makes it bad. Until you can provide such criteria, "good" and "bad" are subjective points of view. ... There is no checklist that everybody goes by.

Which is exactly why objective standpoints, such as historical importance, are the best way to judge something as "good" or "bad". Everybody has opinions, so why make THOSE the basis of "good" or "bad" in art?

You can enjoy all you want, but too many people today confuse what they enjoy with "what is good". Sometimes the two collide, but not always. I have examples that go both ways.

It's close-minded to use opinions for the basis of "good" or "bad" in music, because then you shut away music that is truly excellent, enjoyable, and important because your own opinions get in the way. I always attempt to keep what I enjoy separate from what is "good", because the two ARE different. What you enjoy is subjective - what's good is objective. I don't know how to make this any clearer.

Music - all art - has historical contexts, and since time is objective, it is the relative use for judging the words "good" and "bad". Using "good" to describe enjoyment makes just as much sense as calling a desk a "balloon". You're just using the completely wrong definition to describe what you're thinking.