Dubstepforum.com

Jas0n wrote:

Maccaveli wrote: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.

Jas0n wrote:

Maccaveli wrote: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.

leyenda303 wrote:

Jas0n wrote:

Maccaveli wrote: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?

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

Next level.

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

Next level.

Jas0n wrote: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.

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

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

Jas0n wrote:

Maccaveli wrote: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.

_cheef_ wrote:"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!