So i listened to the whole new korn lp...

[leyenda]

So basically what you're saying, Jas0n, is that all forms of art criticism are invalid, and we should just let bullshit slide wherever it falls? You didn't like that tune yourself, so obviously you have some criticisms of it. You chose not to voice them, but we did. Don't get up in our shit about it.

Now by saying all of those phrases are illegitimate criticisms, you've basically ruled out the sweet spot of criticism. Like, if I just said 'its bad' you'd say I'm not backing my arguments up, but if I singled out individual parts of songs that I didn't like (for example, a Skrillex screech here or a whiney emo lyric there) then you'd say I was nitpicking. The middle ground between those two is where proper, constructive criticism lies and you're basically saying we shouldn't be allowed to do that? You say that criticism works against creativity, but I'd argue the opposite. Its one of the forces that makes artists want to improve and be more creative rather than just settle for easy money.

I mean, how exactly does one objectively criticise something which is in its nature subjective? There's no mathematical equation for good dubstep. So basically all you're doing is trying to tell us that we shouldn't give our opinions, to which I say fuck off.

I've said this before, but this whole 'don't be a hater' culture that gets brought in every time someone says they don't like something is seriously detrimental to our society. When people get called 'haters' for not liking some new Rebecca Black song (by Rebecca Black herself, no less), they feel guilty, like they're the asshole, and as a result are more likely to let bullshit slide. Its lowering our standards as a society.

Just saying "it's bad" is an undefended argument, and "I didn't like the Skrillex screech" is another undefended argument, it is just a more specific one.

I don't buy into the idea that the enjoyment or appreciation of music is purely subjective. Aesthetics are not an intellectual primary, but they're not a response - emotion, which is a response, seems to be the only way people will acknowledge that they even approach the subject of music and that is an insult to all parties involved.

Just as a person's beauty is tied to certain biological fundamentals (e.g. symmetry) for good reason and to good effect, a sense of aesthetic propriety can be applied to music. Here our first and most easy targets are what could be called simple mechanics - being in tune and on time. Sound structure gets us way deeper and fast. Here we can talk about dynamics, things like push vs. pull and call vs. response.

First step should be to define your terms, second step should be to form an argument, third should be to defend it. "It's bad," as I have said, is indefensible and thus really just worthless as commentary.

To summarize - it is pathetic that people either can't or won't approach this material intellectually. I really hope you as a community aren't this apathetic, anti-intellectual, and lazy when it comes to your own production.

Where does free jazz and anything influenced by it fit into your nice, ordered approach to music?

[fassyman]

korn ruined brostep

[deadly_habit]

So basically what you're saying, Jas0n, is that all forms of art criticism are invalid, and we should just let bullshit slide wherever it falls? You didn't like that tune yourself, so obviously you have some criticisms of it. You chose not to voice them, but we did. Don't get up in our shit about it.

Now by saying all of those phrases are illegitimate criticisms, you've basically ruled out the sweet spot of criticism. Like, if I just said 'its bad' you'd say I'm not backing my arguments up, but if I singled out individual parts of songs that I didn't like (for example, a Skrillex screech here or a whiney emo lyric there) then you'd say I was nitpicking. The middle ground between those two is where proper, constructive criticism lies and you're basically saying we shouldn't be allowed to do that? You say that criticism works against creativity, but I'd argue the opposite. Its one of the forces that makes artists want to improve and be more creative rather than just settle for easy money.

I mean, how exactly does one objectively criticise something which is in its nature subjective? There's no mathematical equation for good dubstep. So basically all you're doing is trying to tell us that we shouldn't give our opinions, to which I say fuck off.

I've said this before, but this whole 'don't be a hater' culture that gets brought in every time someone says they don't like something is seriously detrimental to our society. When people get called 'haters' for not liking some new Rebecca Black song (by Rebecca Black herself, no less), they feel guilty, like they're the asshole, and as a result are more likely to let bullshit slide. Its lowering our standards as a society.

Just saying "it's bad" is an undefended argument, and "I didn't like the Skrillex screech" is another undefended argument, it is just a more specific one.

I don't buy into the idea that the enjoyment or appreciation of music is purely subjective. Aesthetics are not an intellectual primary, but they're not a response - emotion, which is a response, seems to be the only way people will acknowledge that they even approach the subject of music and that is an insult to all parties involved.

Just as a person's beauty is tied to certain biological fundamentals (e.g. symmetry) for good reason and to good effect, a sense of aesthetic propriety can be applied to music. Here our first and most easy targets are what could be called simple mechanics - being in tune and on time. Sound structure gets us way deeper and fast. Here we can talk about dynamics, things like push vs. pull and call vs. response.

First step should be to define your terms, second step should be to form an argument, third should be to defend it. "It's bad," as I have said, is indefensible and thus really just worthless as commentary.

To summarize - it is pathetic that people either can't or won't approach this material intellectually. I really hope you as a community aren't this apathetic, anti-intellectual, and lazy when it comes to your own production.

tl;dr you haven't even listened to it or offered an opinion besides being argumentative with people who have
gtfo

[Jas0n]

So basically what you're saying, Jas0n, is that all forms of art criticism are invalid, and we should just let bullshit slide wherever it falls? You didn't like that tune yourself, so obviously you have some criticisms of it. You chose not to voice them, but we did. Don't get up in our shit about it.

Now by saying all of those phrases are illegitimate criticisms, you've basically ruled out the sweet spot of criticism. Like, if I just said 'its bad' you'd say I'm not backing my arguments up, but if I singled out individual parts of songs that I didn't like (for example, a Skrillex screech here or a whiney emo lyric there) then you'd say I was nitpicking. The middle ground between those two is where proper, constructive criticism lies and you're basically saying we shouldn't be allowed to do that? You say that criticism works against creativity, but I'd argue the opposite. Its one of the forces that makes artists want to improve and be more creative rather than just settle for easy money.

I mean, how exactly does one objectively criticise something which is in its nature subjective? There's no mathematical equation for good dubstep. So basically all you're doing is trying to tell us that we shouldn't give our opinions, to which I say fuck off.

I've said this before, but this whole 'don't be a hater' culture that gets brought in every time someone says they don't like something is seriously detrimental to our society. When people get called 'haters' for not liking some new Rebecca Black song (by Rebecca Black herself, no less), they feel guilty, like they're the asshole, and as a result are more likely to let bullshit slide. Its lowering our standards as a society.

Just saying "it's bad" is an undefended argument, and "I didn't like the Skrillex screech" is another undefended argument, it is just a more specific one.

I don't buy into the idea that the enjoyment or appreciation of music is purely subjective. Aesthetics are not an intellectual primary, but they're not a response - emotion, which is a response, seems to be the only way people will acknowledge that they even approach the subject of music and that is an insult to all parties involved.

Just as a person's beauty is tied to certain biological fundamentals (e.g. symmetry) for good reason and to good effect, a sense of aesthetic propriety can be applied to music. Here our first and most easy targets are what could be called simple mechanics - being in tune and on time. Sound structure gets us way deeper and fast. Here we can talk about dynamics, things like push vs. pull and call vs. response.

First step should be to define your terms, second step should be to form an argument, third should be to defend it. "It's bad," as I have said, is indefensible and thus really just worthless as commentary.

To summarize - it is pathetic that people either can't or won't approach this material intellectually. I really hope you as a community aren't this apathetic, anti-intellectual, and lazy when it comes to your own production.

Where does free jazz and anything influenced by it fit into your nice, ordered approach to music?

I will give you an honest answer if you want one, but I would need a clear definition of what you believe to be free jazz, so as not to be talking past one another.

I would think Bach would have been a jazz musician if he were around in the 20th century. There is also a whole field of jazz dedicated essentially to being explicitly non-musical with musical instruments.

[vax]

[_cheef_]

An academic discussion on the merits of a Korn & Skrillex collaboration on DSF.

Next level.

[makerowner]

An academic discussion on the merits of a Korn & Skrillex collaboration on DSF.

Next level.

Define what you mean by next level

[leyenda]

I will give you an honest answer if you want one, but I would need a clear definition of what you believe to be free jazz, so as not to be talking past one another.

I would think Bach would have been a jazz musician if he were around in the 20th century. There is also a whole field of jazz dedicated essentially to being explicitly non-musical with musical instruments.

Bach I see pretty much as the antithesis of free jazz (not to say he wouldn't be jazz in a more general sense). Free jazz in it's purest sense has no structure to the music in regard to tone, timing or anything else. There is no 'out of time' or 'out of tune'. In honesty I'm not really a fan as although it's been influential (much like the avant-garde classical guys) it's not personally very enjoyable. Things like Cecil Taylor or Sun Ra are too 'free' for my liking. But something like Escalator Over the Hill by Carla Bley to me is a masterpiece and yet often ignores the structure that it has at times.

[sixs]

free jazz is still musical whether you personally think so or not.

[leyenda]

That was the whole reason I brought it up when jas0n claimed music has objective qualities that it has to follow

[sixs]

oh my words were at him too

[_boring]

i listened. i like korns first 3 albums. this is horrible horrible. the vocals sound so half assed. the who thing sounds half assed. no one on earth would want to listen to thhis.

[sigbowls]

the wrong bands are getting into dubstep

[deadly_habit]

oh lord it gets better
revolver mag named it lp of the year
http://www.revolvermag.com/news/exclusi ... ality.html

[ultraspatial]

oh lord it gets better
revolver mag named it lp of the year
http://www.revolvermag.com/news/exclusi ... ality.html

[ultraspatial]

oh lord it gets better
revolver mag named it lp of the year
http://www.revolvermag.com/news/exclusi ... ality.html

"we recently talked to Korn frontman Jonathan Davis about The Path of Totality, which comes out tomorrow, and about the honor" lol
the honor of being named #1 album by a magazine which bothers to make an anual hottest chicks in metal calendar/issue...

[soulkids]

"we had [Roland TR] 808s"

also inb4ramadanman

[_cheef_]

"I knew there was gonna be haters, there’s haters in everything, there was haters back in—like, I say this is the new Follow the Leader album—there was haters back then."

HATERS HATERS HATERS!!!!!1!

[muntz]

So basically what you're saying, Jas0n, is that all forms of art criticism are invalid, and we should just let bullshit slide wherever it falls? You didn't like that tune yourself, so obviously you have some criticisms of it. You chose not to voice them, but we did. Don't get up in our shit about it.

Now by saying all of those phrases are illegitimate criticisms, you've basically ruled out the sweet spot of criticism. Like, if I just said 'its bad' you'd say I'm not backing my arguments up, but if I singled out individual parts of songs that I didn't like (for example, a Skrillex screech here or a whiney emo lyric there) then you'd say I was nitpicking. The middle ground between those two is where proper, constructive criticism lies and you're basically saying we shouldn't be allowed to do that? You say that criticism works against creativity, but I'd argue the opposite. Its one of the forces that makes artists want to improve and be more creative rather than just settle for easy money.

I mean, how exactly does one objectively criticise something which is in its nature subjective? There's no mathematical equation for good dubstep. So basically all you're doing is trying to tell us that we shouldn't give our opinions, to which I say fuck off.

I've said this before, but this whole 'don't be a hater' culture that gets brought in every time someone says they don't like something is seriously detrimental to our society. When people get called 'haters' for not liking some new Rebecca Black song (by Rebecca Black herself, no less), they feel guilty, like they're the asshole, and as a result are more likely to let bullshit slide. Its lowering our standards as a society.

Just saying "it's bad" is an undefended argument, and "I didn't like the Skrillex screech" is another undefended argument, it is just a more specific one.

I don't buy into the idea that the enjoyment or appreciation of music is purely subjective. Aesthetics are not an intellectual primary, but they're not a response - emotion, which is a response, seems to be the only way people will acknowledge that they even approach the subject of music and that is an insult to all parties involved.

Just as a person's beauty is tied to certain biological fundamentals (e.g. symmetry) for good reason and to good effect, a sense of aesthetic propriety can be applied to music. Here our first and most easy targets are what could be called simple mechanics - being in tune and on time. Sound structure gets us way deeper and fast. Here we can talk about dynamics, things like push vs. pull and call vs. response.

First step should be to define your terms, second step should be to form an argument, third should be to defend it. "It's bad," as I have said, is indefensible and thus really just worthless as commentary.

To summarize - it is pathetic that people either can't or won't approach this material intellectually. I really hope you as a community aren't this apathetic, anti-intellectual, and lazy when it comes to your own production.

[deadly_habit]

"I knew there was gonna be haters, there’s haters in everything, there was haters back in—like, I say this is the new Follow the Leader album—there was haters back then."

HATERS HATERS HATERS!!!!!1!

i think from now on every time an artist/band uses the word haters multiple times in reference to their own materials there should be a subtext of hey we can't take criticism, or we know it sucks, or yes we sold out.