| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/18/2002 10:52:34 AM · #76 |
Folk music doesn't last through the ages. Most people aren't singing folk music written in teh 1800's :) or they don't rememember, or they have forgotten.
Anyone who argues Beatles is BETTER than Beethoven doesn't understand classical music and probably never will.
Originally posted by Gracious:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]"Well, i haven't heard anyone I know of ever listening to the Beatles on a daily basis. I know i hear classical music on a daily basis"
This statement is comparing a singele artist (group)with an entire genre of music. Essentially you're saying YOU hear classical music daily and not the Beatles? Nearly anyone could say the opposite. "I hear pop music on a daily basis. Well I haven't heard anyone I know listening to Tchaikovski on a daily basis."
However that would be an imbalanced statement. Comparing an artist to an entire genre.
Pop music isn't necessarlity better, not necessarily worse, than any genre. Much of what is popular has to do with cultural differences, and locales. What is popular in Japan is not quite what is popular in Italy. What is popular in India is not in South Africa. Cajun music is quite popular in Louisiana and neighboring states, but not as pop in Oregon.
People prefer music they can relate to for various reasons. A well written love song does become classic, and is enjoyed by the "common" people for generations.
You can argue for YOUR TASTE in music, but it is merely a matter of taste.
Folk music has been around for many generations too. It is often the voice of the people. All music is valid, wether it "shows something new" or not.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2002 10:59:57 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Folk music doesn't last through the ages. Most people aren't singing folk music written in teh 1800's :) or they don't rememember, or they have forgotten.
Not true. "Waltzing Matilda" must be the most recognised song in Australia, a song that's based on a poem by Banjo Paterson (from the late 1800s) and set to a traditional Scottish folk tune. Many other songs from the 1700s and 1800s are well known here, like "Click go the Shears", "Bound for Botany Bay", "The Wild Colonial Boy", etc. Songs like those keep our history alive in a way that history books never will.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2002 11:02:59 AM · #78 |
Most music teachers, at least in the US, are not qualified to teach musc because they are not professionals and haven't reached that level. If they are, they wouldn't be teaching in high school. That's why kids take private lessons if they want to learn an instrument with other teachers, not from their schools.
The way you describe how your teacher "locked you in a room with HIGH volume" is almost laughable. People think that turning up the volume, etc. you'll get more out of it, it's not necessary to do that. In fact, if you lower the volume you can force yourself to listen MORE carefully. He's forcing you to take Beatles seriouesly becuase that's his favorite music, he's enforcing his opinion on you just as my high school orchestra conductor tries to tell us what she thinks in a piece of music that she doesn't understand. At 16 I was already playing much better than she is (she happens to also play the violin, as her "focus" instrument in college). I studied with university professors and professional mainly. If you don't know the difference in music, just as in arts, you can't critically judge a piece.
Are the Beatles interesting? Sure, but to compare them as others have in this thread as equals to Beethoven is simply ludicrous. Popular music is popular for one reason and one reason only: They're SIMPLE to understand. And too often or not the words in popluar music gives the meaning/emotion and not necessarily the music, you might as well be reading poetry.
Originally posted by Gordon:
At school my music teacher used to make us listen to classical music in a
fairly 'serious' manner. Locked in a room, very high volume, listening
taking notes, discussing the music, what it was describing, etc. I
remember the 1812 overture being particularly dramatic in such a setting.
He also did exactly the same with the Beatles, forcing us to take it
seriously.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2002 11:04:44 AM · #79 |
How the heck did this degenerate into a discussion comparing Beethoven to the Beatles? All I want to know is how my 5.48 will hold up? (The "first 15 voters" were wrong this time - they had given me a 4.8)
FOCUS PEOPLE FOCUS!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
10/18/2002 11:11:29 AM · #80 |
If we were to take Paganini seriously (why is a very good question), then he wouldn't be allowed to write here because he is not, like me for example, a professional writer. Clearly by his own terms, he is unqualified to write anything here -- or indeed anywhere at all.
His elitist attitude to music is what has driven "classical" music into the unpopular ghetto it currently finds itself. His elitist attitude towards photography would seek to drive us all away.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/18/2002 11:09:27 AM.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2002 11:13:35 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by MarkRob:
How the heck did this degenerate into a discussion comparing Beethoven to the Beatles? All I want to know is how my 5.48 will hold up? (The "first 15 voters" were wrong this time - they had given me a 4.8)
FOCUS PEOPLE FOCUS!!!!!!
I bet your 5.48 will be around the top 25. I didn't see my score after the first 15, but the first 30 or said left me right around 5. I'm a little over that, but it's right in the +/- a couple of tenths. I actually care about this one a little more. The garbage challenge, after about a day I just didn't care because it wasn't very good. This one is by no means great, but it's holding up better. I'm shooting for the top 100.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2002 11:14:57 AM · #82 |
For some reason eery time i post my views people think i am "sweating it" :) I am just sharing my views.
And yes i understand that DPc isn't hte place to look for what i am looking for but I still enjoy it as much as looking at other's work. But too often or not, i get comments (and I am sure you do to) from people that tries to critique the photograph even though they aren't fully qualified to judge but they act like they are. Anyway. It's a moot point :) you're right about that.
As far as Beatles being a "music poetry". Well, i will agree that the words in a Beatles' song has more meaning htan the actual music, but i don't think that's what music is about. You don't have to understand the words in Schiller's poem to know the music in the 9th, the 5th movement (Ode to Joy), the music speaks for itself, the words are sort of irrelevant. I used 9th as an example because it has been beaten to death with these lame commercials using the last part of the 9th symphony and everyone have heard of it. I could've easily quoted the Prokofiev 2nd Violin Concerto but no one would know what it is :)
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
tony/paganini...
i agree with 99% of what you say - about mastery and skill level influencing one's 'competency to judge', etc.
but you know what?
all that stuff is completely irrelevant.
because the bottom line is that this is a fun site for a mass market. anyone in the WORLD can play. it's recreation! it's FUN! it's not the Pulitzer Prize. It's not National Geographic. Etc.
There will probably always be a wide mix of users here, predominantly amateur. Amongst those, there will probably always be a a few talented people, and more advanced amateurs, who may or may not go on to do something with their efforts besides hobby.
it's a free competition and an opportunity to get feedback that you can - and MUST - take with a grain of salt based on the demographic.
I agree that some things could be done to make it more structured, so that the feedback can be more meaningful. They probably should be, and probably will be implemented in the next site iteration (coming soon to an internet near you).
I agree that on the whole, popular is average. But the point I was trying to make earlier is that some things are so good and work on so many levels that they are popular with many different kinds of people. The Beatles is such a one. (To get the most out of the Beatles, you should probably look at them more as musical poetry than as some technical musical achievement). The Simpsons (cartoon show) is another. Absolutely cutting and brilliant, yet popular with MANY kinds of people (some of whom I'm sure don't get it). What about Beethoven's 9th? VERY POPULAR. Everyone can recognize it. Average? I think not ; ) .
Would I prefer it if all the people who judged my shots knew enough about technique to know that some of the things I do are possible with a camera and light not done by 'illegal' means? Sure! That would be great. Is it going to happen? Doubtful.
So why sweat it. Just get a big salt shaker ; ). Sort the good out of the bad. Make suggestions. Even if you think everyone else sucks and you're great, try not to tell people that you think that ;) ... And try to have a little fun.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2002 11:19:17 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by paganini:
But too often or not, i get comments (and I am sure you do to) from people that tries to critique the photograph even though they aren't fully qualified to judge but they act like they are.
That's the whole point of the site... You get criticism from people of all different skill levels.
Drew |
|
|
|
10/18/2002 11:22:49 AM · #84 |
I am not writing a story, or claiming my writing is better than yours. I am defending the fact that people compare the high voted photos on DPc as somehow much better than the others, because it's being judged by a populous that really don't have the qualifications to judge and that's my point about the classical music and training it requires to know the difference.
The "Unpopular Ghetto?" Um, i wouldn't put it that way but throughout history there are just a group of people that love classical music. Bach is played after 250 years, i'd say that's pretty impressive, so is Handel (though I don't like his music all that much), Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Mendelssohn, to name a few.
Classical music remains "unpopular" because the population doesn't and can't understand it. They understood Britney, NSync (two of the biggest manufactured, commercialized pop artists of all times) because it is SIMPLER to understand.
I actually listen to some "pop" music, but mainly Eminem and rap. Why? Because they're at least honest about what they do, it's mainly the WORDS that drive it. Beatles, Spears, Nsync uses words to hide their inadequacies in the music.
Originally posted by Jak:
If we were to take Paganini seriously (why is a very good question), then he wouldn't be allowed to write here because he is not, like me for example, a professional writer. Clearly by his own terms, he is unqualified to write anything here -- or indeed anywhere at all.
His elitist attitude to music is what has driven "classical" music into the unpopular ghetto it currently finds itself. His elitist attitude towards photography would seek to drive us all away.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2002 11:28:15 AM · #85 |
So what you are saying is: Teachers aren't qualified to teach, because if they were, they would not be teaching.
That is brilliant.
And BTW, my father-in-law plays for the Portland Ballet Symphony (or Company, whatever), and he teaches at several schools in the Portland area, and there are many like him in Portland.
You have a very bad habit of judging entire groups based on a few expiriences. My community college music teacher has also played profesionally, and even appeared in a film.
Originally posted by paganini:
Most music teachers, at least in the US, are not qualified to teach musc because they are not professionals and haven't reached that level. If they are, they wouldn't be teaching in high school. That's why kids take private lessons if they want to learn an instrument with other teachers, not from their schools.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/18/2002 11:29:28 AM. |
|
|
|
10/18/2002 11:30:31 AM · #86 |
Okay Paganini - I'll bite....
What qualifies a person to look at someone else's picture and judge it?
I'm virtually a novice to photography. Maybe you can stoop down to my level and give it to me in Britney Spears terms. You're giving me the impression that if I can't TAKE a great picture, I wouldn't KNOW a great picture if I saw it. Like if I can't play like Yngwie Malmsteen, I wouldn't know if he was playing well or not.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2002 11:32:54 AM · #87 |
My point was that you have to know the difference before you can judge the photograph in a way that is objective. I didn't say I know :) I said, that the majority of people on DPc don't and can only tell you if they like it or not, but instead, they put down comments etc. as if they know the difference. And your point about you know what you like is valid, but that's preference and it's not for constructive objectivity. It's like the ocmment i have received in an earlier submission: "Good use of 1/3's" Uh, it's not a use of 1/3's, in fact, the subject matter is right smack in the middle :) speaking of which, the composition "rules" that some on here try to push, namely the 1/3's and golden mean that hey have READ somewhere in a "How to Photograph" book is quite hilarious. To make photographs that way is to limit music to only a certain rhythm.
It's like this thread: Who is going to "win"? By the title, it implies that whoever won must be better than others. And that's the disagreement I h ad and I used classical music versus popluar music as an example.
Originally posted by Alecia:
That is all I hope for really, is just for a few other people to like some of the things i try. No real point in getting fired up about it, people are going to like and do what they want. Who really cares if they are qualified to vote on something or not? Are you? I would know if someone missed a note or went out of key, but who is to say I can judge art? An off key note is an off key note, not rocket science. But art is subjective. Sounds like we have a similar background in artistic training and if I don't think I am qualified to know if some piece of artwork is superior or not, how can you know? Having the soul of an artist does not make a person an instant expert on all forms of artistry. I have not put one iota of the time into photography as in my other forms of artistic expression, and I am learning slowly but surely. But, hey, I know what I like! ;-)
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/18/2002 11:34:07 AM · #88 |
| Ever notice how Paganini turns every thread into the same destructive agreument? |
|
|
|
10/18/2002 11:37:28 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by Zeissman:
Ever notice how Paganini turns every thread into the same destructive agreument?
I wish he would stop doing that. It's very cute of him.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2002 11:37:52 AM · #90 |
Hey, what are you up to over there???
DROP IT!
What about going out and take som fresh air and some pictures?
Have a nice day - from Sweden |
|
|
|
10/18/2002 11:39:47 AM · #91 |
I can I say that I am not qualified :) and unless the person has been making images for decades, they won't be either. I could tell you if i like it or not.
Originally posted by inspzil:
Okay Paganini - I'll bite....
What qualifies a person to look at someone else's picture and judge it?
I'm virtually a novice to photography. Maybe you can stoop down to my level and give it to me in Britney Spears terms. You're giving me the impression that if I can't TAKE a great picture, I wouldn't KNOW a great picture if I saw it. Like if I can't play like Yngwie Malmsteen, I wouldn't know if he was playing well or not.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2002 11:40:19 AM · #92 |
It's destructive? Or because you don't have any counter arguments?
Originally posted by Zeissman:
Ever notice how Paganini turns every thread into the same destructive agreument?
|
|
|
|
10/18/2002 11:40:33 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by Zeissman:
Ever notice how Paganini turns every thread into the same destructive agreument?
Maybe he should give up photography and start studying law, probably before he gets the ulcer he's working on.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2002 11:41:23 AM · #94 |
That's fine, Drew. But my point was that i want to see other's signature on the comments hopefully during it was "judged" becuase there are people on here whose comments i value and whose vote i value and there are people on here that i'd just filter :)
Originally posted by drewmedia:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]But too often or not, i get comments (and I am sure you do to) from people that tries to critique the photograph even though they aren't fully qualified to judge but they act like they are.
That's the whole point of the site... You get criticism from people of all different skill levels.
Drew[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/18/2002 11:49:11 AM · #95 |
A few comments to the world at large. Not directed at anyone
other than the people posting in the forums in general.
1/ Could we all learn to edit the posts we are replying to ? :)
2/ Railing against the fact that the amateurs on this site aren't up
to your own amateurish level seems fairly futile. It is a site for
amateurs. Don't be surprised that amateurs are here. If you
don't like it you'll have to look elsewhere for professional critique.
I suggest you consider paying for it.
3/ Lets all try and take a deep breath occasionally and post less personal,
less stupid, and less pointless attacks or insulting pieces. It doesn't
add much, it makes you and your points less interesting and people just
start ignoring you if all you do is sound stupid and rude. If you are
posting here, I'd assume you were trying to make a point - so why go out
of your way to make people ignore you and your opinions?
Think about it.
4/ Politeness doesn't cost you any more or mean you have type any more.
Your capslock and ! keys might thank you for it too.
I'm all for interesting debate about photography. Moronic name calling
I gave up about 20 years ago. It would be nice to think that the people
old enough to be considered adults could act more grown-up than the
'children' on here that people think need to be protected.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2002 11:49:27 AM · #96 |
paganini, I think you should just appreciate the people who take the time to comment.
It is always good to get a large range of opinions on your photos, even if you do not neccesarily agree with them.
If you were going to make a CD, you wouldn't make it for one single person, because you would only sell one, you would want it to appeal to as wide a range of people as possible, not only the people who are "qualified to make judgement".
|
|
|
|
10/18/2002 11:50:51 AM · #97 |
How does any of this actually matter? Really. I understand what you are saying, I just do not see the point of argueing it here. I do not know what you are trying to accomplish. If there was a goal here maybe I could understand. I do not need analogies, I need reason.
Oh, when did Yngwie start looking like Meatloaf? |
|
|
|
10/18/2002 12:01:32 PM · #98 |
First of all, I just want to say my posts before, no matter how "elitist" you guys think it is, wasn't directed at anyone. I was stating my opinion and my argument, and that's it. People tend to take it very personally for some reason or another. And if you feel offended, i am sorry, but that wasn't the intent.
And if you don't like what you hear, we can agree to disagree :) I am definitely not taking it personally, but I do defend my position and my view points, some times people think i am "attacking" someone else but that's not the case at all.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2002 12:07:40 PM · #99 |
Look, if you're going to direct it at me, then direct it at me, but don't put it as it is for "everyone" :)
You know, you have posted similar posts stating some of the same points (i.e. #2) but now you're backing out of your original position.
<sarcasm on>
you don't have to play political games here, dude, this isn't the $8 Motorola! :-)
<sarcasm off>
Originally posted by Gordon:
A few comments to the world at large. Not directed at anyone
other than the people posting in the forums in general.
1/ Could we all learn to edit the posts we are replying to ? :)
2/ Railing against the fact that the amateurs on this site aren't up
to your own amateurish level seems fairly futile. It is a site for
amateurs. Don't be surprised that amateurs are here. If you
don't like it you'll have to look elsewhere for professional critique.
I suggest you consider paying for it.
3/ Lets all try and take a deep breath occasionally and post less personal,
less stupid, and less pointless attacks or insulting pieces. It doesn't
add much, it makes you and your points less interesting and people just
start ignoring you if all you do is sound stupid and rude. If you are
posting here, I'd assume you were trying to make a point - so why go out
of your way to make people ignore you and your opinions?
Think about it.
4/ Politeness doesn't cost you any more or mean you have type any more.
Your capslock and ! keys might thank you for it too.
I'm all for interesting debate about photography. Moronic name calling
I gave up about 20 years ago. It would be nice to think that the people
old enough to be considered adults could act more grown-up than the
'children' on here that people think need to be protected.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2002 12:09:48 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by paganini:
People tend to take it very personally for some reason or another. And if you feel offended, i am sorry, but that wasn't the intent.
So now you know that what you say can hurt peoples feeling, both in these forums and in the comments area. And now if we see more in your previous style of dispensation, would it would be safe to assume intent? |
|
