APolaris wrote:Any more than the majority who dismiss anything that isn't pop, pop rock, or the other "usual" tastes? I don't see anybody ganging up on them or referring to them as "dictators." Way to double-standard.
also question those groups if they came up with the "I'm not elitist" talk, but I'm not the "anti-elite police" and I only comment here when I'm in the mood.
APolaris wrote:Also, citation for "revolutionary and counter-cultural," please.
AAAAArgh, can you stop
that? Sheesh, wikipedianism eventually gets on my nerves.
I might as well be misinterpreting you, but your attitude of indulging in an "elevated" set of music and your constant bashing of "commercial" music is a very worn down cliché. You're very explicit in saying that you oppose everything that is "commercial", and you're not the first nor the last one; that kind of movement has come and gone countless ways, so when I use those terms, is merely in reference to what is already common knowledge. Look at the positive side: I could be pejoratively calling you "hippie" instead.
As for the genres I've mentioned, I was only following your post demeaning repetitiveness and anything that doesn't have a tune. Why, like I said before, there's a huge part of jazz that isn't based in "tune" and a fair share that uses riffs and repetition; as for post rock, well, repetition and riffs and tunelessness are almost dogma for that genre, and electronic music follows that too, partly for the nature of the synths used and partly for tradition.
APolaris wrote:The difference is that Miles Davis playing that album took any effort, and he was trying to be a serious musician and composer instead of trying to sell an image. There's a difference between Bitches' Brew and a "song" that consists of constantly repeating "B... C... D... C... B... C... D... C... B... C... D... C..." with only one interruption while hoping that how the singer dresses, how "hot" they look, or how "catchy" the single repetitive phrase they use is will get audiences to overlook the sheer uneventfulness and nonmusicality of the song itself.
Eh, all I see there is you nursing a stereotype, a strawman, and that doesn't have much value to me. Yeah, I realise there IS something we could call "purely commercial" music, but how on Earth could we define that? Many people throw in Lady Gaga on that bunch, but then several others comment that she is an actually talented musician. What about Michael Jackson? Was the guy an actually brilliant singer, showman and musician, or was he just a puppet in the hands of the record executives? Everything comes down to PERSONAL STANDARDS. And just as you say that Miles Davis was an actually serious and devoted musician (and I share that opinion -- I love his jazz fusion work), many people willingly DENY that, saying that fusion jazz is absolute noise, that it was against everything jazz stands for, and is truly unlistenable. Who is right and who is wrong?
APolaris wrote:Funny, I don't hear you saying the same to the at least 90% of people who forcibly persecute anybody that gives anything but pop, alt rock, indie, and rap a chance. Actually, you seem more interested in doing the same.
I dunno; I'm actually defending the opinion that there isn't an inherently "superior" form of music or an inherently "inferior" form. And yeah, I have a great allergy towards elitism in general, but I'm not constantly manifesting myself on that, that's all.
APolaris wrote:As an aside, I think the thread title should be changed. It gives the false impression that this is a free zone to post your unpopular ideas without being ganged up on by hypocritical people with immense double-standards.
Ah, come on! I actually enjoy the intelligent and balanced debates that this thread provoked; otherwise, this is just a place for people to show-off how "unpopular", quirky and "cool" they are. Meh.
I just got bugged with the "I'M NOT ELITIST!" part
APolaris wrote:At this point, the only real elitists are people who call other people elitist, because they think they're in any position to do so themselves and are labeling themselves as superior in the process.
Eh, a person who has an opinion and is willing to defend it is necessarily, to some extent, finding herself "superior". I think humbleness is important for one to see, recognise and accept the good and fair points the other people make, but, really, by defending my opinions, I am
trying to make them prevail somehow. That's just unavoidable, and I think people shouldn't be so afraid of that. You can call that "elitism" if you wish, I'll understand. I just consider "elitism" as the attitude of people who think there is an absolute, well defined "elite" that is absolutely superior to everything else. I reject that stand point, that's all.
APolaris wrote:You're trying to set a definition yourself by trying to force me to swallow relativist "definitions." You're trying to force me to swallow the idea that you're right about "all music being equally valid" and giving yourself the authority to automatically dismiss any non-relative, objective definition of "music." On top of that, you're giving yourself the authority to label anyone who believes in objective definitions as "elitist."
I'm just stating what I think. And by throwing that "you're forcing me to swallow this and that" card, you're being overly defensive, and I don't like that. I apologise if I disagree with you, but I just do
, there's nothing I can do about it. Just as I'm not force feeding you anything, I'm not going to change my speech just to be nice to you.