Magma

Visitor13 wrote: alanerc wrote: Deep Purple Rules Not particularly, no. Anyone here familiar with Vander's jazz work? Any albums you'd recommend?

Syzygy wrote: Visitor13 wrote: alanerc wrote: Deep Purple Rules Not particularly, no. Anyone here familiar with Vander's jazz work? Any albums you'd recommend?   Having totally muddied the waters, I'd suggest Au Sunset by the CV quartet - extended compositions with a heavy debt to John Coltrane. They're very tight but I think Vander's drumming is heard to better effect in Magma; if you've the time you might also check out the Sakoto Fuji Quartet, in which Yoshida Tatsuya plays in an acoustic jazz setting and does so quite brilliantly. If you've an emusic account all the above are available for just a handful of downloads - you know it makes sense .

Thank you. And yeah, I'm familiar with Satako Fuji, brilliant music. BTW, if I didn't respect Vander as a musician, I wouldn't have asked.

Pnoom: I don't think I could teach you anything about being insulting.

Jimbo wrote: Right... In other words, Avantgardehead has no right to his name, since he doesn't like Magma.

You missed the point.  Just because he doesn't like Magma doesn't mean he has no credibility.  It's just surprising that a fan of avant-garde wouldn't like one of the best and most important bands in the genre.

That said, my involvement in teasing him about it was in jest, since he had already explained why/how he chose his name, which had little to do with music.

BTW, who's the lucky one who gets to define the best bands in a genre?

The bands that were influenced by these best bands and the people who bought their records (collectively, not individually).

I'd like to know, I certainly wouldn't want to dislike some of the bands he has deemed worthy.

You fail to see the different between subjectivity and objectivity.  Subjectivity is more important than objectivity when it comes to who you actually like.  Objectivity in determining who the best bands are is merely an analysis of data that reveals who the most important bands are.

I have no qualms with Magma, I like them quite a bit, but this whole 'you have to like Magma, GY!BE, Yes, Kayo Dot, whatever in order to be credible' argument isn't all that convincing.

Nobody said anything of the sort.  Also, just to point it out, while Kayo Dot may be my favorite band, it is far too early to tell whether they will prove one of the (objectively) best avant-garde rock bands.

Jimbo wrote: BTW, who's the lucky one who gets to define the best bands in a genre? The bands that were influenced by these best bands and the people who bought their records (collectively, not individually). Wouldn't that make them popular instead of best? Popularity is objective, while the term 'best' certainly isn't. Or does popularity determine greatness?

Like it or not, popularity is part of the set of criteria for objectively determining the "best" bands.  Best has an objective and subjective use; it's important to distinguish between them.  For now, at least, I'll use "greatest" to represent the objective definition of best.

So yes, popularity does help determine greatness.

I'd like to know, I certainly wouldn't want to dislike some of the bands he has deemed worthy. You fail to see the different between subjectivity and objectivity.  Subjectivity is more important than objectivity when it comes to who you actually like.  Objectivity in determining who the best bands are is merely an analysis of data that reveals who the most important bands are. I would have understood your point had you used the word 'important' regarding Magma (there's no arguing that), but 'best' gives out a wholly different message. Nevertheless, I don't think it's necessary to like the most 'important' bands in a genre though.

Three points:

1. I did initially say "best, most important" to specify that best was objective, though clearly my meaning didn't come across (my fault there)
2. Re "best" giving out a different message, that's what I was talking about above, and for clarity's sake, I'll distinguish between "best" and "greatest" in future posts
3. Of course it's not necessary to like the most important (greatest) bands in a genre.  That's the difference between subjectivity and objectivity.

I have no qualms with Magma, I like them quite a bit, but this whole 'you have to like Magma, GY!BE, Yes, Kayo Dot, whatever in order to be credible' argument isn't all that convincing. Nobody said anything of the sort.  Also, just to point it out, while Kayo Dot may be my favorite band, it is far too early to tell whether they will prove one of the (objectively) best avant-garde rock bands. Not directly perhaps, but it is hinted that way far too often around here.

I agree with you, and that's actually one of my pet peeves with so many music fans' attitudes.

Pnoom! wrote: Like it or not, popularity is part of the set of criteria for objectively determining the "best" bands.  Best has an objective and subjective use; it's important to distinguish between them.  For now, at least, I'll use "greatest" to represent the objective definition of best. So yes, popularity does help determine greatness.

It seems were mainly arguing over semantics here - for me the term 'best' can't have an objective meaning, in my own little world it's always used to describe things that are purely subjective.

Generally though, I think this all boils down to the same ol' question about art - is it possible to be completely objective about it? I don't think you can and I would argue that there can be no set criteria for determining the best bands, as you put it. That discussion wouldn't lead us anywhere though, so let's just give it a rest, shall we? We actually seem to agree on some of the points, even if our messages didn't come across clearly enough.



Edited by Jimbo - April 26 2008 at 19:02

what would happen if this turns into a 'the flock' disscusion thread?

HOT, MOLTEN MAGMA

Out of the bag and into HOT MOLTEN MAGMA

Shakespeare wrote: Alanerc has never heard a single Magma song, he wanted to see what the cult would do if it poked it. That is all.

damn you ><

ps. I've told everybody that, and still, this thread goes on

I like Magma , but it's kind of dumb to get mad when you see that someone doesn't like it.

It's been a constructive topic, in that way .