So some people were claiming a song sucked because the song contains elements that the listeners considered to be "ripped off" from an earlier song. You know what? I'm afraid I have to take the unpopular view, here: who cares?
You've got two songs. Listen to them both, side-by-side, and judge between: which is the better song? Not "Which song has the better trivia backstory?" Or "Which song is more of an impressive technical achievement given the prevailing cultural environment and state of the art at the time of its creation?" When it was written, who wrote it, what significant trends did it touch off, what were its influences - if you can't get into music at a deeper level than that, if you can't reach music and let music reach you at a level where this kind of trivia is irrelevant, then you're just a critic.
Nothing wrong with being a critic! I'm a bit of a critic myself. But I'm not "just a critic." Critical, theoretical and formal concerns are never going to come between me and a piece of music. I love theory, but...priorities, people. Priorities. Love music MORE than theory, please. If it's in you! Love music more than trivia.
And I love trivia, too! Trivia is a delight in itself. But the silly and inconsequential delight in the nifty little trivia and history behind a thing - that trivia is a perfectly harmless, separate extra thing to enjoy. Backstory can be fun. But it can't even begin to touch or change the intrinsic worth of the piece itself. If it's a a work of art, then there is some intrinsic and eternal worth in the thing itself. "Originality" is a wholly trivial concern, next to that. Pure relation-to-context. Wholly separate and severable from the thing itself. Say otherwise? Say the worth of the work depends even slightly on context? You mean, you really don't believe a work of art has its own intrinsic worth? Wow. Do you see with those eyes? Hear with those ears? Think with that brain? Is it your senses that are deficient? Or just the size of your soul.
Ah, well. To each his or her own.
Still, I'm curious. Getting back to music - those of you who feel the context and minutia that surrounds a song's creation can make the song itself worth more or worth less (or even "worthless!") - what the heck do you value about a piece of music, anyway? Is it...the piece of music? Or is it the "about"? Do you identify as a music fan? Or as a music critic? You can be both, of course! I am. But if the trivia and circumstance surrounding the music outweighs the music, for you...well, you may be both, but you're a poor excuse for either.
You've got two songs.
Table the surrounding aspects: the minutia of a song's composition. Set aside when a piece was written, by whom or under what circumstances. You've got two SONGS. Can you judge them each on merit, each in itself as a song? Or can you not? Pretty pathetic excuse for a music critic, if you can't! And if for you, the trivia and minutia can eclipse the actual piece of music...pretty pathetic excuse for a music fan as well.
Precedence cuts no ice with my EARS. Nor originality. People prize originality, on a basis that seems to boil down to: originality is harder to do. Well, maybe it is harder to do. Is that your priority? You love music because it was hard to make? Go listen to a beginner's orchestra taking murderous stabs at Rachmaninoff why don't you. Enjoy.
If two songs are related to each other in some way, the first song is not the better song. The better song is the better song. It doesn't make an asspinch of difference which came first. It certainly doesn't matter if the second song "could never have been written without" the first one. Who cares? Jets go better than biplanes, don't they?
You've got two songs. Listen to them both, side-by-side, and judge between: which is the better song? Not "Which song has the better trivia backstory?" Or "Which song is more of an impressive technical achievement given the prevailing cultural environment and state of the art at the time of its creation?" When it was written, who wrote it, what significant trends did it touch off, what were its influences - if you can't get into music at a deeper level than that, if you can't reach music and let music reach you at a level where this kind of trivia is irrelevant, then you're just a critic.
Nothing wrong with being a critic! I'm a bit of a critic myself. But I'm not "just a critic." Critical, theoretical and formal concerns are never going to come between me and a piece of music. I love theory, but...priorities, people. Priorities. Love music MORE than theory, please. If it's in you! Love music more than trivia.
And I love trivia, too! Trivia is a delight in itself. But the silly and inconsequential delight in the nifty little trivia and history behind a thing - that trivia is a perfectly harmless, separate extra thing to enjoy. Backstory can be fun. But it can't even begin to touch or change the intrinsic worth of the piece itself. If it's a a work of art, then there is some intrinsic and eternal worth in the thing itself. "Originality" is a wholly trivial concern, next to that. Pure relation-to-context. Wholly separate and severable from the thing itself. Say otherwise? Say the worth of the work depends even slightly on context? You mean, you really don't believe a work of art has its own intrinsic worth? Wow. Do you see with those eyes? Hear with those ears? Think with that brain? Is it your senses that are deficient? Or just the size of your soul.
Ah, well. To each his or her own.
Still, I'm curious. Getting back to music - those of you who feel the context and minutia that surrounds a song's creation can make the song itself worth more or worth less (or even "worthless!") - what the heck do you value about a piece of music, anyway? Is it...the piece of music? Or is it the "about"? Do you identify as a music fan? Or as a music critic? You can be both, of course! I am. But if the trivia and circumstance surrounding the music outweighs the music, for you...well, you may be both, but you're a poor excuse for either.
You've got two songs.
Table the surrounding aspects: the minutia of a song's composition. Set aside when a piece was written, by whom or under what circumstances. You've got two SONGS. Can you judge them each on merit, each in itself as a song? Or can you not? Pretty pathetic excuse for a music critic, if you can't! And if for you, the trivia and minutia can eclipse the actual piece of music...pretty pathetic excuse for a music fan as well.
Precedence cuts no ice with my EARS. Nor originality. People prize originality, on a basis that seems to boil down to: originality is harder to do. Well, maybe it is harder to do. Is that your priority? You love music because it was hard to make? Go listen to a beginner's orchestra taking murderous stabs at Rachmaninoff why don't you. Enjoy.
If two songs are related to each other in some way, the first song is not the better song. The better song is the better song. It doesn't make an asspinch of difference which came first. It certainly doesn't matter if the second song "could never have been written without" the first one. Who cares? Jets go better than biplanes, don't they?
Comments
I totally endorse that. That's perfectly valid. Anything you can get into that gives you a window in on enjoying a piece of art - that's still a good thing, get your happy! I'm glad for you, glad you've got that window in, even if you never get past the frame or the spots on the glass.
Me, I jump through the window. Because as much as I strenuously concede the worth and validity of the more critical theoretical focus, come on. There's only ONE thing that matters in a piece of music: the part that hits your EARS. The entirety of what that audio has to convey: chord, melody, beat, lyrics - what your ears hear is the part that matters. History before and interpretation after is irrelevant to that. Compared to the music itself, all other aspects combined are ants trod under elephants.
Some people love ants!
In summary, fuck Brian Wilson.
miereneuker: (from the Dutch) n. antfucker.
TELL IT!