mattw wrote:
Lately, I've just been putting music into two categories:

Face slaying
Not face slaying

Your analytical method is close to the mark, but misses by a hair, in my opinion. Instead, I offer this, slightly more precise, model:

[(Face melting/Not face melting)x(Face slaying/Not face slaying)]/2

mattw wrote:I can't speak for the rest of us, but I know Steve has a degree in journalism.

Don't worry Champion- you're in the hands of professionals, here.

Lately, I've just been putting music into two categories:

Face slaying
Not face slaying

I'm almost certain that a high percentage of Fox News employees also have said degree.



As you say; music is good or bad.

Attempting to force one's chemical/physical reaction to music into verbal/written language is pretty-much silly I reckon.

But what do I know?

I could never verbalise my reasons for considering Beefheart to be infinitely superior to the Beatles. I just feel that it is so; beyond that statement words are meaningless.

mattw wrote:Face slaying
Not face slaying

You forgot "face melting", man...

Champion Rabbit wrote:
Intellectualising music is strictly for silly people.



Some music is good, some is bad; no point searching reasons.

I very much disagree.

Whenever I hear or see this word “intellectualizingâ€

Champion Rabbit wrote:
I'm almost certain that a high percentage of Fox News employees also have said degree.

Let's not bring them into this, shall we? Not everything can be tied to Fox News/Vietnam. Where's Walter Sobchak when we need him?

Until I see a show that _literally_ melts the skin on my face completely off, (Beyond the Pale festival in SF came very, very close) I'll never be at peace.

Neurosis fiercely slayed my face at North Six after Thanksgiving. I actually told the drummer that after their show!

I think it's only natural for bands who work together on many levels to have similar sounds. Influence is inevitable. In the case of Isis and Neurosis, those guys have had a close relationship for years (both musically and professionally). Yeah, you can listen to the first Isis record and it sounds nothing like they do now. The same goes for Neurosis, who seems to amazingly reinvent themselves on every record. Progress is inevitable too.

One thing people often fail to understand is that a RECORD is really only part of the sound of a band. Go see them live (if possible). Only then can you begin to assemble a full impression of a band. If the musicians play with heart, it translates live in a way that records can't touch. Sincerity, or lack thereof, makes it or breaks it for me. In my opinion Neurosis and Isis mean it.

I think many people wholeheartedly enjoy them both.

Slay it.


M

LAD wrote:

Champion Rabbit wrote:
Intellectualising music is strictly for silly people.



Some music is good, some is bad; no point searching reasons.

I very much disagree.

Whenever I hear or see this word “intellectualizingâ€

Champion Rabbit wrote:

Writing-down one's analysis of or reaction to a piece of music is (to me) rather like tethering a bird; it's wildly inappropriate and immediately contextualises the thing in way that was not intended by the designer.

Suddenly there is weight and inertia.

I understand this and sympathize insofar as I am often very thankful that I don’t have to review the films I watch or the music I listen to.

But discussing the merits of a film like Dancer in the Dark or a band like Lynyrd Skynyrd needn’t be reductive if people are as savvy as the people who ‘meet’ here frequently are.

Champion Rabbit wrote:Intellectualising music is strictly for silly people.

:)

Some music is good, some is bad; no point searching reasons.

Thinking about music is (for me) as engrossing as merely listening to it. It allows me to enjoy it beyond the moments the music is playing, and in some cases, this is my principal enjoyment of it (20th century classical composers and conceptual sound artists especially, but the stooges as well). And from such thinking comes ideas. These ideas can be written down, and that is not silly.

I agree that people like what they like, and that is enough. If pressed (or if they wonder to themselves) they can often come up with reasons (or something like a reason) to elaborate on the caveman-like "ugh, good!" or "ugh, bad!" initial reaction.

While I don't hold music journalists in high regard, I think most things worth doing or experiencing have at their core relevance or meaning additional to the mere experience, beautiful/engrossing/face-slaying though it may be.

And writing these thoughts down can be part of the process of appreciating the thing itself. When I listen to music, I seldom do it passively, letting it fall on me. I almost always engage in thought about it beyond "ugh, good!" or "ugh, bad!"

Am I silly?

not silly at all. OTM as usual.